RE: [Vo]:Jet Energy - nanor/phusor question
At 09:24 AM 7/11/2013, Dennis Cravens wrote: One of the more reassuring things when you see heat from current through a loaded powder is the change in thermal output with applied magnetic fields. That is the thing that help convince me. Mitch, would you care to share any experience with mag. fields? ... D2 Thanks, Dennis. That is so true. and would add that that is verified when such similar changes are not seen effecting the ohmic controls at the same location, as you know. Also quite reassured when we see large progressive rises in excess heat (beyond the expected thermal dissipation) with small increases in input power as we ascend the OOP manifold. Published some of the effects of applied H-fields on CF/LANR aqueous systems (impact is, at least in part, on loading) in Swartz, M.R. Impact of an Applied Magnetic Field on the Electrical Impedance of a LANR Device, Volume 4 JCMNS, Proceedings of the March 2010, New Energy Technology Symposium held at the 239th American Chemical Society National Meeting and Exposition in San Francisco (2011) which is at the uncensored, terrific, CMNS site. For me, loading the lattice has been the key to active CF/LANR systems since March 23, '89. Am busy working on a write-up of the effects wrought upon nanostructured CF/LANR systems by applied magnetic field intensities, at this very moment. Best regards, Mitchell -- Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 06:17:33 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Jet Energy - nanor/phusor question From: jcol...@gmail.com To: m...@theworld.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Dr. Swartz, Thank you for responding. I had not realized the lengths to which you went to try to match the impedance, which must be very difficult with the changing impedance of the active material. With the leads being the same, you would have had times where the control impedance was greater than the active material with the work you did on matching (thus reversing a possible effect of power dissipation in the leads). Have you also had times where more power is put through the active vs. control to see how that affects the Delta T/watt comparison? On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Dr. Mitchell Swartz mailto:m...@theworld.comm...@theworld.com wrote: At 04:53 PM 7/4/2013, Jack Cole mailto:jcol...@gmail.comjcol...@gmail.com wrote: In my electrolysis research, I found that the wire leads for my control runs made a significant difference. Obviously, thinner wire connecting to the joule heater resulted in less power being dissipated in the joule heater and more being dissipated in the wire leads. I had initially thought the wire was thick enough, but I wasn't seeing as much heating as I expected. I switched to thicker wire, and then I saw better heating. That brings me to Jet Energy's (Mitchell Swartz) claims. His active material has a much higher resistance than his control resistance. Could the apparent excess heating in this device be related to the same phenomena (i.e., power dissipation in electrical leads vs. where the measurements are taking place)? Thank you for asking, Jack. Good questions. The active materials are not always higher electrical resistance than the control resistance. We try to make them equal, but the CF/LANR component undergoes changes for several reasons, and the controls are often changed to get them as equal as possible, or multiple thermal ohmic controls are included. On the leads. We use 1 mm diameter leads into the CF/LANR components. The PHUSORs have 1 mm Pt lead and 1mm Pd leads which are shown in the papers from ICCF10. That is mentioned in detail, and shown in photographs, in Swartz, M., Can a Pd/D2O/Pt Device be Made Portable to Demonstrate the Optimal Operating Point?, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Proceedings of ICCF-10, eds. Peter L. Hagelstein, Scott, R. Chubb, World Scientific Publishing, NJ, ISBN 981-256-564-6, 29-44; 45-54 (2006). The NANORs have similar size diameter of the leads and are pure copper. They were designed so that input impedance would not be an issue, and their impedances are measured as well. The CF/LANR device's electrical impedance is usually measured by four-terminal measurement. Also the excess heats are verified by several independent systems as discussed in the papers (three usually, for the NANORs). Mitchell Swartz
Re: [Vo]:Jet Energy - nanor/phusor question
At 07:17 AM 7/11/2013, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Dr. Swartz, Thank you for responding. I had not realized the lengths to which you went to try to match the impedance, which must be very difficult with the changing impedance of the active material. With the leads being the same, you would have had times where the control impedance was greater than the active material with the work you did on matching (thus reversing a possible effect of power dissipation in the leads). Have you also had times where more power is put through the active vs. control to see how that affects the Delta T/watt comparison? Jack, Yes. And we put a measured range of input powers through both the ohmic control and device which are adjacent; so all extremes are examined. Achieving this is complicated for both, and very difficult with the nanomaterials. . The PHUSORs (aqueous CF/LANR) are in low paramagnetic heavy water with cell impedances ca. 300 kilohms to 800 kilohms, which are probably an impedance higher than your typical electrolytic systems. This resistance decreases (degrades) over months to ~5 to 20 kilohms, as described in the many papers on this (eg. from ICCF10). The NANORs (dry preloaded CF/LANR components) start at gigohms or higher, and are driven to resistances ca. megohms to tens of kilohms depending upon the type of NANOR. Some change is degradation, some is material change including redistribution associated with dielectric polarization (such conduction is, of course, necessarily connected through Hilbert space and the imaginary part of the complex permittivity), and some catastrophic changes under conditions associated with what appears to be avalanche electron breakdown, as we reported in several papers. If my email works tonight, you should shortly have copies of the papers; two are preprints from the upcoming Proc. ICCF-17. Hope that helps. Good luck. Mitchell Swartz Under the right conditions, even the smallest ripple can create a mighty wave. Zensunni maxim On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Dr. Mitchell Swartz mailto:m...@theworld.comm...@theworld.com wrote: At 04:53 PM 7/4/2013, Jack Cole mailto:jcol...@gmail.comjcol...@gmail.com wrote: In my electrolysis research, I found that the wire leads for my control runs made a significant difference. Obviously, thinner wire connecting to the joule heater resulted in less power being dissipated in the joule heater and more being dissipated in the wire leads. I had initially thought the wire was thick enough, but I wasn't seeing as much heating as I expected. I switched to thicker wire, and then I saw better heating. That brings me to Jet Energy's (Mitchell Swartz) claims. His active material has a much higher resistance than his control resistance. Could the apparent excess heating in this device be related to the same phenomena (i.e., power dissipation in electrical leads vs. where the measurements are taking place)? Thank you for asking, Jack. Good questions. The active materials are not always higher electrical resistance than the control resistance. We try to make them equal, but the CF/LANR component undergoes changes for several reasons, and the controls are often changed to get them as equal as possible, or multiple thermal ohmic controls are included. On the leads. We use 1 mm diameter leads into the CF/LANR components. The PHUSORs have 1 mm Pt lead and 1mm Pd leads which are shown in the papers from ICCF10. That is mentioned in detail, and shown in photographs, in Swartz, M., Can a Pd/D2O/Pt Device be Made Portable to Demonstrate the Optimal Operating Point?, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Proceedings of ICCF-10, eds. Peter L. Hagelstein, Scott, R. Chubb, World Scientific Publishing, NJ, ISBN 981-256-564-6, 29-44; 45-54 (2006). The NANORs have similar size diameter of the leads and are pure copper. They were designed so that input impedance would not be an issue, and their impedances are measured as well. The CF/LANR device's electrical impedance is usually measured by four-terminal measurement. Also the excess heats are verified by several independent systems as discussed in the papers (three usually, for the NANORs). Mitchell Swartz
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
At 07:34 PM 7/10/2013, you wrote: DJ Cravens mailto:djcrav...@hotmail.comdjcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: I just did a search on LENR CANR and find 122 hits. I have papers, and people know them and reference them. My guess is you will scrub them now like Mitch S. But you keep saying these things. Rothwell: Mitch S. sent me two letters saying he would sue me if I uploaded his papers or quoted from them. If you send me letters like that, yes, I will scrub your papers. You don't even have to threaten a lawsuit. You tell me to remove them and they will be gone the next day. Several authors asked me to remove papers, usually just one paper, leaving the others. I have not removed any other papers for any other reason. - Jed Jed Rothwell is untruthful, always trying to twist the facts to make himself look innocent. The only threats have been from him and his associates. == The science papers we have written improving calorimetry and describing how to achieve CF/LANR have been censored by Jed Rothwell. I, and we, have always given permission to have these papers listed and shared. They were provided for the ICCF Proceedings on time for the publication. We have always expected the ICCF14 papers to be in the Proceedings. Proof for the non-informed? I am so tired of Rothwell's false statements that it is time to let some light on the matter. Dave Nagel, and I, BOTH told Rothwell NOT to remove our seven (7) papers from the Proc. ICCF14.A partial copy, with the relevant parts, of Dave Nagel's letter to me affirming that he also told Rothwell that, is attached. = beginning of email Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 10:32:33 -0500 To: Mitchell Swartz m...@theworld.com From: David J. Nagelna...@gwu.edu Subject: Re: Mitchell, I can say two things in response to your notes. First, the entire proceedings are on the web at the ISCMNS site, as you already know. Jed sent the intact copy of the proceedings to Bill Collis, and Bill put them on his site. That much was done correctly. Second, I wrote Jed emphatically that I did not want a second and incomplete version of the ICCF-14 proceedings in circulation. But, I do not control what Jed posts on his site. Dave === end of email === This copy of that email demonstrates that Dennis is correct and Rothwell light years south of disingenuous. Further supporting this tendency of Rothwell, despite his disingenuous, mutating comments, attention is directed to the fact that it was HE who removed, [in addition to our three papers from ICCF10 (which showed how to do CF/LANR and reported the open five day demonstration)] papers by others such as Dr. Bass, and --so relevant this month-- the late Ken Shoulder's papers. Point of fact, Jed Rothwell is sometimes so unbalanced and malevolent that he was caught, and stopped by Larry Forsley and Dave Nagel, from impetuously taking down one of my posters at ICCF14 in Washington, DC. As yet a further corollary of his bad behavior, it is a fact that Jed nearly always mischaracterizes our work. For example, I just noticed he misstated again on Vortex about the wires leading into the PHUSORS and NANORS, when in fact they are 1 mm diameter. That is mentioned in detail in the censored papers such as Swartz, M., Can a Pd/D2O/Pt Device be Made Portable to Demonstrate the Optimal Operating Point?, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Proceedings of ICCF-10, eds. Peter L. Hagelstein, Scott, R. Chubb, World Scientific Publishing, NJ, ISBN 981-256-564-6, 29-44; 45-54 (2006). Swartz, M., Excess Power Gain using High Impedance and Codepositional LANR Devices Monitored by Calorimetry, Heat Flow, and Paired Stirling Engines, Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF-14), 10-15 August 2008, Washington, D.C. Ed: D J. Nagel and M Melich, ISBN: 978-0-578-06694-3, 123, (2010)). Swartz, M., G. Verner, Excess Heat from Low Electrical Conductivity Heavy Water Spiral-Wound Pd/D2O/Pt and Pd/D2O-PdCl2/Pt Devices, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Proceedings of ICCF-10, eds. PHagelstein, S Chubb, World Scientific Publishing, NJ, ISBN 981-256-564-6, 29-44; 45-54 (2006). Mitchell Swartz A written fact is considered innately more true than spoken gossip or hearsay, but physical documents have no greater claim to accuracy than an anecdote from an actual eyewitness. Gilbertus Albans, Mentat Discourses on History
Re: [Vo]:Jet Energy - nanor/phusor question
At 04:53 PM 7/4/2013, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: In my electrolysis research, I found that the wire leads for my control runs made a significant difference. Obviously, thinner wire connecting to the joule heater resulted in less power being dissipated in the joule heater and more being dissipated in the wire leads. I had initially thought the wire was thick enough, but I wasn't seeing as much heating as I expected. I switched to thicker wire, and then I saw better heating. That brings me to Jet Energy's (Mitchell Swartz) claims. His active material has a much higher resistance than his control resistance. Could the apparent excess heating in this device be related to the same phenomena (i.e., power dissipation in electrical leads vs. where the measurements are taking place)? Thank you for asking, Jack. Good questions. The active materials are not always higher electrical resistance than the control resistance. We try to make them equal, but the CF/LANR component undergoes changes for several reasons, and the controls are often changed to get them as equal as possible, or multiple thermal ohmic controls are included. On the leads. We use 1 mm diameter leads into the CF/LANR components. The PHUSORs have 1 mm Pt lead and 1mm Pd leads which are shown in the papers from ICCF10. That is mentioned in detail, and shown in photographs, in Swartz, M., Can a Pd/D2O/Pt Device be Made Portable to Demonstrate the Optimal Operating Point?, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Proceedings of ICCF-10, eds. Peter L. Hagelstein, Scott, R. Chubb, World Scientific Publishing, NJ, ISBN 981-256-564-6, 29-44; 45-54 (2006). The NANORs have similar size diameter of the leads and are pure copper. They were designed so that input impedance would not be an issue, and their impedances are measured as well. The CF/LANR device's electrical impedance is usually measured by four-terminal measurement. Also the excess heats are verified by several independent systems as discussed in the papers (three usually, for the NANORs). Mitchell Swartz
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
At 09:34 PM 7/10/2013, you wrote: Dr. Mitchell Swartz mailto:m...@theworld.comm...@theworld.com wrote: == The science papers we have written improving calorimetry and describing how to achieve CF/LANR have been censored by Jed Rothwell. I, and we, have always given permission to have these papers listed and shared. No, you have not. You are only trying to set me up so you can sue me the way you sued others. I know your tricks. You have tried to play them on other people as well, and they have contacted me. If you want to give me permission you have to send signed, notarized letter to me at the address shown at LENR-CANR, and you have to list every individual title you want me to upload. I have given you a draft of the letter you must send. Sign it, notarize it and mail it, or shut up. Those are my terms. No negotiations. I will NOT -- repeat not -- spend money fighting a nuisance lawsuit from you. You should be thankful I would even consider uploading your papers. - Jed Again, Jed Rothwell is not truthful. Since I have not sued anyone in cold fusion, his wild fabrication shows elements of paranoia and disingenuity. As the previously posted Nagel letter shows, Jed has not been honest. The letter proves the seven ICCF14 papers were always censored ... by Jed. They were never missing as he previously claimed before his last allegation re-mutated. I, and we, have always given permission to have these seven papers papers to be listed and shared. The seven papers were provided for the ICCF14 Proceedings on time for the publication. We have always expected the ICCF4 papers to be in the Proceedings. There only conclusion is that Jed has been dishonest about this both at the CANR-LENR site and on Vortex. Some of the reasons are now clearer. Mitchell Swartz
[Vo]:Chad Schaffer pleads guilty in Mallove murder trial
*THE GOOD, THE BAD, and THE UGLY * April 20, 2012 At last, Chad Schaffer has pled guilty today to the brutal execution murder of our friend and colleague, Dr. Eugene Mallove. I spoke with Gene by telephone on his last day. We were in the middle of a cold fusion experiment which produced excess energy. The data is up at the Cold Fusion Times Website. http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html If Gene had lived, the development and integration of cold fusion would be far ahead of where it is today. America and the rest of the world have suffered, and will continue to, because of the coverup called Heavywatergate -- and the murder of Eugene Mallove.. Gene often reminded me, Ad astra per aspera. May some peace finally begin to come to Gene and his family. Mitchell Swartz * === Chad Schaffer pleads guilty in Mallove murder trial* Greg Smith http://www.norwichbulletin.com/news/x1364620539/Schaffer-accepts-plea-deal-in-Mallove-murder-trial#axzz1scKOQ8CV NorwichBulletin.com - April 20, 2012 - A murder trial in Norwich was abruptly halted today when Chad Schaffer of Norwich entered a guilty plea to the charges of first-degree manslaughter and accessory to robbery in connection with the 2004 beating death of 56-year-old Eugene Mallove. As part of a plea agreement reached with the prosecution, Schaffer is to serve a total of 16 years in prison --- a disheartening number for members of the Mallove family who have been attending the trial. ... Schaffer had faced a possible 60 years in prison if convicted by the jury. This is not justice, said a tearful Rebecca Woodard, sister to Ethan Mallove's sister's husband. This sentence doesn't come close to righting this wrong. *Witness: Boyfriend forced me to help kill Mallove* Apr 18, 2012 - A key witness for the prosecution, Foster took the stand Wednesday in the ongoing murder trial of her former boyfriend, Chad Schaffer, 34, of Norwich. Both are charged with murder in Mallove's May 14, 2004, death, but she is hoping for leniency in exchange for her testimony. She maintains Schaffer and his cousin, Mozzelle Brown, beat Mallove and returned with her to the scene so she could drive Mallove's van and help make the incident look like a robbery. Foster said she arrived to find Mallove facedown on the ground. There was blood coming out of his mouth, she said. Did he say anything? asked prosecutor Paul Narducci. 'Help me,' Foster said. Did you? Narducci asked. No, she said While Schaffer and Brown continued to beat Mallove, Foster said, Schaffer smacked her in the face to get her to participate. Foster, 32, and Schaffer are Mallove's former tenants. = More, and more links, at the *Cold Fusion Times Website*. http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
Dennis, Indeed . And that would be controls. It might be a minority view; several controls are needed. He needs a metachronous 1 MW pulse for enough time and energy for the system to reach the same temp and heat deposited that the LANR system would expect to achieve in the steady state, ... and synchronous calibration pulses of a fraction of that power. Would also suggest a temperature control for his pyrometer to match the peak temp recorded at point. The additional controls for calorimetry including correcting for positional flow error, and for background in any measurement of ionizing radiation (which they are doing) and near-IR (which you know who is doing), and thermal waveform reconstruction are obvious. Probably would also add a flow measurement calibration, and check that humidity sensors are valid with two calibrations if the temperature exceeds 96C. Best regards, m === At 06:05 PM 3/3/2011, you wrote: and I would like to see what he will use as his control. Dennis -- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 3:50 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration Yesterday I wrote that it can be surprisingly difficult to evaluate the performance of a large machine. That probably sounds odd. Let me explain a bit, while I try to anticipate some of the honest skeptical objections that might be raised about a 1 MW demonstration. Rossi is sometimes open to suggestions and if we can come up with ways to avoid these problems perhaps he will make adjustments. Let's look at what we know about the proposed demonstration, and think about how to measure the effect. THE 1 MW DEMO
[Vo]:Gerald Celente: Cold fusion greatest investment opportunity of the 21st Cent.
Gerald Celentes Top Trends for 2011 Trends Journal lists Cold fusion to be the greatest investment opportunity of the 21st Century. http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/2011/01/26/gerald-celente-cold-fusion-to-be-the-greatest-investment-opportunity-of-the-21rst-century/ More links and much more info also at: http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html ] Gerald Celente: Cold fusion to be the greatest investment opportunity of the 21st Century. Gerald Celente, lauded prognosticator of Trends Research Institute, recently put new energy and cold fusion as #6 on his Top Trends for 2011 in the Trends Research Journal. An interview conducted by Chris Waltzek of Goldseek Radio has Mr. Celente mentioning the recent demonstration of Dr. Rossis Ecat boiler at the University of Bologna. He also Saturdays January 29 broadcast. Also: Gerald Celente puts new energy as a top trend for 2011. Gerald Celente of Trends Institute has put new energy as a top trend for 2011. He made the statement on Eric Kings King World News interview for Wednesday, December 29, 2010Funding LENR research will start a whole new economic paradigm, employing skilled workers, developing a path for young scientists, and jumpstart a new manufacturing sector based on a new energy technology. He correctly mentions the trouble with getting patents with anything related to cold fusion.
Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW
At 11:06 AM 1/16/2011, the disingenuous, censoring Jed Rothwell wrote: Mitchell Swartz m...@theworld.com wrote: [several examples of Rothwell being inconsistent and untruthful all deleted for bandwidth] At 10:25 AM 11/19/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: Swartz: If yes, was it a vertical flow calorimetric system? Rothwell: Me: Yes. Corroborating this, only a desperate sophomore would honestly think they could claim to have sampled the cell, applied the FLOW EQUATION (which itself is an approximation) and have it as a non-flow configuration. In this case, Rothwell knew it was a flow system. === 2A. The Pressure Head Fell When Rothwell diverted the flow into a cup two more errors appeared. First, the pressure head was decreased, as Mitchell Jones correctly previously pointed out . . . Rothwell: The flow rate would have to change by a factor of 50 to 100 (at different times during the run). We could see and hear the water falling back into the reservoir. The flow did not change by a factor of 50. We would have noticed that. When say we I mean myself and the others who watched me do the tests, including Patterson, Cravens, George Miley and others. These other people agreed that the method works, and that it confirmed Cravens' flow calorimetry. Swartz is not only calling me incompetent, he is saying that George Miley et al. are incompetent. Rothwell is quite mistaken again. Profs. Miley and Cravens do exceptional good work. The late Dr. Patterson did exceptionally good work. Based upon the rants posted, no one but Rothwell is incompetent. The Evidence speaks for itself. == Rothwell: I am sorry to keep harping on this, but it is a prime example of the way some cold fusion researchers attack research by others in this field, for irrational reasons. Swartz, Arata and others are often as bad as the worst skeptics. I expect that many cold fusion researchers will soon be attacking Rossi for similar irrational reasons. Swartz may attack Rossi for the same reason he attacks Patterson Cravens: because Rossi also uses vertical flow calorimetry during the the liquid phase. For that matter, so do the people at SRI, Energetics Technologies and elsewhere. I have not noted that Swartz attacks McKubre, but I wouldn't put it past him. In any case, I am in good company with the likes of Miley and McKubre. I am confident that they are right, and Swartz is wrong. I shall say no more about this. Jed Rothwell was exposed in this thread falsely purporting that Dr. Arata and myself posted to Wikipedia about him. That never happened. Just like before Rothwell confabulated and posted paranoid nonsense. For the record: The ONLY one attacking cold fusion pioneers has been Jed Rothwell, often behind their backs, from the beginning in 1989 to the present. Mitchell Swartz - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW
Rothwell: I am sorry to keep harping on this, but it is a prime example of One more issue. Rothwell's ad hominem are not, and have never been, a substitute for his failure to calibrate, his failure to maintain a pressure head, and his failure to use anything close to an adequate sampling rate. In the case at issue, Rothwell reported a sampling rate of only 2 to 4 times per day!!! At 10:25 AM 11/19/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: How many times did you remove 250cc from the flow circuit to test the temperature? Rothwell: With the large CETI cell, about a dozen times over three days. With our cells, twice a day This implies that Rothwell has no credibility on this matter, either. It cannot be stressed enough: Real experimentalists use sampling rates closer to 1 Hertz (sometimes more, sometimes less, but not 2 times per day), and they use many controls -- including joule controls. Mitchell Swartz
RE: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW
At 12:42 PM 1/16/2011, you wrote: Swartz, its pretty clear whose 'ranting' here... Shoo... you're wasting bandwidth Interesting anniversary. You had this same issue thrown back to you exactly one year ago today. Terry Blanton had it spot on. == from Vortex 16 Jan 2010 === On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: If you armchair skeptics spent as much time reading the Steorn forum or Overunity.com, Terry Blanton : I read and post on both plus the VofB. I read all post here and if YOU kept up you would know Many of us are also experimentalists and speak from experience, Mr. Zeropoint. Looks like you never recovered, Mr. Zeropoint.
Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW
At 01:37 PM 1/16/2011, Nick Palmer ni...@wynterwood.co.uk wrote: Mitchell Swartz: I think your problem is that you think Jed's report on the Patterson cell was presented by Jed as a scientific assesment of the exact heat generated. If that had been so then all of your frequently repeated objections would have some validity. Instead, what Jed saw and reported on was a ballpark measurement that very significant quantities of heat were being generated in a short space of time. Hyper accurate calorimetry was absolutely not needed to show that a lot of heat was being generated. There is a type of scientist who delights in finding and measuring tiny signals, often analysed from such a mountain of noise that a casual observer would not notice anything happening out of the usual. What Jed, and many others here are interested in, is any new physical phenomenon that is large enough to generate power to run our civilisation. Messing about with tiny optimal operating point signals is academically interesting but doesn't cut the mustard if the goal is to replace fossil fuels or conventional nukes. Knowledge is valuable but engineering solutions is what we need. That is what Jed was trying to ascertain and, to any reasonable person, he succeeded. Patterson's beads looked promising for further development. So, once and for all, stop ranting on about Bernard instability in vertical flow calorimetry. Such small fractional watt distorting effects can, as you say, magnify a tiny signal mixed in with the environmental noise but are insignificant if you are looking to verify a kickass kilowatt. Nick Palmer Nick, Thank you for the thoughtful response. First, optimal operating points are not signals, nor are they small. And they control the type(s) of reactions which occur in LANR/CF. OOP manifold operation is a bit like understanding a truck has different gears. If you try to start it in a very high gear from first, you won't get it moving. OOP operation is not a signal but a matter of control, and in the case of cold fusion (LANR) it gives quite a bit of gain, sort of like a yagi antenna compared to conventional dipole operation. Second, I went over this specific gain issue in this particular experiment at that particular time with Dennis Cravens who was doing it, and the direction effected the output from watts to kilowatts. Rothwell chose to use the direction that magnified the effect. Third, Bernard instability, like all things that can give false positives to CF/LANR, is always a good thing to consider. And in low flow systems it is relevant when the flow is vertical (which is easy to avoid). Like joule controls, and checks by waveform reconstruction, and redundant calorimetry, it is important. Fourth, I did not bring this up. Jed did. Finally, fifth, in kickass kilowatts there are real, observable changes in the materials and plastics, which were not seen in the cited demo. Thank you so much for reminding me of that, too. Best regards, Mitchell Swartz --- p.s. BTW if you want to learn how to generate power to run our civilization, keep in touch with the COLD FUSION TIMES web site. http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW
At 03:21 PM 1/16/2011, Jed Rothwell falsely wrote: Mitchell Swartz m...@theworld.com wrote: Jed Rothwell was exposed in this thread falsely purporting that Dr. Arata and myself posted to Wikipedia about him. Oh for goodness sake, I meant other people at Wikipedia attack me. Nowhere does that indicate you or Arata post to Wikipedia. Get a grip! - Jed Rothwell -- who brought this all up to begin with -- is mistaken, and proven indelibly inaccurate by his own posts just in the last 72 hours. It says exactly that in clear English. These, especially #1, easily demonstrate that he is confabulating again. EXAMPLE #1: Rothwell (projecting, falsely stating): Beware also of the personal attacks (blah blah blah) On Wikipedia they even attack me! These attacks are often made by jealous rivals such as Arata and Swartz. Don't fall for them. ...(blah blah blah) [Sat, 15 Jan 2011 17:39:04; Subject: Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW] EXAMPLE #2: Rothwell (projecting, falsely stating): I am sorry to keep harping on this, but it is a prime example of the way some cold fusion researchers attack research by others in this field, for irrational reasons. Swartz, Arata and others are often as bad as the worst skeptics. [Sun, 16 Jan 2011 08:06:24; Subject: Re: [Vo]: Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW] Q.E.D. Conclusion #1: These posts by Rothwell reflect delusional projections of Jed Rothwell's mind which in reality are untrue, unfounded. This is sadly typical of his repertoire which is when researchers do not agree with Rothwell, he targets them with his vitriol. Conclusion #2: After putting on educational Colloquia on Cold Fusion for almost two decades, these attacks by Jed Rothwell are scurrilous. .
Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW
At 02:03 PM 1/15/2011, Rothwell, of the censored LENR/CANR site,
wrote:
Peter Gluck
peter.gl...@gmail.com
wrote:
Rossi says the input is 600-700 W. Output at least 14 x input.
My comment was directed at people who do not believe Rossi, or who
suspect there may be a complicated waveform at work, which makes it hard
to measure input power. Such arguments always arise when people make
claims about cold fusion when electric power input is needed. Even the
simplest DC power is questioned. What I am saying is that we can
short-circuit these objections by pointing out that the power supplies
themselves could not draw 10 kW, so the waveform and methods of measuring
input power are irrelevant.
I pointed out this same fact about the Patterson experiment. To no avail.
People raised that objection again and again, and they probably still do.
Heck, for that matter, they claimed the water was not mixed and the
temperature may not have been uniform, even after I stated that I mixed
it myself, in a 1-liter graduated cylinder, using the mercury thermometer
to stir it. The water coming out was many degrees hotter than the
reservoir temperature going in. Anyone who thinks you can have a thermal
gradient of several degrees when you stir liquid in a cylinder is very
stupid, has no grasp of physical reality, and has zero credibility.
As it happens, Taubes raised that objection in his book, and here at
Vortex, Mitchel Swartz raised it repeatedly. As far as I am concerned,
that erased their credibility.
- Jed
Actually, it is the credibility of Jed Rothwell which
is, and has always been near, zero.
Rothwell has used his nonsense claiming he got a
kilowatt
when analysis showed it was mostly in his mind.
First, the fact is that flow calorimetry depends upon the
direction of the flow measurement because of Bernard
instability. My friend, Dennis Cravens, who did that very
experiment confirmed it, despite the Rothwell nonsense.
For those seriously interested, two papers explain WHY and
HOW
Jed fRothwell erroneously measured his kilowatt levels of
pseudoexcess heat with Ni-beads using an improper vertical flow
calorimetric system without adequate joule controls -
and how to possibly correct for it:
Swartz, M, 1996, Improved Calculations Involving Energy
Release
Using a Buoyancy Transport Correction, Journal of New Energy, 1, 3,
219-221.
Swartz, M, 1996, Potential for Positional Variation in Flow
Calorimetric Systems, Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130.
Second, Rothwell has always avoided control
measurements.
But they ARE needed. Real scientists know that.
The following is from the web page, and one of the two
papers which
were developed over several years in response to Rothwell's
unscientific
nonsense. No wonder he runs his censored site.
===
POTENTIAL FOR POSITIONAL VARIATION IN FLOW CALORIMETRIC SYSTEMS
Mitchell Swartz
http://world.std.com/~mica/posvar.html
ABSTRACT
Although many aspects of calorimeters have been discussed,
including issues of potential problems with the thermometry
[i.e. thermocouples, thermistors and thermometers,
including electrical grounding and crosstalk,
thermal mixing and sensor positioning problems],
the potential impact of positional effects of the
flow calorimetry has not been
mentioned. The positional orientation refers to the
direction of the flow, and not to the orientation of
any temperature probes therein. Despite the reported
advantages for flow calorimetry in detecting enthalpy
from putative fusion reactions, these studies theoretically
suggest that there may be effects from positional variation
in the calorimetry of such flow
systems. Rather than 'ease of calibration' usually touted
for such systems, it is suggested that calibration may be
more complicated for vertical flow calorimetric systems.
In the absence of additional calibration, it may be critical to
keep semiquantitative calorimeters horizontal under some
conditions.
We now define hB as the ratio of heat transported
by the buoyant forces to the heat transported by
solution convection.
heat transported by buoyant forces
hB = --
heat transferred by solution convection
This Q1D model of heat and mass transfer has indicated
that what is generally correct for horizontal calorimetric
systems, may not be correct for vertical systems, when the
non-dimensional number (=hB) is significantly greater than
zero. Any apparent amplification of the 'excess heat' (if
any, and there does appear to be some) would be greatest
at the low flow levels. Increased flow makes the positional
error less important. As a corollary, any false excess heat,
or excess heat magnification, should also reduce with increased
flow.
SUMMARY
In summary, thermometry may not be the only rate limiting
factor for obtaining high-quality information from flow
calorimeters if the non-dimensional number, hB {defined
as the ratio of heat transfer
Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW
At 03:08 PM 1/15/2011, Rothwell wrote: Mitchell Swartz m...@theworld.com wrote: For those seriously interested, two papers explain WHY and HOW Jed Rothwell erroneously measured his kilowatt levels of pseudoexcess heat with Ni-beads using an improper vertical flow calorimetric system . . . The water was not flowing vertically or in any other direction. It was in a cup. I diverted the flow into the cup, stirred it with the thermometer and measured the temperature. While I diverted it, I measured the flow rate with a stopwatch. Then I measured the temperature in the reservoir. There is ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY no way the Swartz theory regarding vertical flows can apply to this method. I repeat: the water was IN A CUP. NOT FLOWING. I realize that Swarz will repeat this ad nauseum. I am sorry to trigger this, but I wanted to set the record straight. I do this because it has been some time since this topic came up, and I am sure that people will raise equally idiotic objections to Rossi's calorimetry. - Jed So many untruths. However, the actual record will set the proverbial record straight. Rothwell: (The water) was in a cup NOT FLOWING. Rothwell is mistaken. First, the setup WAS a flow calorimetric system. And the direction was vertical through the bead. All of the nonsense of Rothwell will not change those facts. Rothwell previously agreed with this: = Vortex mail from 1998 At 11:41 PM 11/18/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: The entire stream running through the cell is diverted into the cup. The outlet hose from the cell is diverted into the cup instead of going back into the reservoir. This is also done to measure the flow rate (Galileo's method). So the removal was done to measure flow rate by decoupling flow from the circuit which would have otherwise demonstrated some resistance to the flow. The flow was powered by a 85 watt impellor pump, is that correct? If yes, was it a vertical flow calorimetric system? Yes. Making it subject to Bernard instability = End of Vortex mail from 1998 Second, as usual Rothwell's latest description is at variance with all his previous descriptions. Here are two groups of differences I. First Rothwell took samples from the return path only: At 10:25 AM 11/19/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: Mitchell Swartz asks: How many times did you remove 250cc from the electrolytic cell to test the temperature? Rothwell: I never remove fluid from the cell. I remove it from the return hose after it exits the cell, before it goes back into the reservoir. I would have to turn off the flow and drain the cell to remove fluid from the cell. Why would I do that? II. Then Rothwell, when convenient, stated he took the sample from the cell: Rothwell: This cannot be a problem. I repeat, with emphasis, THIS CANNOT BE A PROBLEM, because I took 250 ml of the water out of the cell, mixed it in a cup, and measured it externally with a thermistor, a thermocouple, and a thermometer. [Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@infinite-energy.com Subject: Re: JET Energy Technology's CF electric generator Resent-Message-Id: xtaGp3.0.4K2.LgtKs@mx2] III. Finally, Rothwell when convenient stated he took the sample from the cell AND the return path. MS: Out of the electrolytic cell? Rothwell: I am not sure what this means, but I think the question is: Did I test a sample of water from out of the electrolytic cell. Answer: yes, and I tested another sample taken from the reservoir too, for comparison. [18 Nov 1998 20:45:36 jedrothw...@pop.mindspring.com Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@infinite-energy.com Resent-Message-Id: adNN92.0.rV5.l9wKs@mx1] Also, when Rothwell first published he stated the sample was removed to measure 'flow'. Later, Rothwell claimed it was to measure 'temperature', proof of output power, and to dismiss Bernard instability. Rick Monteverde wrote: There remains this sticking point between you and Jed regarding measurement errors presumably due to Barnard instability. I take this to mean that small quantities of locally heated fluids rise up or get entrained into output plumbing and trick thermo probes into reporting that the overall mass of fluid is at a certain temperature when it really isn't. Rothwell: This cannot be a problem. I repeat, with emphasis, THIS CANNOT BE A PROBLEM, because I took 250 ml of the water out of the cell, mixed it in a cup, and measured it externally with a thermistor, a thermocouple, and a thermometer. Therefore the thermo probes in the output plumbing HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. I compared the temperature of the outlet fluid sample in the cup to the fluid in the reservoir. [Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@infinite-energy.com Subject: Re: JET Energy Technology's CF electric generator Resent-Message-Id: xtaGp3.0.4K2.LgtKs@mx2] = Third, in summary, scientific error
Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW
At 05:23 PM 1/15/2011, you wrote: Mitchell Swartz m...@theworld.com wrote: First, the setup WAS a flow calorimetric system. Not the way I used it. I changed the configuration for my tests. I diverted the flow into a cup. It was being used as a flow calorimeter by Patterson et al., in the data reported by them. But my data came from another, non-flow configuration. My readings agreed with theirs. I was careful to hold the cut at the same height as the reservoir, to keep the flow rate from changing. I removed the hose from the reservoir, moved it to the cup until I collected 1 liter, and then put the hose back. Then I stirred the water and measured the temperature in the cup, and then in the reservoir. Anyone who thinks that method does not work has no grasp of basic physics, and no common sense. - Jed 1. It is not about physics and common sense, it is about truth. The record, even on vortex, shows Rothwell is disingenuous, substituting ad hominem for truth. Rothwell's non-flow configuration appears to be confabulated ad hoc - since this WAS previously reported as a flow calorimetric system. Rothwell previous agreed, over and over. At 10:25 AM 11/19/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: Swartz: If yes, was it a vertical flow calorimetric system? Rothwell: Me: Yes. Corroborating this, only a desperate sophomore would honestly think they could claim to have sampled the cell, applied the FLOW EQUATION (which itself is an approximation) and have it as a non-flow configuration. In this case, Rothwell knew it was a flow system. === 2A. The Pressure Head Fell When Rothwell diverted the flow into a cup two more errors appeared. First, the pressure head was decreased, as Mitchell Jones correctly previously pointed out, when the line was disconnected to get the sample. Rothwell's flow measurement cannot be trusted unless the connection remained or a flow meter was used. There was previously reported to be NO flowmeter at that time in THAT experiment. The equations used were thus probably inaccurate, demonstrating again the need for a control. === 2B. Second, the volume of the system was decreased. Both effects may have also contributed to falsely increase of the derived signal. But then anyone who professes that ignoring joule controls is a virtue like Rothwell, probably would not care. === 3. What Kind of Sampling Rate is This? One of the little secrets kept here quiet is that Rothwell reported a sampling rate of only 2 to 4 times per day!!! At 10:25 AM 11/19/98 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: How many times did you remove 250cc from the flow circuit to test the temperature? Rothwell: With the large CETI cell, about a dozen times over three days. With our cells, twice a day Real experimentalists use at least a Hertz for reasons of Nyquist and commonsense. And use joule controls. === Summary: Rothwell's alleged kilowatt is similar to the Drs. Pons and Fleischmann's inference that CF is easy. In the first case, sole reliance on uncorrected vertical flow calorimetry can lead to the amplification of the small CF/LANR effect. This amplification effect, like driving below the noise level, produces inaccuracy, which can also give rise to large expectations from an otherwise real CF/LANR effect which might be smaller in magnitude, and is generally quite difficult to achieve. Mitchell Swartz
Re: [Vo]:Input power must be far lower than ~10 kW
At 05:39 PM 1/15/2011, Jed Rothwell, of the censored LENR/CANR site, wrote: Rothwell: I pointed that given the average water intake of a rat ... Even a broken (non digital) clock appears accurate twice a day with some local truth. === Rothwell: Beware also of the personal attacks. I have been reading ad hominem attacks against Fleischmann, Pons, McKubre and the others for 22 years. How ironic and self-serving. Many of these attacks against these great individuals were begun and continued by Jed Rothwell, himself, and were covered in the COLD FUSION TIMES, and posted by Rothwell on vortex and spf. === Rothwell: On Wikipedia they even attack me! These attacks are often made by jealous rivals such as Arata and Swartz. Don't fall for them. I have absolutely never published to Wikipedia on anything; and would not waste a femtosecond on the egomaniac Rothwell. I certainly doubt Dr. Arata has either. Jed Rothwell projects, hallucinates, confabulates and once again heralds his certifiable handicap. Dr. Mitchell Swartz
[Vo]:Arraignment in Mallove Murder
Arraignment in Mallove Murder Both suspects accused in Dr. Mallove's 2004 Norwich murder case answered to a judge. Both are believed to have been Mallove's tenants and were forced to leave. Schaffer -charged with felony murder and robbery Foster - charged with accessory to murder, felony murder and robbery. Update at COLD FUSION TIMES (uncensored, scientific LANR/CF News) http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
[Vo]:Arrests made in Mallove Murder
Arrests made in Mallove Murder 4/1/10 - Rebecca Santillo Norwich, Conn. (WTNH) - Two arrests have been made in a Norwich homicide that has gone unsolved for nearly six years. Eugene Mallove, 56, was found dead in the driveway of his boyhood Norwich home back in May of 2004. http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/crime/norwich-cold-case Update at COLD FUSION TIMES http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
Re: [Vo]:Will upload ICCF-3 and ICCF-5
At 11:51 AM 2/28/2010, you wrote: Hi Jed, many thanks for this, but aren't there many other ICCF proceedings missing? According to your special collections page at http://www.lenr-canr.org/Collections/Introduction.htm you only have ICCF-10, ICCF-11 and ICCF-12 complete, and selected papers of ICCF-9 Michel 2010/2/27 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: After I finish these two books, I do not think there are many important old papers left that would benefit readers, so this will pretty much wrap up the LENR-CANR project. Have not looked at the others, but Proc ICCF10 is not even complete in the listing of papers. As one example, Can a Pd/D2O/Pt Device be Made Portable to Demonstrate the Optimal Operating Point?, (2006). The censorship continues since ICCF10 because the truth is opposite the political, economic, and unscientific agenda of the site.
Re: [Vo]:Patterson and Letts experiment
At 08:20 AM 10/3/2009, you wrote: I wrote: It strikes me as fairy easy to control for gravitational thermal instabilities in flow calorimeters.. That should be: It strikes me as fairly easy to control for gravitational thermal instabilities in flow calorimeters.. Fairies, sprites, elves, pixies, leprechauns, or other magical beings are hopefully not essential factors in cold fusion experiments. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ You cannot control these instabilities in your cup of coffee.
Re: [Vo]:Rothwell and Bad Science
At 08:51 PM 9/30/2009, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: Perhaps because he doesn't have written permission to upload it? Why not grant him permission, in a post to Vortex, and see what he does? Wouldn't that be an interesting experiment? For those interested, I have been working with Dr. Brian Josephson many months, as an experiment, sending some of the papers by email to Jed, cc to Brian. The fact is: Brian and the others received them. Brian encouraged Jed to put them up on his site, but Jed insisted he edit them. Thereafter, Jed always found a problem. I have posted my papers repeated to vortex and CMNS and anyone who has requested them. Many times. The disingenuity of Rothwell that they have been withheld for any of Rothwell's fabricated convoluted reasons is brazen, and obviously laughable. Dr. Mitchell Swartz
RE: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket
At 12:47 AM 10/1/2009, you wrote: Dr. Swartz: You should read carefully Stephen Lawrence's post today, 9/30/2009, at 6:16PM. You might want to recind your comment since Stephen included quotes from as far back as 5 Dec 2004 which CLEARLY show that Jed has ALWAYS admitted that he got the CD from you, but that he couldn't read it. Thus, your comment about his lying about getting the CD, and finally admitting he got it are obviously an exaggeration at the very least, if not a conscious attempt to deceive. All I want to know now is when are you going to post a reply to Vortex that specifically gives Jed permission to download and post your papers on lenr-canr's website Shouldn't take you more than 2 or 3 minutes to compose that and post it here... I'll be looking for it in the morning! Cheers, -Mark Mark, Jed and others on vortex have had permission for quite a long time. I have posted my papers repeatedly to vortex, and CMNS, and anyone who has requested them. Many times. The lies of Rothwell that they have been withheld for any of Rothwell's fabricated convoluted reasons is brazen, and obviously laughable. We do not want the work edited by Jed. For those interested, I have been working with Dr. Brian Josephson many months, as an experiment, sending the papers by email to Jed and Brian. The fact is: Brian and the others received them. Brian encouraged Jed to put them up on his site, but Jed insisted e edit them. Thereafter, Jed always found a problem. We don't believe the contrived CD rants by Jed, because there were more than one set of CD. One was given in hand and the other was mailed. I still have the postal receipt included from paper copies sent. Thereafter, multiple pdf copies were sent. One doubts that all of the copies were all 'bad', given that every other recipient had no problem with CDs, with the paper receipts, with emails, with second pdfs ... etc. etc. Permission was not only given, but several times, including implicitly by the very effort made to send the documents. Have good day. Mitchell Swartz
Re: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket
in the English Wikipedia, and one of them (an American who reads no Japanese) tried to do the same thing in the Japanese edition. So I have many enemies who cause mischief. But Swartz is the only one who has tried to use LENR-CANR to extort money from me! - Jed Rothwell shows he is having another of his breakdowns. Extort money? It is a lie. I never did this. Nor would I ever. Rothwell fabricates because I once invoked Bernard instability, and noted Gene Mallove's correct observation that the LENR/CANR website is censored. [Though I disagree with Jed and Gene that it is 'politically' censored. It is censored for self-serving reasons). Rothwell fabricates because we simply cannot allow him to edit our work because he has made errors over the years, such as confusing anode and cathode. Note that Rothwell's paranoia and paranoic behavior allows him to make claims on one line . but they are immediately contradicted by the next -- such as before on editing, or here where he says he erased the records; so convenient. Rothwell is challenged to prove it. At the end of the day, what because this thread is that I noted that Prof. Dash and I were not included in the table of papers that went to the DOE in 2004 --- even though Dash and I were the only ones who had open cold fusion demonstrations in the USA at a national meeting. Rothwell's screwball behavior does not help cold fusion's image. Never has. Mitchell Swartz
Re: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket
At 06:58 PM 9/30/2009, Met Rothwell wrote: Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote: Extort money? It iit a lie. I never did this. Nor would I ever. So, this time I will not be hearing from you or your attorney? That's a relief. Maybe you should give back the money you extorted from others. If you do send any more extortion letters by registered mail or other means, I will publish them here this time, instead of ignoring them as Gene convinced me to do years ago. As I said, I don't respond well to intimidation, especially not the third time around. Seems you were just exposed as a liar, Jed. What you edited out was: Where was the extortion? What the hell is Rothwell talking about? Rothwell is challenged to prove it, or admit he is a screwball, afflicted with paranoia. Rothwell was silent, and could not stop editing what someone wrote. Edit. Censor. Rothwell. Seems that there were not extortion attempts as Rothwell lied when he posted this thread, to poison vortex. Being that Rothwell has now been shown to be a proven liar, once again, and that by he silence he has admitted he made the whole thing up, there is nothing further to say.
[Vo]:Rothwell and Bad Science
At 06:58 PM 9/30/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: Rothwell; Anyway, say what you like, but don't try your little tricks on me, in public or in private. And if you sincerely want your papers uploaded at LENR-CANR (as if!), you know the drill and you know why I insist on it. Everyone else now knows. You have to: 1. Upload your papers to your own damn web site. 2. Give me explicit, public permission to copy them. If I see you have erased them from your site I will erase them from LENR-CANR faster than you can say knife, so don't try that cute little trick either. Anyway, it'll never happen. You will never publish anything on line, and now everyone knows why. Game over for you. You'll have to find some other way to intimidate people. - Jed Clever rouse. Complicated. But already exposed as hype. Beside, I only care about the science and engineering. Actually, probably the two most important papers which show Rothwell's errors (which result from his disdain for calibration) are 1. Swartz, M, Potential for Positional Variation in Flow Calorimetric Systems, Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130 (1996) and 2. Swartz, M, Improved Calculations Involving Energy Release Using a Buoyancy Transport Correction, Journal of New Energy, 1, 3, 219-221 (1996) But, despite Jed's twisting of this (and I did not think it was possible to twist anything such as he has here) POTENTIAL FOR POSITIONAL VARIATION IN FLOW CALORIMETRIC SYSTEMS has been at the web site since 1996. The url is http://world.std.com/~mica/posvar.html Is paper 1 on the LENR-CANR web site? Not there. Why? Because the paper discusses scientific error on flow measurements, made in the past along with several other very insightful criticisms of Jed made on spf. Jed was running an experiment claiming kilowatts. Some noted that kilowatts of power dissipation produce a lot of damage to the materials --- but not in Jed's system. Others noted he was measuring without a pressure head. I noted that he failed to account for Bernard instability. Basically, by failing to calibrate, and by using a bad paradigm involving flow in a vertical path, Rothwell got a phoney 1 kilowatt, a false positive, henceforth kilowatt. Now, when Dr. Patterson's cell was used in a correct configuration it appears to have gotten a very respectable 0.8 watts excess heat, which is impressive if done for a long amount of time, and with calibrations. The potential errors from flow calorimetry arranged vertical in Earth g-field are flow related. They can potentially cause a large error, a false positive amplification. The error can be correctable, so why not just fix it? Dr. Mitchell Swartz
Re: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket
At 09:26 PM 9/30/2009, Rothwell, proven disingenuous, wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Update: Dr. Swartz has posted the URL of one of his papers on
Vortex,
as of about an hour ago. I don't know if it's one of the papers
Jed was
considering uploading or not.
Rothwell: I have not considered uploading any paper by Swartz for
the last 10 years.
There are three issues here:
First, the truth continues to slowly leak
out of disingenuous Jed, little by little, as his stories
change.
--
Rothwell: Not since he
first threatened me.
Second, what utter nonsense. This totally new
fabrication
and story du jour by Rothwell is laughable.
Rothwell was asked for the proof of his libelous allegation
of 'extortion'.
He has been silent except to attempt to change the subject over and
over.
Therefore, Rothwell is not a man of honor.
He is shown to have been dishonest, and has failed to apologize.
-
Third, flashback:
NOTA BENE: Rothwell's latest decompensation and picking of
a fight followed a simple question:
Rothwell had posted:
{referring to the docs given to
the DOE panel]
Rothwell: The documents they were given are listed here:
http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm#Submissions
- Jed
I thanked Jed, pointed out that I had not seen the table,
and that one observation was that when the papers which were
distributed to the DOE in 2004 (as they assembled to consider
CF/LANR) were examined, the table indicates that all of the papers
of Prof. Dash and I, although possibly referenced, were apparently
absent from the printed papers handed out to the DOE
--- even though ***ironically*** Dr.Dash and I were (and remain, I think)
the only ones who have actually conducted open cold fusion
demonstrations
in the USA at a national meeting.
Methinks Rothwell protests too much -- for reasons
unclear.
Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion
At 11:03 AM 9/29/2009, you wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: For their part, the cold fusion believers did a lousy job of selling it. I agree their public relations efforts have not been good. I think it is a bad idea to make conference proceedings only available as copyright books. Biberian recently told me that they have sold only 85 copies of the ICCF-10 and ICCF-11 proceedings. However, I think many researchers have a good job presenting their results in well-written, convincing papers. There is enough good material out there to make a solid case. Goodness knows, there is also enough bad material to make cold fusion look crazy. But all endeavors involving large numbers of people are a mixture of competent and incompetent, brilliant and stupid. You have to judge by what is best. The earliest effect that was actually conclusive was heat/helium correlation, which cut through the replication problem and turned it into classic proof through correlation (and this makes failures into controls). Somehow the presentation at the 2004 DoE review managed to sufficiently confuse the reviewers and the DoE so that the correlation was missed, and totally misrepresented in the summary report. This is true, but I doubt it was the fault of the presenters. The paper given to the panel explains the helium results clearly in section 3: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinnewphysica.pdf Some people feel this paper should have said more about Miles or Iwamura. I asked the authors, Hagelstein and McKubre, about that. They said they emphasized their own work because they understood their own work best, and they could discuss it in depth with the panel without fear of making a mistake or misrepresenting the work. That seems sensible to me. By the way, all those papers listed in the references were given to the panel members. I gather they were given big goodie boxes crammed with papers as take-home prizes (homework). So if they didn't get it, it was because they didn't do their homework. It isn't all that hard to understand, after all! The documents they were given are listed here: http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm#Submissions - Jed Jed, thank you for that list. Had not seen it before. How ironic (or not) that the two LANR/CF researchers who actually had perfomed open demonstrations at ICCF10, Dr. Dash and myself, did not have a single paper on that highly selected, therefore censored, list. BTW, the DOE made quite reasonable requests/complaints which Dr. Dash and I had actually done. Dr. Mitchell Swartz
Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion
The documents they were given are listed here: http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm#Submissions - Jed Jed, thank you for that list. Had not seen it before. How ironic (or not) that the two LANR/CF researchers who actually had perfomed open demonstrations at ICCF10, The URL for the open demo is here: http://theworld.com/~mica/jeticcf10demo.html More uncensored information on cold fusion here: http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html Dr. Dash and myself, did not have a single paper on that highly selected, therefore censored, list. BTW, the DOE made quite reasonable requests/complaints which Dr. Dash and I had actually done. Dr. Mitchell Swartz
Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion
At 01:09 PM 9/29/2009, you wrote: Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote: How ironic (or not) that the two LANR/CF researchers who actually had perfomed open demonstrations at ICCF10, Dr. Dash and myself, did not have a single paper on that highly selected, therefore censored, list. Yes, it is censored, but you yourself are the censor! Hagelstein included one of your ICCF-10 papers, #19 on the list of References: M. Swartz and G. Verner, Excess heat from low-electrical conductivity heavy water spiral-wound Pd/D2O/Pt and Pd/D2O-PdCl2/Pt Devices, Proc. ICCF10, (2004). It is not shown on my list because I do not have a copy in the library. Many papers are missing from the list, as shown by the gaps in the numbers. I do not have a copy of any of your papers in the Library, or on my hard disk, because you have not given me any copies of your work. And you have steadfastly denied me permission to upload any of your papers, even threatening a lawsuit when I posted an abstract from one of your papers. Jed, Sorry that you took this personally, but ... Wrong. You were given copies. Multiple copies. By disk. On paper. By mail with green card. In fact, what is most boggling, is that you were given a CD with the papers when I gave you a ride back from Gene Mallove's funeral to Newbury St. You left the car, with it in hand. So the confabulations by you are nonsense. Corroborating your fabrications, Jed, you have told others and us that you demand to EDIT the papers. [ Now, to think about it, that is more censorship, isn't it? ] = So the only person censoring anything here is you. Don't blame Hagelstein, McKubre or me because you censor your own work, for crying out loud. BTW, when the late Dr. Mallove was murdered, you were still even censoring the titles of the three papers at ICCF-10. Since then you have the titles listed, and added others whom were not listed, like those by Dr. Bass. Thank you for all that. No one blames/d Prof. Hagelstein or Mike McKubre for the censorship by you at the LENR/CANR website. It wouldn't be logical. In fact, corroborating that, when you one wrote Gene and I about why you censor papers at your website, you named someone in the field, and it was neither of them. [ Also, FYI, Gene Mallove posted on vortex quite a bit about the censorship at your website. Some of them are quite interesting, although never understood what he meant about 'political censorship'. ] == Dash is #52, ICCF6. Dash never censors anything and never denies permission, but I don't happen to have that paper in electronic format. - Jed Gosh. I don't see Prof. Dash at #52 in that table, so I must not understand what you meant. Have a good day. Mitchell
RE: [Vo]:Why No Repulsion?
This is not a static process, but the success of thunderstorm electricity results from the kinetic ratio of two ongoing process. One suspects that the rate of formation of free charge in the cloud, caused by friction between water crystals pulling protons off of one, exceeds the rate of free charge loss (that is, there is a relatively long dielectric relaxation time (1))). Hence, a net build up. 1. MELCHER, J.R., Continuum Electromechanics, MIT Press, Cambridge, (1981). t 02:28 AM 9/26/2009, you wrote: There is, it's just overcome by the forces causing the separation of charge... Understand that just as in a chemical battery, there is an active process keeping the charges separated, and it has to do with the turbulent columns of air moving vertically inside the cloud. It's been about 19 yrs since my involvement with this topic as a grad student, but back then there were at least two competing hypotheses as to the microphysics of cloud electrification. Not sure if that has been resolved or not... but convective cumulus clouds are not the nice calm gentle-looking puffs of cotton that they appear to be!! They are quite turbulent inside with significant regions of vertical shear... If I remember correctly, the vertical structure of a cumulus cloud has a positive region at the bottom, a pancake region of mostly negative charges near to the freezing level (~mid-cloud), and a positive region near the top... -Mark?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office / From: Chris Zell [ mailto:chrisrz...@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 8:28 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Why No Repulsion? I was wondering if anyone knew a thorough answer to the question: How can a charged thunderstorm exist? I've asked meterologists this question but no one has any answer. How can a cloud carry any charge at all? Why doesn't the charge cause the cloud to instantly dissipate? If we can demonstrate electrostatic precipitation with a small cloud chamber, how can any thunderstorm exist at all? Another mystery: How can an electron cloud exist in a vacuum tube? How can it hold itself together? It just seems to me that there are exceptions to the idea that like charges always repel - a notion that might guide us to free energy. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.112/2394 - Release Date: 09/25/09 05:51:00
[Vo]:Schedule: 2009 Adv.Colloquium on LANR/CF at MIT
ANNOUNCEMENT: Updated schedule for CF/LANR/LENR colleagues who have registered to participate in the 2009 Advanced Colloquium on Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA on June 20, 2009, Saturday - June 21, 2009, Sunday. == The 2009 Adv. Colloquium on LANR at MIT has been expanded with possible optional field trips for Sunday 6/21/9 (weather and experimental conditions, permitting) === 2009 Advanced Colloquium on Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA Title: The Science and Technology of Deuterated Metals, Engineering and Devices in LANR Schedule: Saturday, June 20, 2009 8:00 AM - 5 PM Colloquium at MIT - Space is limited - 40 seats total (**) Prior registration is required, through Dr. Swartz (m...@theworld.com) Sunday, June 21, 2009 = Optional Field Trip(s) Equipment, LANR, or Culture (Used equipment haul, look in developing Arata-type expt, or cultural visit to Red Sox, Museums, etc. Make your own below ) == Saturday Tentative Schedule: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA Saturday, June 20, 2009 8:00 AM Colloquium: Material Science, Engineering, and Energy Transfer in LANR Survey of Experimental Studies of Lattice-assisted Nuclear reactions Highly deuterated and codeposited Group VIII Metals - Structure of Water, and Deuteron Transfer Dr. Mitchell Swartz, JET Energy, Incorporated Deuteron and Palladium Flow in Loading and Codeposition - Solid State Physics of Loaded Palladium - Dr. Scott Chubb, Infinite Energy Coherent Scattering and D-Flow in Pd1-xDx Roles of symmetry and finite size in Quantum Electrodynamics - Modeling Energy Transfer to Excess Heat Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein, MIT Nuclear Lattice Coupling, Phonons, Models Involving Deuterated Metals - Introduction to Buildup in Photon Energy Transfer Dr. Alex Frank, JET Energy, Incorporated Electronic Equilibrium and Build up in CR-39 and other Materials - Experimental ( I ) - Survey of LANR Experiments - TBA - Survey of LANR Experiments - Prof. Peter Hagelstein, MIT - Continuum Electromechanics Discerns Multiple Types of LANR Dr. Mitchell Swartz, JET Energy, Inc. Continuum Electromechanical Approach to Flux - Investigations of Pd/D Codeposition LANR Pamela Mosier-Boss, Ph.D., Adv.Systems and Applied Sciences Div. SSC-Pacific Codeposition experiments, and Additional Applied Fields, CR-39 Pit Resolution Eq. - Lunch 1:00 PM Investigations of Pd/D Codeposition/Witness Materials Lawrence Forsley, President, JWK International Corporation Codeposition experiments, and Advantages of Witness Materials - Investigations of Pd/D LANR Excess Heat Dr. Mitchell Swartz, JET Energy, Inc. Excess Heat, Non-Thermal near-IR emission in LANR, Metamaterials, Optimal Operating Point and Tardive Thermal Power - Investigations of ZrO2/Pd LANR - Brian Ahern, Ph.D. - Investigation of Radioactive Material Inactivation - John Thompson - Panel on Transmutation Efforts, Issues and Mechanisms - Experimental ( II ) - Nanostructure Size Issues - Brian Ahern, Ph.D - Input Power Issues - Dr. Mitchell Swartz - CR39 Issues - Pamela Mosier-Boss, Ph.D., Lawrence Forsley Current Issues/problems in CR39, and other types of, recording devices - Round Tables/Open Discussion - Scientific Challenges of Experimental LANR - TBA - Economic Challenges of LANR - IP and Ongoing Patent and Business Issues - Wrap-up and Future Plans 5:00 PM End of Saturday 2009 LANR Colloquium at MIT We are sorry that space is limited to 40 seats total (**) Therefore prior registration has been required. Contact Dr. Swartz (m...@theworld.com) === - Educational Warning Label --- So much LANR science will be presented, that confirmed skeptics should consider upgrading their medical insurance, in case of headaches. === Sunday Tentative Schedule Sunday, June 21, 2009 9:AM 6:00 AM for LANR JET Energy R/D group) Technical Pre-Owned Buying Mart (Hamfest @MIT, Cambridge) *** You might pick up that magnetic flux-meter, vacuum deposition chamber, spectrophotometer, antique projecting teaching voltmeter, or ultra-cheap DIY cloning or digital system. Ham radios, too. Hamfest opens at 9 AM to public one block from where Colloquium is day before. If interested, we are going at 6 AM, and that requires prior reservation. Weather permitting (is rescheduled ahead one week if it rains). Sunday, June 21, 2009 12:00 noon Ongoing Arata Experiment (Field Trip, 30 miles @495) Space is limited - Requires prior reservation Experimental conditions permitting == (***) Possible Extra-Colloquium Activities for Visitors to Boston/Cambridge Red Sox Games
[Vo]:2009 LANR (CF) Colloquium at MIT (Topic Update)
Update on the 2009 LANR/Cold Fusion Advanced Colloquium at MIT on June 20, 2009 Saturday Website: http://world.std.com/~mica/colloq09.html 2009 Colloquium on Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions ** (LANR; Cold Fusion) will be held at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Cambridge, MA) on Saturday, June 20, 2009. Engineering in LANR (Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions; Cold Fusion) Nuclear Lattice Coupling (Phonons, Quantum Electrodynamics) Deuteron and Palladium Flow in Loading and Codeposition Coherent Scattering and D-Flow in Pd1-xDx Metamaterial-Altered Electric fields and Impact on D-Flow Active Applied Voltage in Tardive Thermal Power (TTP) Optimal Operating Point and TTP Operation Electrode Irradiation, Emissions Non-Thermal IR emission and Bremsstrahlung shift Roles of Additional Applied Fields, Materials Transmutation Efforts, Issues and Mechanisms CR-39 Pit Resolution Equation and Ongoing Forensic Methods Electronic Equilibrium and Build up in CR-39 and other Materials Experimental issues (limitations, def. input power, excess heat) Uncertainty Principle in Data Acquisition Energy Production and Energy Conversion Limitations IP and Ongoing Issues == (**)This Colloquium is part of the continuing Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) Colloquia series, conducted to increase scientific/engineering education in this field since '91. Space is limited. Advanced registration is required. Further details will be forthcoming. If interested in contributing, please contact: Dr. Mitchell Swartzm...@theworld.com orcolloqu...@cherrytechnology.com
[Vo]:LANR (CF) Colloquium
ANNOUNCEMENT: Cold Fusion Colloquium == The 2009 Advanced Colloquium on Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR) (=CF,LENR) (**) will be held at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Cambridge, MA) on Saturday, June 20, 2009. Topics: The Science and Technology of Lattice-assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR) involving Deuterated Metals, Engineering and Devices. Specifically, attempts will be made to cover the following: Continuum Electromechanics Impact on Loading and Codeposition, Electrode radiation and emission, Excess Heat Measurements, Phonon Theory, Quantum Electrodynamic Theory, Metamaterial Issues, Optimal Operating Point Operation, Tardive Thermal Power, LANR transmutation, LANR experimental issues and problems, Energy production and energy conversion, Update on patents and IP issues. Tentative Speakers: Mitchell Swartz Peter Hagelstein Larry Forsley Pam Boss Tom Claytor Scott Chubb John Thompson Brian Ahern == (**) This Colloquium is part of the continuing Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) Colloquia series, which have been conducted to increase scientific education in this field since 1991. Space is limited, and advanced registration is required. Further details will be forthcoming. If you are interested in attending, or an experimentalist interested in possibly contributing: Contact : Dr. Mitchell Swartzm...@theworld.com
Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion
At 12:38 AM 10/28/2008 +1100, Wesley Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jed, Another point you should consider including is that because America has failed to follow thorough on its own discovery and fund the research; other country's are also effected. Some countries have been actively discouraged from working in the field by American government employees; Huizenga on his Australian tour in the 1990's. If the technology becomes very significant but allies miss out because of the position the US government and its textbook authors took, it may prove to have very adverse effects on foreign relations. Its already tarnished the countries reputation as a scientific leader with those foreign researchers that know of its past erroneous analysis of the discovery. Excellent analysis and report. Thank you for sharing that P.O.V.
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
At 06:38 PM 10/25/2008 -0600, Edmund (Neutral potential) Stroms wrote: The infrequent success in CF can be explained if the required and rare catalyst is absent in most studies. This being the case, we need to search for this catalyst. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke [The Jargon File, Version 2.9.10, 01 Jul 1992 ] Those who have used engineering have done quite well in lattice assisted nuclear reactions (LANR, ie. CF).
[Vo]:LANR Colloquium update - (expanded hours)
The tentative schedule of the August 2007 Cold Fusion Colloquium on Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR) The Science and Technology of Deuterated Metals at MIT Date: Saturday, August 18, 2007 Title: Colloquium on the Physics, Electrical Engineering, and Material Science of Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reactions [cold fusion, LENR] Place: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA * Pre-registration required Tentative Lecture Schedule: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM [please note the expanded hours] Experimental Studies of Lattice-assisted Nuclear reactions Dr. Mitchell Swartz - Excess Heat Measurements in Deuterated Palladium Dr. Scott Chubb - Review of experimental presentations at ICCF13 (Sochi, Russia) Dr. Larry Forsley - Gamma emissions from CR39 Films near Codeposited Deuterated Palladium Dr. Mitchell Swartz - Optimal Operating Point Operation and Tardive Thermal Power in Deuterated Palladium Rick Cantwell - Loading Studies of Pressure Loaded Hydrided Metals Dr. Brian Ahern - Phenomena associated with Ultrahigh Loading Rates of Wires Theoretical Analyses of Lattice-assisted Nuclear reactions Prof. Peter Hagelstein - Phonon Theory Involving Deuterated Metals Dr. Michael Melich - Some thoughts on the creation of useful models of CMNS systems Dr. Scott Chubb - Symmetry and Finite Size in the Quantum Electrodynamics of Lattice-Assisted (d)-d fusion Dr. Talbot Chubb - Solid State Fusion in Deuterated Metals Business/IP Issues of Lattice-assisted Nuclear reactions Prof. Robert Rines -The Blockage of CF Patent Applications Other Lectures to be announced Tentative Group Discussions [Current RD issues, Intellectual Property]: Current Issues/problems in CR39, and other types of, recording devices Business Developments More Information (will be changed as developments follow): at url: http://world.std.com/~mica/colloq07.html
Re: [Vo]:Requesting comments to this comment
At 11:55 PM 7/21/2007 -0400, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote: 1) For example, even tonight, I observed that the papers of Dr. Ken Shoulders still are censored. Rothwell: Shoulders has never submitted a paper to me. As far as I know he has never written one about cold fusion. I do not think he or anyone else believes that his clusters have any connection with metal lattice cold fusion, although I gather he does believe they produce anomalous energy. With all due respect, this example of censorship at the Censored and Misnamed LENR-CANR site is deaf, dumb and blind or ... disingenuous. Why would ANYONE think Dr. Shoulders had never written one (a paper) about cold fusion? For example at ICCF-10, Dr. Shoulders gave a paper on Low Voltage Nuclear Transmutation. It was nice to see him there, and not nice to see his paper's title censored at the site which purported itself worldwide to represent ICCF-10. . Given the presence of Dr. Shoulders at the ICCF-10 meeting with a paper relevant to the field, the question arises: exactly why does Rothwell think Dr. Shoulders goes to the International Conferences on Cold Fusion, and gives papers there? Ken has been doing that for almost two decades. Was it for his work on digital signal processing? on transistor circuits? No and no. Conclusion: Jed Rothwell and his co-censors/sappers are now caught and hoisted in their own petard. --- Rothwell: ..., the purpose of LENR-CANR is to help bring about the widespread acceptance of cold fusion, to spur research in the field. My goal is to bring energy to starving people, and to prevent catastrophic global warming. If I could accomplish that goal by ruthlessly censoring papers, I would do so without hesitation. As it happens I have only censored 2 or 3 papers, but if I had to censor 10,000 for political reasons, I would do it. Given that penultimate admission that the Censored and Misnamed LENR-CANR site would indeed censor 10,000 papers for political reasons, there is only one thing possible left to say, and this would be: Conclusion: quod erat demonstrandum (QED).
Re: [Vo]:Requesting comments to this comment
At 08:04 AM 7/22/2007 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote: Storms: Since Swartz has once again brought up his obsession about censorship at LENR ... Projection and ad hominem. The ONLY obsession with censorship has been, and remains, from Ed Storms, himself. Rothwell even admitted that Storms has controlled the censorship at the (misnamed) LENR both in conversations and when he leaked it to vortex, to wit: From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 Furthermore, I have no editorial role in LENR-CANR. Ed and others make all decisions about what papers will be uploaded. All I do is OCR the papers and generate the indexes. So the 'obsession' with censorship, according to Rothwell, began with none other than Edmund Storms, himself. [In fact, Rothwell began this discussion, earlier in this thread, by impugning our engineering papers (again) which explained the error of the Rothwell 'kilowatt' that doomed the study of cold fusion in the early '90s.] As Dr. Mallove said, Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 Subject: Storms/Rothwell censorship From: Eugene F. Mallove [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is known as science by politics -- it is disgusting. Storms doesn't have leg to stand on and he knows it. - Gene Storms: The main issue in Swartz's complaint appears to involve Item #3. More untruth. There is no complaint, and most in the field no longer care about the past or continuing censorship, or even their evasions about it. Perhaps Dr. Storms ought consider stopping being disingenous about it, rather than blaming others for HIS myopia and/or need to censor. One last clarification. The issue was that until after the murder of Gene Mallove (~a year after ICCF10), Storms and Rothwell censored the TITLES of papers given at ICCF-10. This was already stated, and will not be discussed again. Titles of papers were censored in a site which purported to represents the community, and which claimed to represent ICCF-10. 5) This censorship was first noticed when Storms/Rothwell even censored the TITLES of papers by Dr. Bass, Dr. Shoulders and myself (and others) of papers given at ICCF-10. Even the titles -- while they advertised their site as representing ICCF-10. That was outrageous. Even the TITLES. They did not add the titles until long after Dr. Mallove was murdered. As said before, over and over, for the record, I support, and have always supported, the right of Rothwell and Storms to do this because it is their choice, even if it has been counterproductive to the interests and good will of the general cold fusion community. Dr. Mitchell Swartz
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR papers must be in text Acrobat format
At 04:20 PM 7/21/2007 -0400, you wrote: Michel Jullian wrote: Let's pretend for a minute that both sides in this dispute are in good faith: - Jed understandably prefers text because it allows indexing and searching. - Mitchell understandably prefers raw scanned images because they are more faithful to the original document. I doubt that is the reason he prefers raw scanned images. If it was, he would upload the raw scanned image to his own web page, wouldn't he? Anyway there was nothing faithful about the image he sent me. It was badly scanned. The figures were distorted and the text was difficult to read. I told Swartz to send me a printed copy and I would make a decent scan of the figures. Also, there were two or three spelling mistakes, which I was planning to correct, so it would have been better than the printed version. This dispute has nothing to do with the format of the papers. Swartz does not want to upload his papers anywhere, in any format: not at his own web site, not at LENR-CANR, ISCMNS.org, not in Acrobat format, not in a scanned image. There are 2 or 3 other cold fusion authors who do not wish to make their papers available on line. That's okay with me. I never upload anything without permission. What sets Swartz apart from these others is: 1. He is more vehement. He he told me that if I uploaded one he would sue me. Not that I ever would! 2. He pretends that I am persecuting him by refusing to upload. The OCR function built in Acrobat Professional (Document Recognize text using OCR) does just that, and is in my experience sufficiently Hi Fi, even without correcting the few inevitable OCR mistakes(*) . . . I have had bad results with this. To be blunt, I have been a tech writer and editor for 30+ years and I am not going upload crappy-looking, third-generation copies of documents. That's unprofessional. I have no say over the content of these papers, but I am not going to be associated with amateur presentations, spelling errors, and blurry, sideways figures! It takes little effort to OCR most papers. People download thousands of copies of a paper, so we should take the trouble to present it properly, without OCR errors or blurry figures. The paper Swartz sent me was short and it could be prepared in an hour or two. If Swartz does not think it worth an hour of his time to clean up a paper for an audience of 300,000 people per year, then I think he has no respect for his readers. I gave Swartz a list of reasons why I insist on the text Acrobat format. He did not respond. Note that other websites nowadays, including all professional journals and Arxiv.org, insist on text Acrobat format. I think cold fusion researchers should at least try to look as professional as other scientists. I might have published the list of reasons here before, but here it is again. 1. It looks more professional and neat. Like it or not, readers often judge the quality of a paper or web site by neatness. They will not even read a paper that looks messy. 2. Image files are difficult for many people to read, and large, and unwieldy. Many of our readers in Russia, China, the Middle East and elsewhere must use slow connections. Scientists in Iran and Russia have such difficulty, they sometimes ask before a CD-ROM copy of the system (which I am happy to provide). 3. Google and the other search tools will not properly index an image Acrobat paper. The hybrid image-text format is even worse. Most of our readers come via Google, Yahoo and the other search tools, so we must make the papers visible to them, and correctly indexed. 4. They are compatible with tools used by disabled people, such as voice output, vision enhancement, Braille output, and special cursor controls. Since I am a mildly disabled person myself, I am acutely aware of how important this is. (For anyone who has trouble controlling a cursor -- as I do -- image files are a damn nuisance to view and scroll through. I can do it with my special office gadgets and gigantic screen, but I would never bother with an ordinary computer. There are countless web sites I will not bother to look at because of problems like this.) 5. Text Acrobat files are compatible with electronic dictionaries and translation tools. Many of our readers are outside of the US, and many are not native speakers of English so I expect they use electronic dictionaries to look up words. I often do this with papers in Japanese. 6. Text format makes it much easier to look up references and quote text. 7. Text format allows important electronic content enhancements such as hyperlinks, contextual information, rejuvenation and so on. See: http://arxiv.org/help/faq/whytex I think these advantages far outweigh the minor imposition of having to spend a few hours converting a paper back into a machine readable format. Of course it is best to preserve the original machine readable files in the first place. -
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR papers must be in text Acrobat format
At 04:20 PM 7/21/2007 -0400, disingenous Jed Rothwell wrote: Michel Jullian wrote: Let's pretend for a minute that both sides in this dispute are in good faith: - Jed understandably prefers text because it allows indexing and searching. - Mitchell understandably prefers raw scanned images because they are more faithful to the original document. I doubt that is the reason he prefers raw scanned images. If it was, he would upload the raw scanned image to his own web page, wouldn't he? What utter complete nonsense. The reason we wanted the papers posted, and were willing to let Rothwell scan the abstract only, is that Jed Rothwell simply cannot be trusted to be accurate and precise in his translations. We have seen him mistranslate 'cathode' for 'anode', and make other errors over the years. He simply neither 'cares', nor understands the importance of accuracy in this matter. -- Anyway there was nothing faithful about the image he sent me. It was badly scanned. The figures were distorted and the text was difficult to read. I told Swartz to send me a printed copy and I would make a decent scan of the figures. Also, there were two or three spelling mistakes, which I was planning to correct, so it would have been better than the printed version. More Rothwell falsehoods. Rothwell (and Storms) were given complete copies of the papers, including by mail, and by CDROM, and by email, as readers of vortex and CMNS (and those who received identical copies as test issues) know, but Rothwell has elected (as we have said they have the right to do) to keep them censored, just as they have censored others, such as the good works of Ken Shoulders, and previously Bob Bass. The single case to which Rothwell refers was test, done with Dr. Brian Josephson, to see if Rothwell would accept being able to OCR only the abstract. He refused and demanded to scan the entire paper (and screw it up as he does to others). That is not acceptable. Anyone who has ever taken the time to correct Rothwell knows that such an effort is unfortunately a serious waste of time.
Re: [Vo]:Requesting comments to this comment
At 02:26 PM 7/20/2007 -0400, disingenous Jed Rothwell wrote: Swartz I do not understand, except for his comments about flow calorimetry, which are wrong. Continuum electromechanics and engineering may be foreign to Jed Rothwell, but they are not wrong. Our papers demonstrated that Rothwell was frankly inept in his calorimetry of the Patterson beads, to wit: by him falsely and deliberately claiming a kilowatt, through the use of vertical flow calorimetry while simultaneously refusing to use a thermal control. In fact, as was discussed at the time on spf, the evidence was that there was nothing like a kilowatt of excess heat. Result: The field was hurt by Rothwell's uncalibrated nonsense. Patterson got a half watt of excess heat which was remarkable, and there was no need for Rothwell to purport it was a 'kilowatt'. In the end, people looked for a kilowatt, and walked away when it was not there, thus ending Patterson and Motorola's input. This systematic error was a result of the vertical flow calorimetry, and has to do with Bernard instability, which like other concepts, Rothwell is oblivious to. Rothwell ignored the correction, downplayed the result, impugned the work, and has kept the papers which demonstrate how to do correct flow calorimetry off the LENR site. The second paragraph above is the real reason for the censorship and Jed's putdowns of of a semiquantitive technique which would have led to a more accurate result. For those who are interested in science, rather than Rothwell's uncalibrated nonsense, the papers are: Swartz, M, Improved Calculations Involving Energy Release Using a Buoyancy Transport Correction, Journal of New Energy, 1, 3, 219-221 (1996), and Swartz, M, Potential for Positional Variation in Flow Calorimetric Systems, Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130 (1996), and Swartz. M.., Patterns of Failure in Cold Fusion Experiments, Proceedings of the 33RD Intersociety Engineering Conference on Energy Conversion, IECEC-98-I229, Colorado Springs, CO, August 2-6, (1998) . As to the rest of his crap and continual put downs, I will not respond except to say that when Rothwell was given the papers in pdf form of images (so that he could not misedit them), he and Storms elected (to this day) to censor them. In fact, they would not even list the papers were delivered at ICCF10 orally (including an open demonstation for a week) until more than a year later, after Dr. Mallove was murdered. We have said before that it their right to keep the misnamed LENR site censored and to pick whatever papers they want, but in the end as regards flow calorimetry and the science involved, it is Jed Rothwell who was, and is, wrong.
Re: [Vo]:Requesting comments to this comment
Swartz has repeatedly accursed me of censoring his work. This is simply not true. In fact, several weeks ago, Mitchell called me and during this conversation I assured him that if he sent me his papers in a useable format, I would see that they were placed on the website. In addition, Jed and I both have made this promise several times in the past. Nevertheless, as yet, I have not received the papers even though various people on Vortex have also suggested Swartz provide the papers. I can only conclude that Swartz gets some satisfaction by accusing Jed and I of censorship and does not wish to end this false accusation. Hopefully, this subject will not waste any more time. Dear Edmund, There are many untruths in your above statements (vide infra). Censorship at the misnamed LENR site is longstanding, and no-one gets any satisfaction as the two of you impair the community. Science is based upon truth and full reporting, Ed. 1) For example, even tonight, I observed that the papers of Dr. Ken Shoulders still are censored. What a shame. His work is incredibly important. Proof: Sankaranarayanan Savvatimova Scaramuzzi Schreiber Schwinger Shamoo Shanahan Shrikhande Shyam Spallone Srinivasan Storms Stringham Szpak 2) Rothwell has already admitted censorship. At 10:45 AM 8/23/2004, Jed Rothwell wrote to vortex admitting to censoring, but then purported it was for political reasons, such as not to upset some of his critics (ROTFLOL) so he will not get hit with by a baseball bat (given) to Robert Park. Rothwell: I will not hand a baseball bat to Robert Park and ask him to please hit me over the head with it! It is a shame that CF is so political, but it is, and we must pay attention to politics, image and public relations. 3) This is quite consistent when compared to the definition, after Webster: censor - to subject to censorship; an official who reads communications and deletes forbidden material. 4) Hence, Dr. Mallove, Mr. Webster, and the other were all correct. == from the late beloved Dr. Eugene Mallove= Subject: Storms/Rothwell censorship = Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 Subject: Storms/Rothwell censorship From: Eugene F. Mallove [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mitch, FYI -- this was a message that Rothwell posted to Vortex about a month ago: At LENR-CANR.org we have censored out some of the controversial claims related to CF, such as transmuting macroscopic amounts of gold, or biological transmutations, along with some of the extremely unconventional theories. This is not because we (Storms and Rothwell) oppose these claims, or because we are upset by them. It is for political reasons only. The goal of LENR-CANR is to convince mainstream scientists that CF is real. This goal would be hampered by presenting such extreme views. Actually, I have no opinion about most theories, and I could not care less how weird the data may seem. At the Scientific American and the APS they feel hostility toward such things. They have a sense that publishing such data will harm their readers and sully the traditions and reputation of academic science. I am not a member of the congregation at the Church of Academic Science, and I could not care less about the Goddess Academia's Sacred Reputation. I don't publish because of politics and limited web space. - Jed This is known as science by politics -- it is disgusting. Storms doesn't have leg to stand on and he knows it. - Gene = end of missive === 5) This censorship was first noticed when Storms/Rothwell even censored the TITLES of papers by Dr. Bass, Dr. Shoulders and myself (and others) of papers given at ICCF-10. Even the titles -- while they advertised their site as representing ICCF-10. That was outrageous. Even the TITLES. They did not add the titles until long after Dr. Mallove was murdered. 6) Despite, Edmunds putative claim that he never got the papers as discussed in or about August 2004, it was clear that Jed got the papers on pdf and other formats. Jed waited for Ed Storms' approval. Jed and Storms also got the papers by mail on hard-copy print. Jed waited for Ed Storms' approval. It never came. Jed got the papers in hand at Gene's funeral. Jed waited for Ed Storms' approval. Jed later got the papers by CD-ROM, and I doubt he had trouble since we discussed the papers on the telephone AND since no one else who received the CDROM had trouble. Jed waited for Ed Storms' approval. 7) Documenting and admitting that the two of them are involved in this, attention is directed to: From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 Furthermore, I have no editorial role in LENR-CANR. Ed and others make all decisions about what papers will be uploaded. All I do is OCR the papers and generate the indexes. - Jed 8) For the record, I support, and have always supported, the right of Rothwell and you to do this because
[Vo]:LANR Colloquium update (more expt'l papers)
The tentative schedule of the August 2007 Cold Fusion Colloquium on Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR) The Science and Technology of Deuterated Metals at MIT continues to develop. Date: Saturday, August 18, 2007 Title: Colloquium on the Physics, Electrical Engineering, and Material Science of Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reactions [cold fusion, LENR] Place: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA * Pre-registration required Tentative Lecture Schedule: 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM Experimental Studies of Lattice-assisted Nuclear reactions Dr. Mitchell Swartz - Excess Heat Measurements in Deuterated Palladium Dr. Scott Chubb - Review of experimental presentations at ICCF13 (Sochi, Russia) Dr. Melvin Miles - Calorimetry in Excess Heat Measurements in Deuterated Palladium Alloys Dr. Larry Forseley- Gamma emissions from CR39 Films near Codeposited Deuterated Palladium Dr. Mitchell Swartz - Optimal Operating Point Operation and Tardive Thermal Power in Deuterated Palladium Rick Cantwell - Loading Studies of Pressure Loaded Hydrided Metals Dr. Brian Ahern - Phenomena associated with Ultrahigh Loading Rates of Tungsten Wires Theoretical Analyses of Lattice-assisted Nuclear reactions Prof. Peter Hagelstein - Phonon Theory Involving Deuterated Metals Dr. Mitchell Swartz - Continuum Electromechanical Approach to Lattice-assisted Fusion Dr. Scott Chubb - Symmetry and Finite Size in the Quantum Electrodynamics of Lattice-Assisted (d)-d fusion Dr. Talbot Chubb - Solid State Fusion in Deuterated Metals Other Lectures to be announced Tentative Group Discussions [Intellectual Property, Business Development, RD issues]: --- Obstruction at the US Patent Office Business Developments Current Issues/problems in CR39, and other types of, recording devices More Information (will be changed as developments follow): at url: http://world.std.com/~mica/colloq07.html
RE: [Vo]:The Twilight Experience
At 01:04 PM 7/14/2007 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: William Beaty wrote: And whatever did happen with the CETI/Patterson-cell investors, staff, management, etc.? I head different things about the Patterson cell. Gene Mallove told me that it did, in fact, STOP WORKING when they ran out of the beads that were manufactured in the 1960s. Patterson told me that wasn't true, and he could make more beads any time. On the other hand he did not produce any more working cells as far as I know. What happened to his staff and management is well known, and tragic. His grandson, Jim Redding, was running CETI. He dropped dead one day after playing tennis. I guess it was a heart attack. He was still in his 40s. Patterson lost heart, and I do not think he pursued the invention much after that. He was old back then. I do not know if he is still alive. Fortunately, Dr. Patterson is still alive. The Patterson cell was set up deliberately in a vertical flow system which created large false postive levels of excess heat. I know from speaking to those who did the experiments at that time, that the levels of excess heat decreased when horizontal flow was (correctly) used.THAT proves the importance of Bernard instability in this matter. This has been extensively discussed in Swartz, M, Improved Calculations Involving Energy Release Using a Buoyancy Transport Correction, Journal of New Energy, 1, 3, 219-221 (1996) and Swartz, M, Potential for Positional Variation in Flow Calorimetric Systems, Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130 (1996), and Swartz. M.., Patterns of Failure in Cold Fusion Experiments, Proceedings of the 33RD Intersociety Engineering Conference on Energy Conversion, IECEC-98-I229, Colorado Springs, CO, August 2-6, (1998). These papers show the error of a vertical flow system, and how to correct the false positive results which result from Bernard instability, so that the actual excess heat can be calculated in a semiquantitative fashion, thus avoiding said error. The upcoming MIT colloquium [which continues to grow in its presenters] will have have at least two presentations on calorimetry, and if there is more interest, perhaps this problem and its solution will be briefly discussed then. Hope that helps. Dr. Mitchell Swartz
RE: [Vo]:The Twilight Experience
At 03:25 PM 7/14/2007 -0400, you wrote: Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote: The Patterson cell was set up deliberately in a vertical flow system which created large false postive levels of excess heat. I don't think so. A couple of questions about this hypothesis: Why did this artifact sometimes produce heat, but not at other times? Jed, Even if active materials are used, failiure to operate them at the optimal operating point, results in failure and/or irreproducibility. This was discussed in Swartz. M., Control of Low Energy Nuclear Systems through Loading and Optimal Operating Points, ANS/ 2000 International Winter Meeting, Nov. 12-17, 2000, Washington, D.C. (2000), and Swartz. M., Generality of Optimal Operating Point Behavior in Low Energy Nuclear Systems, Journal of New Energy, 4, 2, 218-228 (1999), and Swartz. M., G. Verner, A. Frank, H. Fox Importance of Non-dimensional Numbers and Optimal Operating Points in Cold Fusion, Journal of New Energy, 4, 2, 215-217 (1999), and Swartz, M, Optimal Operating Point Characteristics of Nickel Light Water Experiments, Proceedings of ICCF-7 (1998), and Swartz. M., Consistency of the Biphasic Nature of Excess Enthalpy in Solid State Anomalous Phenomena with the Quasi-1-Dimensional Model of Isotope Loading into a Material, Fusion Technology, 31, 63-74 (1997) . Why did it always produce heat with some cathode materials, but never with other materials? - Jed Nickel materials are very varied in activity, and one of the most difficult of materials to work with (compared to say, palladium in heavy water) to maintain production of excess heat with light water. Furthermore, other problems accrue because nickel undergoes metallurgical change upon loading leading to no excess heat in the changed materials (which also blacken as they become inactive). We presented ervidence of these material changes in Swartz. M., The Impact of Heavy Water (D2O) on Nickel-Light Water Cold Fusion Systems, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Cold Fusion (Condensed Matter Nuclear Science), Beijing, China, Xing Z. Li, pages 335-342. May (2002). Hope that helps. Dr. Mitchell Swartz
[Vo]:LANR Colloquium update
The LANR (LENR,CF) scientific meeting on August 18, 2007 which will be held at at MIT continues to develop. Below is the present tentative schedule of the scientific meeting. At least one or two other topics are being discussed, planned and might be posted in the next update. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz This is the tentative schedule of the August 2007 Cold Fusion Colloquium on Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR) The Science and Technology of Deuterated Metals at MIT Date: Saturday, August 18, 2007 Title: Colloquium on the Physics, Electrical Engineering, and Material Science of Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reactions [cold fusion, LENR] Place: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA Pre-registration required Tentative Lecture Schedule: 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM Experimental Studies of Lattice-assisted Nuclear reactions Dr. Mitchell Swartz - Excess Heat Measurements for Deuterated Palladium Phusor Devices Dr. Scott Chubb - Review of experimental presentations at ICCF13 (Sochi, Russia) Dr. Larry Forseley- Gamma emissions from CR39 Films near Co-deposited Deuterated Palladium Dr. Mitchell Swartz - Optimal Operating Point Operation and Tardive Thermal Power in Deuterated Palladium Rick Cantwell - Loading Studies of Pressure Loaded Hydrided Metals Dr. Brian Ahern - Phenomena associated with Ultrahigh Loading Rates of Tungsten Wires Theoretical Analyses of Lattice-assisted Nuclear reactions Prof. Peter Hagelstein - Phonon Theory Involving Deuterated Metals Dr. Mitchell Swartz - Continuum Electromechanical Approach to Lattice-assisted Fusion Dr. Scott Chubb - Symmetry and Finite Size in the Quantum Electrodynamics of Lattice-Assisted (d)-d fusion Dr. Talbot Chubb - Solid State Fusion in Deuterated Metals Prof. Alan Widom- Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces Other Lectures to be announced Tentative Group Discussions [Intellectual Property, Business Development, RD issues]: --- Obstruction at the US Patent Office Business Developments Current Issues/problems in CR39, and other types of, recording devices Coffee/Continental Breakfast 8:30 AM Lunch: 12:30 - 1:30 PM Afternoon Group Lectures and Discussion : 1:30 PM - 4:30 PM == More Information (will be changed as developments follow): at url: http://world.std.com/~mica/colloq07.html Hosted by: Dr. Mitchell Swartz and Prof. Peter Hagelstein For upcoming pre-registration material for the Saturday lecture Colloquium (limited seating) send email (Subject Colloquium) to Science Coordinator: Dr. Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] =
[Vo]:LANR (CF,LENR) Colloquium
This is the first Announcement regarding a 2007 Cold Fusion Colloquium on Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR) The Science and Technology of Deuterated Metals Date: Saturday, August 18, 2007 Title: Colloquium on the Physics, Electrical Engineering, and Material Science of Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reactions [cold fusion, LENR] Place: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA Pre-registration required Hosted by: Dr. Mitchell Swartz and Prof. Peter Hagelstein Preliminary Tentative Lecture Schedule: 9:30 AM - 2:30 PM Other Lectures to be announced Prof. Peter Hagelstein - New Theory Involving Deuterated Metals Dr. Mitchell Swartz - Excess Heat Measurements in Deuterated Palladium Prof. Alan Widom- Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces Dr. Brian Ahern - Phenomena associated with Ultrahigh Loading Rates of Wires Lunch: 12:30 - 1:30 Afternoon Group Discussion : 2:30 PM - 4:30 PM More Information (will be changed as developments follow): at url: http://world.std.com/~mica/colloq07.html For upcoming pre-registration material for the Saturday lecture Colloquium (limited seating) send email (Subject Colloquium) to Science Coordinator: Dr. Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Atmospheric Gases
At 05:23 PM 4/24/2007 -0400, you wrote: On 4/24/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This reminds me of the idiotic comment by Michael Crichton that Terry Blanton quoted here in 2005: I'm just trying to understand the mechanism. The albedo of the earth reflects multispectrum light back into the atmosphere. How many photons are re-reflected by an additional 80 ppm of CO2? I'm working on a calculation; but, the atmospheric density is a gradient and I hate calculus. More later, maybe. :-) Terry
Re: [Vo]:Atmospheric Gases
At 05:23 PM 4/24/2007 -0400, Terry wrote: On 4/24/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This reminds me of the idiotic comment by Michael Crichton that Terry Blanton quoted here in 2005: I'm just trying to understand the mechanism. The albedo of the earth reflects multispectrum light back into the atmosphere. How many photons are re-reflected by an additional 80 ppm of CO2? I'm working on a calculation; but, the atmospheric density is a gradient and I hate calculus. Perhaps this will help deconvolving this issue; with the first useful for your impending integral calculus calculations. - IR DATA: img src=http://melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/picture1s.jpgP TIME LINE GW DATA: img src=http://home.earthlink.net/~a_geezer/Climate/Image2.gifP img src=http://home.earthlink.net/~a_geezer/Climate/Image5.gifP img src=http://aycu15.webshots.com/image/4254/2003253592012895950_rs.jpgP img src=http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/images/nty-timeline.gifP
Re: [Vo]: PLEASE ....Taleyarkhan
At 02:24 AM 7/1/2006 -0400, you wrote: Dear Vo., Who is Taleyarkhan and what is-are the work related to the person. Can anyone provide a simple lay person note on the topic? Further: Can anyone provide a BBGB of the basic work or theory? AND: Can ANY Vo provide a general BBGB for reports of work from the best of the modicum of the last 1 to 5 years of real world work ANYONE has reported that may indicate a useful energy conversion method or methodolgies? Hmmm ? Is this ..uh... to difficult a question? You can find many links to him, his work, and his detractors, and this debate at the COLD FUSION TIMES web site. Cold Fusion Times http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html The journal of the scientific aspects of loading isotopic fuels into materials ISSN# 1072-2874
Re: [Vo]: Re: Bellowing about thermoacoustics(and cf)
At 02:49 PM 6/24/2006 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote: Hi Jones, Actually, my approach is just the opposite of idealism. If we could make a CF cell work well enough to make a practical demonstration, we would not be having this discussion because the effect would be demonstrated, whether we understood the effect or not. If you, Ed, practiced actually making demonstrations at International meetings as other groups have done, undoubtedly you would learn more. In retrospect, the late Gene Mallove's pushing us to do so for ICCF-10 was very important. We miss him. --- We can not make this demonstration simply because we do not understand the effect well enough to make it work on demand at high level. How would we get such information? The complete, uncensored, literature is a good first place to start. The Proceedings of the international meetings is a good second place. -- We do not need to know everything, we only need to know how to make the effect work. What part of this knowledge would you leap frog? By the way, this was not the issue with the steam engine and ignorance about thermodynamics. Regards, Ed We (in the general sense) do know quite a bit about making cold fusion work. -- Well Jones, I suggest you are starting with a false assumption. Calorimetry is considered proof in every other field and in every other application. Good calorimetry, i.e. that which can not be questioned by a rational person, can be done and has been done in the LENR field. Granted, a lot of poor calorimetry also has been done. However, just because a few efforts are incompetent does not mean all observations are wrong. Otherwise most beliefs in science would have to be rejected. The doubt occurs simply because scientists can not bring themselves to believe an idea that is at odds with accepted theory. Add the Myth provided by the press, and it is a wonder anyone believes the claims. You are asking for a practical device before the basic process is understood. Basic processes are always investigated using laboratory style apparatus, which is always inefficient. This would be like asking a person to investigate how a transistor worked only after a practical transistor had been made. If a transistor (or a diode) were not made, it would be impossible to investigate it. On the other hand, a simple galena-wire junction acting as a diode would suffice, too. - Also, it is a waste of time to speculate how CF can be applied or coupled to energy convertors before the process is understood. Actually, after more than 18 years of science, it appears that engineering may now have one of the biggest roles in cold fusion today. Jones is correct. Consistent with that, locally we have begun looking for an engineer and a designer with specialized skills. -- People have to acknowledge CF is real but we have no idea how or why it works. Regards, Ed Actually, It does not matter if people acknowledge CF, and most importantly, we have good ideas of how and why it works. Dr. Mitchell Swartz JET Energy = Cold Fusion Timeshttp://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html The journal of the scientific aspects of loading isotopic fuels into materials ISSN# 1072-2874 JET Energy http://world.std.com/~mica/jet.html Working for Safe and More Efficient Heat Products to Serve You
Re: [Vo]: Bellowing about thermoacoustics
At 05:04 PM 6/24/2006 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: Jones Beene wrote: But because of the lack of universal standards and other vagaries in calorimetry . . . As Storms noted, calorimetry is the basis of a large part of modern science technology. It is, in fact, the universal standard in a wide range of such chemistry, nuclear reactions and in many industries. It is not at all vague; it has been a science since the 1840s. It was an established science well before that. As discussed in detail elsewhere, Lavoisier measured the difference in specific heat between venous and arterial blood in animals and (correctly) deduced that the blood was binding oxygen. He gave the gas its name in his paper, circa 1777 (if memory serves, it has been a while since I read it). Some skeptics have raised objections to the high quality calorimetry in cold fusion, but their objections have no merit. For the low quality work, I could point to lot more real problems than they do. They know so little about CF, they do not even know what is wrong with it. The problems in calorimetry have less to do with cold fusion per se, than about how some calorimetry is often used, without calibration, or using flow in a vertical direction where Bernard instability effects the observed output. Some relevant papers are: Swartz, M., Potential for Positional Variation in Flow Calorimetric Systems, Journal of New Energy 1,1, 126-130 (1996) (*) Swartz, M, Improved Calculations Involving Energy Release Using a Buoyancy Transport Correction, Journal of New Energy, 1, 3, 219-221 (1996) Swartz, M., Relative Impact of Thermal Stratification of the Air Surrounding a Calorimeter, Journal of New Energy, 2, 219-221 (1996) Swartz, M., Time Course of Thermal Stratification and Its Relevance to Flow Calorimeters, Journal of New Energy, 4, 4, 120-125, (2000). -- I do not think anyone knows how to produce a CF reliably enough for a self-powered device. No conversion method would work, because cells produce only a fraction of a watt. Larger cells have been made but they are very dangerous because the reaction cannot be controlled. Higher temperatures are also effective but dangerous. Many many errors in a few sentences; most previously corrected. Dr. Mitchell Swartz JET Energy = Cold Fusion Timeshttp://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html The journal of the scientific aspects of loading isotopic fuels into materials ISSN# 1072-2874 JET Energy http://world.std.com/~mica/jet.html Working for Safe and More Efficient Heat Products to Serve You
Re: Hot fusion little-known secret
At 03:15 PM 5/31/2006 -0400, you wrote: Steven Krivit wrote: According to three of my sources in the hot fusion field, (the spokesman for PPPL, a plasma physicist at General Atomics, and someone working in the public relations office of EFDA-JET) none, repeat, none have produced excess energy. Greatest Q= 0.67 was at JET I suppose it depends upon how you define excess energy. In all cases the reactor is hotter than it would be if there were no reaction going on inside it. Q=0.67 indicates that the heat from the nuclear reaction is 67% of the input power. Evidently they are defining excess as nuclear power output exceeding total input electric power. By that standard, a cold fusion cell producing 30% of input power has a Q=0.3 and no excess, but we still call it excess heat. Few cold fusion cells have had a Q1.0. It would be easy to increase the Q by reducing input power, using conventional electrochemical techniques such as moving the anode and cathode closer together. People have not done that because there is no point. A Q-value is defined as, The amount of energy released in a nuclear reaction, by the way. - Jed This is incorrect on several levels. First, assuming Q is the ratio of heat released to the input energy, if there is less than 100% heat for input energy as (V*I)*t (or power * time), then there is NO (zero, zed, nada) excess heat. Our open MIT demonstration at ICCF10 had Q = ~2.7 (or an output of about 270% of the input energy), and this was shown during the week of the open demonstration to be dependent upon the precise system operation within the optimal operating point manifold. Second, changing electrode dimensions will not necessarily change Q. The way to change Q is by the methods of cold fusion engineering, several of which we have discussed in several papers including Swartz. M., G. Verner, Excess Heat from Low Electrical Conductivity Heavy Water Spiral-Wound Pd/D2O/Pt and Pd/D2O-PdCl2/Pt Devices, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Proceedings of ICCF-10, eds. Peter L. Hagelstein, Scott, R. Chubb, World Scientific Publishing, NJ, ISBN 981-256-564-6, Pages 29-44 (2006) and Swartz. M., Photoinduced Excess Heat from Laser-Irradiated Electrically-Polarized Palladium Cathodes in D2O, ICCF-10 (Camb. MA), Proceedings of ICCF-10, (2003) , and Swartz. M., The Impact of Heavy Water (D2O) on Nickel-Light Water Cold Fusion Systems, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Cold Fusion (Condensed Matter Nuclear Science), Beijing, China, Xing Z. Li, pages 335-342. May (2002), and Swartz. M., Control of Low Energy Nuclear Systems through Loading and Optimal Operating Points, ANS/ 2000 International Winter Meeting, Nov. 12-17, 2000, Washington, D.C. (2000), and Swartz. M.., Patterns of Failure in Cold Fusion Experiments, Proceedings of the 33RD Intersociety Engineering Conference on Energy Conversion, IECEC-98-I229, Colorado Springs, CO, August 2-6, (1998), and Swartz. M., Consistency of the Biphasic Nature of Excess Enthalpy in Solid State Anomalous Phenomena with the Quasi-1-Dimensional Model of Isotope Loading into a Material, Fusion Technology, 31, 63-74 (1997), and Swartz, M., Isotopic Fuel Loading Coupled To Reactions At An Electrode, Fusion Technology, 26, 4T, 74-77 (1994), and Swartz, M., Quasi-One-Dimensional Model of Electrochemical Loading of Isotopic Fuel into a Metal, Fusion Technology, 22, 2, 296-300 (1992), and of course the recent presentation, and the recent papers including Swartz, M., G. Verner, Dual Ohmic Controls Improve Understanding of Heat after Death Transactions, American Nuclear Society, vol. 93, ISSN 93 1-988, 891-892 (2005). Hope that clarifies and helps, because the future of successful cold fusion systems will be controlled by engineering. Dr. Mitchell Swartz
Re: Cold fusion advocates should put up or shut up
At 07:29 AM 5/29/2006 -0400, Walter Faxxon wrote: Cold fusion advocates should put up or shut up. Below I referenced the James Randi Educational Foundation One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge. Surely after 17 years of research there should now be a way to produce an absolutely bulletproof demonstration of cold fusion for these guys. Or some other experiment showing nuclear effects at chemical energies, the hallmark of CF. Never mind the technical complications. Every problem can be worked out if you're willing to actually do the work, in consultation with Randi's reps. If you are convinced you can demonstrate cold fusion you can then take a loan on your house for equipment with the certain knowledge that the prize money will cover it all, even after taxes. With a little left over for a vacation to escape the press. Cold fusion needs a hero. Instead of complaining that Nature won't consider your paper, take THEIR hero Randi's million bucks! I may hear some excuses on this list. But I'm betting I'll instead hear nothing. -Walter First, Cold Fusion researchers have been putting up with vicious unsubstantiated attacks for 17 years from the likes of Randi, Park and the Editor of Nature. And even in that light these cold fusion researchers have developed highly improved systems, many of which have been reported at the COLD FUSION TIMES web-site (1) and elsewhere. Second, Randi is an apparent magician, from a profession that uses tricks to fool people. By contrast, cold fusion is a science, where experiments test hypotheses. Scientists and engineers should never lower themselves to the level of a magician or trickster. Third, the so-called challenge is for a test of the paranormal, and as stated above, real scientists know that cold fusion is science and engineering, and not paranormal by definition as your recent missive states, Randi the magician declares. This difference of science vs. paranormal would be used by Randi as an excuse not to pay up. Most importantly, Randi the magician uses his web-site to demean Dr. Mallove, even after his murder. Using quotes from the unhinged Bob Park (2), Randi's website states (3), COLD FUSION: J... The Department of Energy (DOE) recently announced that cold fusion research will be reviewed, and believers imagined they'd been vindicated. Wilson says Eugene Mallove of Infinite Energy Magazine assured him that the experimental evidence for cold fusion is too compelling for DOE to ignore. Mallove couldn't be reached for comment. Couldn't be reached for comment? This was written after the brutal murder of Dr. Mallove two years ago, which was widely publicized, and which both Randi and Park knew about when this odious statement that Mallove couldn't be reached for comment was written, three months after Dr. Mallove murder (4). Therefore, both Randi and Park, by using such a low level attack on a murdered individual --whom they knew was murdered-- owe Dr. Mallove's family and the entire cold fusion community, apologies for each which should be forthcoming before anyone of conscience has anything to do with either of them. === 1) COLD FUSION TIMES website http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html 2) Tom Valone's 6-year, cold fusion, IRI and COFE-centered, arbitration battle with the USPTO and others who have worked to destroy the development of cold fusion in the United States led to a decision [obtainable at the COLD FUSION TIMES web-site]. From the Decision: What there is evidence of is harassment, or bad faith, malice or provocation on the part of others involved in the matter, and it came in bundles. The activities and motives of Park and Zimmerman have been extensively recounted and explained, and with regard to the cancellation of grievant's State Department, Secretary's Open Forum presentation, deplorable. The malice shown by Park in his solely economic driven campaign to block any of the nontraditional scientists from receiving recognition by any government agency as having an idea worthy of a slice of government RD funding may be a point of pride within the APS. But to an outsider who champions free and open exploration of any scientific thought, no matter how far out on the fringe, his conduct is outrageous. The worth of a new idea is to be determined in the democratic and open arena of competing thoughts, and not blocked from the arena by the greedy economic self-interest of those already in the limelight. Seemingly lost on those with control over slicing the government pie who are persuaded by the relentless drumbeat of the Parks and Zimmermans, is that those questing for free energy, whether through cold fusion or by way of some other emerging technology, may be similar to the alchemists of centuries back who never turned base metals into gold, but were the forerunners of modern chemistry, got the Periodic Table of Elements off to a start, and
Re: Cold fusion advocates should put up or shut up
At 10:37 AM 5/29/2006 -0400, Walter Faxxon wrote: Mitchell Swartz wrote: Scientists and engineers should never lower themselves to the level of a magician or trickster. ...etc...etc...etc... Yay! I was right! I'm hearing excuses! Excuses just like the TV psychics use! Please consider cooling off, reading the Challenge rules and doing some thinking about how to show Randi up. Fulminating here won't impress many people. -Walter We gave an open demonstration at MIT of cold fusion for a week during ICCF-10 in August 2003. Apparently the pathologic skeptics, like yourself, were either afraid, or too busy, to show up. http://world.std.com/~mica/jeticcf10demo.html The rest of my comments stand, albeit ignored by you. Dr. Mitchell Swartz
Re: OFF TOPIC Doonsbury features calorimetry
At 12:02 PM 5/10/2006 -0400, you wrote: And Cornell! See: http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html It's not often you see Thevenin and Norton equivalences in a comic strip. - Jed Actually, the Doonsbury cartoon is flawed and incorrect. Despite what the cartoon states, since the current source (Norton equivalent) has a resistor, the fact is that BOTH Thevenin and Norton circuits have internal resistors. [Also, this internal impedance is often not considered in cold fusion circuits (as we have pointed out for quite a while). The presence of an internal equivalent resistor in the power supply (and in both equivalent circuits) can be seen in any EE or Ham radio book, or on the web, for example at http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/mastascu/eLessonsHTML/Source/Source2.html Thus, what should have been stated is that the in open circuit mode, there will be current flowing through resistor across the current source in the Norton equivalent causing it to be warmer. FWIW, the resistor is merely heating from dissipation, and that is not really calorimetry, either, which would have required calibration. Mitchell Swartz
Record Set for Hottest Temperature on Earth: 3.6 Billion Degrees
Record Set for Hottest Temperature on Earth: 3.6 Billion Degrees in Lab Scientists have produced superheated gas exceeding temperatures of 2 billion degrees Kelvin, or 3.6 billion degrees Fahrenheit. ...They don't know how they did it. It works by releasing 20 million amps of electricity into a vertical array of very fine tungsten wires. Sandia researchers still aren't sure how the machine achieved the new record. Excerpt and link at the COLD FUSION TIMES web site. http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
Re: Blip on CF
At 03:42 PM 3/4/2006 -0800, you wrote: FWIW: There is a short blip on Hagelstein and CF in the March Issue of Discover Magazine Excerpt and link at the COLD FUSION TIMES web site. http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
Re: LENR-CANR welcomes a growing international audience
At 05:40 PM 11/18/2005, Jed Rothwell wrote: Cold fusion may be dead in the water in the US, . - Jed This is utter nonsense. After attending (and contributing to) the MIT CF Colloquium (May 2005) AND the American Nuclear Society Winter 2005 Meeting in D.C. (November 2005), it is apparent that cold fusion is slowly, and continuously, flourishing in the United States, both in terms of theory, better experiments (including control of both the desired reactions by several methods AND newer control of those that occur in the phase previously known as Heat after Death), and business development. Perhaps those who did not actually attend either conference should consider actually going to a US meeting before purporting they (don't) know what is going on. Dr. Mitchell Swartz = Cold Fusion Timeshttp://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html The journal of the scientific aspects of loading isotopic fuels into materials ISSN# 1072-2874 JET Thermal Products http://world.std.com/~mica/jet.html Working for Safe and More Efficient Heat Products to Serve You
Libel and plagiarism by John Coviello
We are tired of Mr. Coviello's libel and selective memory. Here is our response to his libel. BACKGROUND: Mr. John Coviello is enraged that we excerpted his publicly posted review of the MIT Colloquium, which was posted on s.p.f., a public forum AND edited with corrections in part by ourselves at least twice per his requests (not attributed by him, but proven below by email excerpts). THE FACTS: 1. The Cold Fusion Times DID give Mr. Coviello full attribution by name above the edited excerpt, as he admits. Nonetheless, he continues public libel against the COLD FUSION TIMES with purported claims of plagiarism (which he misspells as plagarism (sic)). 2) We actually helped Mr. Coviello in his paper and he acknowledged it by email - twice (A, and B), and once on vortex in a public posting (C) A) Here Mr. Coviello acknowledges our first correction of his draft report which he publicly posted to spf and vortex. first email from Mr. Coviello to Dr. Swartz thanking Dr. Swartz for helping him by correcting errors in Coviello's article - From: John Coviello [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MIT Cold Fusion Symposium Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 11:17:06 -0400 Mr. Swartz, Sorry, you're right, it was Prof. Peter Hagelstein. I had written the note about the iesiusa.com company in the column next to my notes on your conference comments. I do want to get it right who said what. I have heard of iesiusa.com before. Not sure what to think of them?!? Being from Las Vegas, NV kind makes me take pause. That is a town that is rife with swindlers and con artists. I've also heard of plenty of predictions of imminent commercial developments in cold fusion and other exotic energy fields, and knowing the tract record, I'll take a wait and see approach on this one. I kind of miss being young and naive about these things. But, age makes you wiser and more cautious. John C. end of email from Mr. Coviello to Dr. Swartz thanking Dr. Swartz for helping him by correcting errors in Coviello's article - B) Here Mr. Coviello makes a second acknowledgement of our corrections to his draft report which he publicly posted to spf and vortex. Mr. Coviello requested this additional help by asking several questions by email. second email from Mr. Coviello to Dr. Swartz thanking Dr. Swartz for helping him by correcting errors in Coviello's article - From: John Coviello [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Question for MIT CF Article, Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 19:39:22 -0400 Mr. Schwartz, Thanks for the quick response to my questions. They will be helpful in writing the article for NET (which will come out with the July 10th newsletter). I'm sorry, I did not mean to step on anyone's toes with my statement below. I certainly didn't think you were trying to prevent a discussion about cold fusion. I did get to ask two questions during the colloquium, as did others. But, the program did say that a panel discussion session called Future Developments in Cold Fusion would be held, and it was not. It seemed as if the non-cold fusion presenters took up the time that could have been used for such an important panel discussion. The diversion to non-cold fusion topics did, in essence, prevent such a discussion from occurring during the colloquium. I did enjoy the colloquium very much and appreciate your efforts in organizing it. I look forward to attending the 2nd colloquium later this year and having an opportunity to ask more questions. I am also very happy to read today that they have finally charged someone with the murder of Dr. Mallove and his family might be able to bring closure regarding his passing. Sincerely, John Coviello end of second email from Mr. Coviello to Dr. Swartz thanking Dr. Swartz for helping him by correcting errors in Coviello's article - C) Here the ingrate Mr. Coviello acknowledges to vortex our meticulous correction to his draft report. NOTE: Ironically, Mr. Coviello failed to attribute from where he actually got the correction. --- public post by Mr. Coviello to vortex after receiving from Dr. Swartz corrections of his errors - From: John Coviello [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Vortex vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: The Proposed Mallove Cold Fusion Unit Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 09:55:34 -0400 I hastly posted a description of the proposed Mallove Cold Fusion unit last night. Here's a more thorough description of the Mallove unit, as proposed by Dr. Schwartz: The Mallove is a proposed unit to describe the height/width of the optimal operating points which appears to describe most (if not all) cold fusion systems and their products. The optimal operating points are seen when the product is plotted as function of input electrical power. They peak is where each
Re: infighting
At 06:02 AM 9/20/2005, [Johnny C. Johnny] Coviello wrote: It is simply amazing that Dr. Mitchell Swartz should even mention the word plagiarism. In his most recent issue of Cold Fusion Times he put a story about the Cold Fusion Colloquium at MIT in May 2005 on the front cover, written by me (John Coviello), co-authored by Steve Krivit (New Energy Times), which is the property of New Energy Times, and appeared in that publication first. ... The excerpt to which Coviello refers was originally taken from an s.p.f. posting which is a PUBLIC posting where it appeared first. Said s.p.f. posting was posted by Coviello on May 23, 2005, under the pseudonym Johnny C Johnny who is John Coviello. One of his actual s.p.f. posts on this is below [complete with errors which were corrected in the excerpt]. First, attention is noted that ONLY Coviello's pseudonym was on that public post. Second, we would have been glad to give credit for the excerpts to whomever posted it, but there was only one (1) name on that and the other public postings. Third, in this case that attribution appears to have been correct. Most importantly, the fact remains is that we DID give Coviello credit for his article publicly posted on s.p.f. about a conference he attended and about which he reported. = from s.p.f. feed = From: JohnnyCJohnny [EMAIL PROTECTED] Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: Here's Another Report on the MIT CF Conference Date: 23 May 2005 08:28:52 -0700 A report on the MIT Cold Fusion Colloquium: The moderator of this gathering was Dr. Mitchell Swartz, a veteran cold fusion researcher. His doctoral dissertation at MIT, I was told, was in electrochemistry. He is also a medical doctor specializing in oncology. Here is how this one-day colloquium (5/21/05) was described over the Internet: Cold Fusion - Science and Technology - plus other Clean Energy Investigations, with Special Tribute to Dr. Eugene Mallove, '69, Cold Fusion Investigator and former Chief Science Writer at MIT. Topics include: Science and Engineering; Discussions of Cold Fusion Materials Science; Review of Current Literature; Experimental Results; Understandings of Theories; Device Engineering; Discussion of Future Developments and Commercialization Potentials. Remembrances of Gene Mallove by family, friends and colleagues. Lunch included in conference fees. Free for MIT Students. The number of participants was about 60 (my own counting); 15% of them, I was told, were students. The meeting was organized by E-club -- the MIT Entrepreneurs Club. It is an organization sponsoring workshops devoted to all aspects of science and technology. They meet weekly. The event organizer, Dr. Richard Shynduroff, told me that the colloquium had two purposes; to commemorate Eugene, killed one year ago, and to expose interested students to the controversial field of cold fission. The first speaker was David Nagel - the topic of his presentation was Evidence that cold fusion involves nuclear reactions. It was a general review of results on production of helium, tritium, neutrons, new elements, and x-rays. He emphasized that formation of craters and hot spo/ts on cathode surfaces (using scanning electron microscopes) should also be viewed as nuclear signatures. The second presenter was Ross George; his topic was Acoustic-induced Cold Fusion Experiments. Ross has a company html:/www.d2fusion.com conducting practically-oriented research in cold fusion. He described experiments in which generation of excess heat was shown to be accompanied by the accumulation of helium (up to levels exceeding natural concentration in air). Some of his recent sonofusion experiments, generated excess heat at the level of hundreds of watts. The third and fourth speakers were John Dash (from the University of Portland) and Peter Hagelstein (from MIT). Peter is a theoretical physicist; he said that about 150 different reaction mechanisms have been proposed, in fifteen years, to model cold fusion. In his opinion not a single theory emerged as much better than others. John, who is a metallurgist, was describing results of his experimental investigations in the area of nuclear alchemy. Using the secondary ions mass spectroscopy method (SIMS) he was able to identify several transmutation products. He also reported on changes in isotopic ratios but these were results from literature, not from his own investigations. Kim Yeoung, Tabot Chub, Scott Chub, Robert Bass and Keith Johnson also talked about theoretical aspects of cold fusion. Mitch Swartz talked about the electrochemical cell called Phusor. Mitch Swartz talked about the electrochemical cell called Phusor. The electrolyte used in this cell has a very low concentration. For that reason the input power is only several watts then the applied voltage is thousand volts. The highest rate of excess heat generation, according to rapidly displayed transparencies, was 3.5
Re: LENR-CANR is UNOFFICIAL
At 01:00 PM 9/20/2005, Rothwell wrote: Mitchell Swartz wrote: Second, Rothwell was physically handed the papers at Dr. Mallove's funeral. Rothwell: As I said, I could not read the CD-ROM, and I do not deal with physical paper, unless the electronic copies have been lost. First, Rothwell purports that he did not know if a paper was written but THEN he admits he received it but could not read the CD-ROM and THEN he also admits he also received it in hand but could not deal with physical paper. It is OFFICIAL: Jed Rothwell appears caught in his own net of falsehoods again. Q.E.D.
Re: LENR-CANR is UNOFFICIAL, and Swartz is back in the kill-file
At 03:31 PM 9/20/2005, Jed Rothwell wrote: Mitchell Swartz wrote: In addition, note that Rothwell has also finally admitted that HE removed the titles, but he remains disingenuous about WHEN he removed the titles. Rothwell: Yo: Mitch. Where does admit come from? It is my web site. Who else could have removed the titles? And who put them back as soon as you asked? Let us get something straight there. Rothwell finally admitted several things after many years of denial. Methinks he protests too much. = Rothwell: You, of all people, should not spout off about the ethics of running a web site. You have plagiarized my papers many times. In your last issue you copied Coviello and Krivit in one place, and Storms and I in another, both without attribution or permission. What utter nonsense. When we print, or discuss, excerpts from the web (publicly posted) we cite source (and often the URL). And we list the author. To take excerpts from public sites on the Internet and then attribute authorship, origin, and URL is NOT plagiarism. But then using a dictionary is NOT, and has NEVER BEEN, Mr. Rothwell's strong point. Despite Rothwell's BS, we have meticulously cited sites, URLS, and the author, including Rothwell's in each case. If Rothwell really knows of one we missed, he should let us know and that will be corrected, unlike the chronic failure to correct things which so characterizes Mr. Rothwell and his company.
Re: LENR-CANR is UNOFFICIAL
At 03:38 PM 9/20/2005, Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: I'm curious, Dr. Swartz. If you succeed in your efforts to OFFICIALLY catch Jed in a net of his own falsehoods what do you plan on doing next? Going back to cold fusion science and research. That is HOW this began. Jed's entrapment is -- and has been -- of no interest to me. This began from Ed Storms and Jed Rothwell's pejorative posts after I posted some cold fusion data and information, posted a correction to Jed's disputing Bill Beaty's reasonable suggestion of what is 'practical', and finally I dared to post a correction to Jed's definition of 'company' and 'practical'. No good deed goes unpunished, it seems. I'm in the middle of planning my OFFICIAL entertainment schedule for the next week. Does anybody know if Donald Trump is airing any more Youre fired! reality shows? OFFICIAL Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com Heard he was, but the several new sci-fi series might be as interesting. Best wishes.
Re: CF Is the mechanism really Nuclear?
At 10:33 PM 9/16/2005, Edmund Storms wrote: Mitchell Swartz wrote: At 04:13 PM 9/16/2005, Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now people exist on a spectrum from true believer to pathological sceptic to form a voting quorum. The most rewarding ones are those who were dead against you but change. Now how are you going to bring these people on board with what - experiments that only TBs can seem to get right and no mechanism to even discuss or communicate your ideas? Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED]: We have repeatable experiments, which have been described in peer reviewed journals. Dr. Swartz even operated one at ICCF-10 to which peers were invited. None showed up. As for an explanation, a useful one would be very great to have. However, explanations generally follow experiment. In other fields, money is spent observing what happens when X, Y or Z is done to the system and from the response, a theory is developed. Unfortunately, these days people get money because they have a theory and then do X, Y and Z to see if it is correct. Dr. Storms is inaccurate. It is NOT true that Dr. Swartz even operated one at ICCF-10 to which peers were invited. None showed up. In fact, to the contrary, during the week long demonstration (which yield circa 290 to 250% excess heat when compared to an ohmic control), many peers did show up; more than two hundred on Tuesday afternoon alone! The demonstration was in the MIT electrical engineering building and many MIT people came (as well as scores of others). I apologize if I was misinformed. I was told at the time, and Peter makes the point in his introduction to the ICCF-10 Proceedings, that although people from MIT were invited, only a few students showed up. I'm glad to learn that some did see the demonstration. Did this experience on their part change the attitude at MIT? 1. Apology accepted. Since neither you nor Peter had opportunity to come on Tuesday during the largest open house, and thereafter did not come during the rest of week at the open demonstration of cold fusion, then your purported (being) misinformed is possible. Everything in the universe contains flaws; ourselves included. Even God does not attempt perfection in His creations. Only mankind has such foolish arrogance. - Cogitor Kwyna 2. Obviously yes. The Cold Fusion Colloquium at MIT in 2005 and the review by the DOE [second review] precisely came BECAUSE of the wide-open public demonstrations of cold fusion by ourselves, by John Dash and Dennis Cravens. Before these open working demonstrations, there were only the same printed reports and slides which had been available since 1989. The open demonstrations changed the landscape. Perhaps someday you will courageously join in and given an open long-term view of one of your working cold fusion devices, too? Let me know; let all vortex know, and we will come to see your anticipated, albeit tardive, public demonstration. Dr. Mitchell Swartz The demonstration was written up as Swartz. M., Can a Pd/D2O/Pt Device be Made Portable to Demonstrate the Optimal Operating Point?, ICCF-10 (Camb. MA), Proceedings of ICCF-10, (2003). Furthermore, scores of people have witnessed the subsequent demonstrations (which are now in a subsequent 'generation' of devices). For example, the distinguished Prof. Brian Josephson saw that same cold fusion cell operated more than a year later (when it yielded circa 140% excess heat when compared to an ohmic control). Who did not show up during that week was the mainstream media. Both the Boston Globe and Boston Herald were called by the late Dr. Eugene Mallove, but even though ads were put into the Boston Globe about the demonstration (by MIT Prof. Hagelstein), the MSM did not come. So what. More aware and less myopic members of the press DID come both there and to the recent MIT CF Colloquium. In any case, as regards ICCF-10, hundreds of peers came, Dr. Storms - especially on Tuesday afternoon. We enjoyed discussing physics and engineering with each and every inquisitive one of them. Many pictures shown at the LENR and JTP web-sites http://world.std.com/~mica/jeticcf10demo.html demonstrate just a glimpse of SOME of these important peers. Dr. Mitchell Swartz Science: Lost in its own mythos, redoubling its efforts when it has forgotten its aim. - Norma Cenva Cold Fusion Timeshttp://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html The journal of the scientific aspects of loading isotopic fuels into materials ISSN# 1072-2874 JET Thermal Products http://world.std.com/~mica/jet.html Working for Safe and More Efficient Heat Products to Serve You
Re: Definition of practical
At 10:53 AM 9/17/2005, Ed Storms wrote: I have found it impossible to have a discussion with Dr. Swartz because no matter what is said, he will not change his mind. Edmund's projections again Ed refused to observe the Optimal operating points which I pointed out to him. His own data demonstrated that precisely. Of course, Ed still refuses to acknowledge them because there follows engineering. Proof (especially **,***): 1. Swartz, M.R. Optimal Operating Point Characteristics of Nickel Light Water Experiments. in The Seventh International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1998. Vancouver, Canada: ENECO, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT. 2. ** Swartz, M.R., Generality of Optimal Operating Point Behavior in Low Energy Nuclear Systems. J. New Energy, 1999. 4(2): p. 218-228. 3. Swartz, M.R., et al. Importance of nondimensional numbers in cold fusion. in Symposium on New Energy. 1999. Salt Lake City, UT. 4. *** Swartz. M., G. Verner, Excess Heat from Low Electrical Conductivity Heavy Water Spiral-Wound Pd/D2O/Pt and Pd/D2O-PdCl2/Pt Devices, ICCF-10 (Camb. MA), Proceedings of ICCF-10, (2003). == Nevertheless, for those people who read Vortex, Jed and I have no business relationship. More rewriting of history, Ed? The word was 'company'. definition: Company; 1. an association with another 2. a group of persons or things after Websters. Presumably, at least in his better moments, Dr. Storms is 'another and/or a 'person'. The answer is a mirror of the question - Cogitor Kwyna === The website is a mutual effort for the benefit of the scientific community. It is not a company. See above. definition: Company; 1. an association with another 2. a group of persons or things after Websters. === Saying that the website is misnamed is just as pointless as for me to say that Dr. Swartz is misnamed. Thank you for the ad hominems, Edmund. And to think it was because I merely pointed out that the cold fusion nuclear reactions are NOT 'low energy. It is true. They are high energy. More than 20 Million electron volts for the heavy water -- helium reactions. Proof: Swartz, M.R., Phusons in nuclear reactions in solids. Fusion Technol., 1997. 31: p. 228. Ed, you always throw these ad hominems when you have no science to support yourself. [Perhaps if I promised to vote Ed's anti-Bush politics, his appreciation of science and facts would improve? ] === Also, the charge of censorship, which Swartz is obsessed with, is getting very old. Both Jed and I have told Swartz that anything he submits to the website will be placed on the website. We have no reason to censor his work. In addition, if he knows of any paper that is not on the site, which he thinks should be, he only needs to send a copy to Jed. Ed The issue was censorship by Ed Storms which has been proven -- even corroborated by the late Dr. Eugene Mallove, by Prof. Peter Hagelstein, by several of those censored who contacted me by email, and even by Jed Rothwell who corroborated such in private email to me. We previously sent copies of our papers to Jed [in hand, by CD-ROM, by email, etc.] who admitted that Edmund Storms censored EVEN their titles. Incredibly, thereafter, Mr. Rothwell demanded to be able to EDIT them. Jed was given PDF files which he could not edit, and to this day, he has insisted that they be in ASCII so that he may edit them. That is, and was, not acceptable. His computer programming background is irrelevant. Over the years, Jed has made serious errors in his reports and translations, at least twice confusing 'anode' and 'cathode' and more. And finally, the issues of LENR's previous censorship and past demands for editing are OLD ISSUES. It is time to move forward. Learn from the past - don't wear it like a yoke around your neck - Cogitor Reticulus Nor is this 'plausible deniability' apparently isolated. Rather, it appears to be their SOP. Similarly, Ed Storms also has a history of claiming he 'works alone' even when others have given him money, support and equipment. For example, confer: Dr. Storms is not currently engaged in research in this field as a solitary endeavor nor is he a lone garage scientist nor is he a lone scientist working on his own. http://www.makezine.com/03/interview/ Q.E.D. Overly organized research is confining, and guaranteed to produce nothing new - Tio Holtzman
Re: How to send papers to LENR-CANR.org
At 11:42 AM 9/17/2005, John Coviello [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There you go Dr. Swartz, no more excuses. Send Jed your ICCF-10 paper and he'll publish it. It would be convient to be able to download the Swartz ICCF-10 paper from lenr-canr.org. A simple question to Dr. Swarts, is this paper that you have repeatedly requested to be published by Jed on lenr-canr.org avaiabble on your own website? If not, why not? That would be a simple way to publish it to the world, and then Jed could easily download it and publish it with your permission. Also, the charge of censorship, which Swartz is obsessed with, is getting very old. Both Jed and I have told Swartz that anything he submits to the website will be placed on the website. We have no reason to censor his work. In addition, if he knows of any paper that is not on the site, which he thinks should be, he only needs to send a copy to Jed. Ed John, Thank you for your interest and misconceptions. It is a pain to respond to this nonsense again, but so be it. First, as in the past, any serious scientist/researcher/student on vortex who wants a copy of our papers need only send me an email. Many are available on pdf, and for the next week or so I will accommodate these requests (as before). Second, the issue was censorship by Ed Storms, which has been proven -- even corroborated by the late Dr. Eugene Mallove, by Prof. Peter Hagelstein, by several of those censored who contacted me by email, and even by Jed Rothwell who corroborated such in private email to me lament that he [Jed] did not have control over Edmund. We previously sent copies of our papers to Jed and Ed [in hand, by CD-ROM, by email, etc.] and in the end, until a certain historian was contacted about 2 years later, Edmund Storms censored EVEN THEIR titles. Nota bene: Even the titles of our 3 papers at ICCF-10. And we were not alone, by the way. Third, incredibly, thereafter, Mr. Rothwell demanded to be able to EDIT them. Jed was given PDF files which he could not edit, and to this day, he has insisted that they be in ASCII so that he may edit them. That is, and was, not acceptable. His computer programming background is irrelevant. Over the years, Jed has made serious errors in his reports and translations, at least twice confusing 'anode' and 'cathode' and more. Although YOU and others may not take accuracy seriously, I (and we) do. One more important point: Finally, the issues of LENR's previous censorship and their past demands for editing the papers of other scientists are OLD and PROVEN ISSUES. It is time to move forward, albeit with a bit more accuracy. Learn from the past - don't wear it like a yoke around your neck - Cogitor Reticulus
Re: Definition of practical
At 01:34 PM 9/17/2005, Jed Rothwell protests a bit too much, and wrote: Mitchell Swartz writes: example at the (misnamed) LENR site - which is a company. Rothwell: No, it is not a company. Swartz: Yes it is. [Webster's definition removed by Rothwell because it disputes his nonsense] Rothwell: Oookay . . . Where is it incorporated? By who? It sure wasn't me. More rewriting of history, Jed? The word was 'company'. You protest too much, suggesting something underneath. Buy a dictionary. definition: Company; 1. an association with another 2. a group of persons or things [after Webster's Dictionary] definition: Corporation:; 1. a group of merchants or traders united in a trade guild 2. a body formed or authorized by law to act a a single person [after Webster's Dictionary] The word being 'company', Q.E.D. The answer is a mirror of the question - Cogitor Kwyna
Re: Definition of practical
At 02:17 PM 9/17/2005, Jed Rothwell wrote: Mitchell Swartz writes: The word was 'company'. Rothwell: Ah, but it should have been squad (non-military) or sodality (but not in the sense used by Roman Catholic Church). Wrong. The sentence was posted to counteract your erroneous attempted-minimization of William Beaty's suggestion. At 03:11 PM 9/16/2005, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: William Beaty wrote: are many commercial uses for a 10 to 100 Watt device. Even a 10 W heater would be useful for some niche applications, such as keeping equipment warm in the Arctic. How about milliwatts and microwatts. Isn't Eveready/Duracell/Rayovac/Panasonic a billion-dollar industry? J. Rothwell: Yeah. In the first post I listed 100 watts thermal or 10 watts thermoelectric as the minimum practical level, but I guess even a fraction of a watt thermoelectric would be useful. And one-watt thermal would make a dandy pocket warmer / gonad eraser. (Imagine the late night TV ads for that!) It is hard to imagine what use anyone might have for 100 or 200 mW of intermittent thermal power. That's how much most present-day CF devices produce. Not practical. - Jed To which it was responded, supporting William Beaty's correction: Swartz: Although It is hard to imagine what use anyone might have for 100 or 200 mW of intermittent thermal power is true in the short run, over a longer amount of time, many 10s of kilojoules excess energy (and more) can be wrought. Furthermore, some present day cold fusion devices can produce more excess power (several watts), even though in the hands of Dr. Storms and Jed Rothwell and their company, using their techniques, more paucity of excess power generation is observed, as they point out. After all the 'hot air' from the LENR site, it is apparent that Jed's definitions are both wrong (practical AND company) AND he protests too much. == Buy a dictionary. Rothwell: As you see, I have both a dictionary and a thesarus already. It has use beyond that of a paperweight. If life is but a dream, then do we only imagine the truth? No! By following our dreams we make our own truth. - Selim Wormrider
Re: How to send papers to LENR-CANR.org
At 03:33 PM 9/17/2005, John Coviello wrote: Let's get beyond all this back and forth about the papers. . [demands, threats, harassment, whining removed to improve bandwidth] Mr. Coviello: Despite your sudden upsurge of very childish demanding, I posted what was necessary to obtain the preprints to our papers at this time. Exactly what part of 'individual rights' do you not understand? [Coincidentally, today is the 218th Anniversary of the US Constitution, BTW.] Exactly what part of 'private email' did you not understand? Clearly, unfortunately, you appear unable to follow directions. As stated before: (A)s in the past, any serious scientist/researcher/student on vortex who wants a copy of our papers need only send me a private email. Some of these papers are available on pdf, and for the next week or so I will accommodate these requests. Dr. Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CF Is the mechanism really Nuclear?
At 10:25 AM 9/16/2005, Ed Storms wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Vo and CF'ers, I tried to unsubscribe but sent it to the wrong address. Anyway, since I'm here I have a naive question for CF'ers: Let's not insult your integrity and the fact that you are saying that nearly 100% of your experiments are reproducible despite unbiased researchers having difficulties, if you are getting excess enthalpy is it really the result of nuclear processes? A good question, Remi. The answer is that reproducibility is not near 100% when starting from scratch or when attempted by uninformed people. Many variables affect the result, many of which are not yet understood. Actually, many variables are quite well understood; and better engineering of cold fusion systems remains the pathway to improved reproducibility. As a result, success is still affected by chance. However, if the variables should combine to produce success, the sample is found to be 100% reproducible. This is primitive nonsense. Each cold fusion sample has a maximum activity at the center of its optimal operating point manifold. That operating point manifold changes with loading (increases), with dislocation development and sample fracture (as further examples). As Arthur C. Clarke has pointed out for other well-engineered systems, those who do not understand the role of sample activity and system engineering in cold fusion necessarily see their results only in terms of magic, luck or chance. Dr. Mitchell Swartz Refs: Swartz, M, Generality of Optimal Operating Point Behavior in Low Energy Nuclear Systems, Journal of New Energy, 4, 2, 218-228 (1999); Swartz, M, Optimal Operating Point Characteristics of Nickel Light Water Experiments, Proceedings of ICCF-7 (1998); Swartz, M, Improved Electrolytic Reactor Performance Using pi-Notch System Operation and Gold Anodes, Transactions of the American Nuclear Association, Nashville, Tenn Meeting, (ISSN:0003-018X publisher LaGrange, Ill) 78, 84-85 (1998); Swartz, M.R., Consistency of the biphasic nature of excess enthalpy in solid-state anomalous phenomena with the quasi-one-dimensional model of isotope loading into a material. Fusion Technology, 1997. 31: p. 63. Swartz. M., G. Verner, Excess Heat from Low Electrical Conductivity Heavy Water Spiral-Wound Pd/D2O/Pt and Pd/D2O-PdCl2/Pt Devices, Proc.ICCF-10 (2004). Assumptions are a transparent grid through which we view the universe, sometimes deluding ourselves that the grid is that universe - Cogitor Eklo Cold Fusion Timeshttp://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html The journal of the scientific aspects of loading isotopic fuels into materials ISSN# 1072-2874 JET Thermal Products http://world.std.com/~mica/jet.html Working for Safe and More Efficient Heat Products to Serve You
RE: CF Is the mechanism really Nuclear?
At 11:53 AM 9/16/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You have to show that unlike other nuclear processes occurring in lattices (say fission) that there is a preference to giving up the energy as phonons at a certain frequency rather than photons. This might be possible if there is a resonance effect. By this resonance effect, talk of the M-B distribution of energy in the lattice would no longer be relevant. You'd get a sharp peak in the distribution and conveniently this would match or near match the coupling to the D ions. By developing such a theory it might explain the hit and miss of the experiments. If the initiation of the chain reaction is random but then the coupling of the energy produced to the means to sustain the reaction is not quite high enough, it dies. This could result from impurities in the lattice and crystalline defects. You might consider checking out the following reference which addresses your points (and also addresses the criticism of neutrons and the special relativity arguments which are not well-based, but are usually made by confusing E with delta-E.) Swartz, M., Phusons in Nuclear Reactions in Solids, Fusion Technology, 31, 228-236 (1997). Coupled with additional theoretical advances made by both Scott and Talbot Chubb, this goes far in explaining the nuclear coupling to the lattice. Dr. Mitchell Swartz Science: The creation of dilemmas by the solution of mysteries. - Norma Cenva Cold Fusion Timeshttp://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html The journal of the scientific aspects of loading isotopic fuels into materials ISSN# 1072-2874 JET Thermal Products http://world.std.com/~mica/jet.html Working for Safe and More Efficient Heat Products to Serve You
Re: Due Diligence on CF
At 11:48 AM 9/15/2005, Jed Rothwell wrote: Even in the case of cold fusion, I do not oppose all forms of suppression. For example, I think it would be premature to include a discussion of cold fusion in a high school or undergraduate textbook. I do not think we should embark on a billion-dollar Manhattan Project to develop cold fusion energy. We do not know whether it can be made practical, so we should not risk that kind of money. And, needless to say, many of the claims made at ICCF conferences are weak, and many have not been replicated, so we cannot believe them. - Jed Wrong. Cold fusion science and engineering should be taught to undergraduates. Wrong. There SHOULD be a multi-billion dollar Manhattan Project to further develop the most successful cold fusion technologies. Wrong. Cold fusion science and technology IS being made practical today -- and will augment energy resources in the future. Many of the claims made at ICCF conferences (and especially in the Fusion Technology peer-reviewed papers) are quite strong and many have been replicated and/or shown to be reproducible - and developed into solid engineering principles. Perhaps some fanatics, because of a lack of substantial grounding in physics and engineering or because of their own censorship, appear unable to separate with reproducible precision the good from the bad efforts. Final comment: Suppression of science is wrong - from Galileo to today. Dr. Mitchell Swartz Fanaticism is always a sign of repressed doubts - Iblis Ginjo Cold Fusion Timeshttp://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html The journal of the scientific aspects of loading isotopic fuels into materials ISSN# 1072-2874 JET Thermal Products http://world.std.com/~mica/jet.html Working for Safe and More Efficient Heat Products to Serve You
Re: CF Suppression?
At 11:56 PM 9/13/2005, Ed Storms inaccurately pontificates: Michael Foster wrote: Is Ed Storms actually a Super Double Secret Dysinformation Agent who has penetrated the white knights of Vortex-L? ... Storms: This is not true, a proper person can buy heavy-water. The issue is liability. D2O is a poison. Therefore, like all such chemicals, it is sold only to businesses. Now either Ed is stupid or uninformed, which I seriously doubt, or he assumes that I am stupid and/or uninformed, which I guess is open to speculation. You need to replace half the water in your body with D2O before it becomes toxic. On that scale, Karo syrup is more poisonous. Storms: Well Michael, I have no trouble buying heavy water. Despite Storms' claim, it has gotten more difficult to obtain heavy water. Despite Storms' claim, compared to many things, D2O is NOT poisonous in small amounts. In small amounts, D2O is used in medical tests, medical studies, and even as a tracer in drug-compliance studies. Storms: The difference between D2O and Karo syrup is that you would know that you were drinking D2O. Despite Storms' claim to having an unusually-sensitive tongue which he alleges can detect D2O, one would NOT know they were drinking D2O. They have the same taste. [ http://www.google.com/search?hs=v2ohl=enlr=client=firefox-arls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficialq=taste%22heavy+water%22+humansbtnG=Search [ FWIW, however, some types of rats reportedly can detect D2O in very high doses http://www.ebmonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/152/4/677 ] Refs: Pharmacological uses and perspectives of heavy water and deuterated compounds by D.J. Kushner, Alison Baker, and T.G. Dunstall; Can. J. Physiol. Pharmacol./Rev. Can. Physiol. Pharmacol. 77(2): 79-88 (1999) Material Safety Data Sheet on D2O http://www.msdsonline.com/Tools/DMSDS.asp?MSDS_Id=56247Lib=Y ECOTOX: http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/ PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed CSA (Cambridge Scientific Abstracts): http://www.csa2.com/ Myth: You can commit suicide by drinking X litres of D2O http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/myths/d2o_death.html http://www.google.com/search?hs=Wkghl=enlr=client=firefox-arls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficialq=toxicity+%22heavy+water%22btnG=Search
Re: CF Suppression?
At 10:09 AM 9/14/2005, Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: Despite Storms' claim, it has gotten more difficult to obtain heavy water. Despite Storms' claim, compared to many things, D2O is NOT poisonous in small amounts. In small amounts, D2O is used in medical tests, medical studies, and even as a tracer in drug-compliance studies. Storms: The difference between D2O and Karo syrup is that you would know that you were drinking D2O. Despite Storms' claim to having an unusually-sensitive tongue which he alleges can detect D2O, one would NOT know they were drinking D2O. They have the same taste. [ http://www.google.com/search?hs=v2ohl=enlr=client=firefox-arls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficialq=taste%22heavy+water%22+humansbtnG=Search [ FWIW, however, some types of rats reportedly can detect D2O in very high doses http://www.ebmonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/152/4/677 ] Refs: Pharmacological uses and perspectives of heavy water and deuterated compounds by D.J. Kushner, Alison Baker, and T.G. Dunstall; Can. J. Physiol. Pharmacol./Rev. Can. Physiol. Pharmacol. 77(2): 79-88 (1999) Material Safety Data Sheet on D2O http://www.msdsonline.com/Tools/DMSDS.asp?MSDS_Id=56247Lib=Y ECOTOX: http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/ PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed CSA (Cambridge Scientific Abstracts): http://www.csa2.com/ Myth: You can commit suicide by drinking X litres of D2O http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/myths/d2o_death.html http://www.google.com/search?hs=Wkghl=enlr=client=firefox-arls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficialq=toxicity+%22heavy+water%22btnG=Search Steven Vincent Johnson: This is a lengthy list of collected evidence to support what I presume is your contention that Mr. Storms often doesn't know what he's talking about. How much more of your finite resources do you plan to spend on the furtherance of this goal? End the end, what will you have accomplished? Talk is based upon the assumption that you can get somewhere if you keep putting one word after another. -Iblis Ginjo
Re: CF Suppression?
At 03:03 PM 9/14/2005, you wrote: From: Steven Vincent Johnson: From: Mitchell Swartz This is a lengthy list of collected evidence to support what I presume is your contention that Mr. Storms often doesn't know what he's talking about. How much more of your finite resources do you plan to spend on the furtherance of this goal? End the end, what will you have accomplished? Talk is based upon the assumption that you can get somewhere if you keep putting one word after another. -Iblis Ginjo Onc can interpret the context Gino's comments in several ways. Two interpretations are: (1) Me putting one word after another is nothing more than meaningless prattle. (2) By putting one word after another your goal will be to suggest that Mr. Storms often doesn't know what he is talking about. I'm sure there are additional interpretations. I'm aware of the fact that you are well known in many circles (certainly more known than I), and that you have performed CF experiments. There is a photo of you in the lenr-canr.org web site that shows you explaining experimental results to an attendee of the ICCF-10 Conference. See: http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/ICCF10.htm I sincerely hope the fruits of your CF analysis will eventually bare fruit if they haven't already, for all of our sake. It seems to me that you might increase your chances of realizing the fruits of your labor if more time was spent explaining and clarifying the conclusions of your experiments as compared to focusing on a personal assumption that Mr. Storms doesn't always know what he is talking about. Granted, it's only my personal opinion but I don't think it reflects well on you. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com Steven: Please do not belittle yourself, nor Dr. Storms. There is a third, more logical, interpretation. We have spent years reporting our results of quality control, materials fabrication, engineering and nuclear theory, device development, and progressive cold fusion results, resulting in more than 40 papers. In that prism, accuracy is very important to me (although it often is NOT found on the 'net). In this case, the point was that D2O is NOT poisonous (as would be cyanide or carbon monoxide). The correction to this myth is exactly what was posted -- and was clearly demonstrated by reference. You have purported to know what I think, but do not. Instead, such projections inform about you. Thank you for your other comments. Our cold fusion efforts (much more than analysis) have wrought much 'fruit' with some of the highest long-term results to date to my knowledge, and have resulted in the development of technology and Q/A systems which are immediately applicable to others in the field. As such, if you want scientific explanations and conclusions of our experiments you might try the papers, and in the meantime, the JET Thermal Products website also has a lot of information from previous years. Hope that clarifies. Best wishes. Dr. Mitchell Swartz Opportunities are a tricky crop, with tiny flowers that are difficult to see and even more difficult to harvest - anon (after Herbert) Cold Fusion Timeshttp://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html The journal of the scientific aspects of loading isotopic fuels into materials ISSN# 1072-2874 JET Thermal Products http://world.std.com/~mica/jet.html Working for Safe and More Efficient Heat Products to Serve You
Re: CF Suppression?
At 06:41 PM 9/13/2005, you wrote: From: Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cold fusion is now at the engineering stage, well beyond the basic research stage. And as such, several devices and modifications of cold fusion can, and will be, patented. What is even more interesting is that in the years 2003 through 2005, the Patent Office frequently has cited the ramblings of Jed Rothwell and Ed Storms on vortex (along with the plethora of usual anti-cold fusion suspects) to block American cold fusion patents applications. You can't seriously think that the patent office is blocking cold fusion patents because of anything said on Vortex by Jed and Ed? They've been blocking cold fusion patents for over 16 years now, well before this forum existed. Somebody has to get a European patent or Asian patent and market a cold fusion device. This controversy could end quickly if that happens. John: I said cited which has a clear meaning. In fact, by relying on such cherry pickings and the rants of the other 'usual suspects', it also demonstrates that the Patent Office has deliberately ignored open demonstrations of cold fusion by Prof. John Dash, by Dennis Cravens, and by my group, JET Thermal Products, which demonstrate conclusively that they have no foundation for their egregious behavior. As Jed Rothwell has correctly stated, It shows how desperate they [the Patent Office] are to find justification for their views. [ FWIW and corroborating my post, Jed Rothwell several years ago previously acted quite responsibly and wrote a letter which utterly contradicted the Patent Office's use of his posting on Vortex, which was used by the Patent Office in one of their unfounded rejections. ] Dr. Mitchell Swartz Cold Fusion Timeshttp://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html The journal of the scientific aspects of loading isotopic fuels into materials ISSN# 1072-2874 JET Thermal Products http://world.std.com/~mica/jet.html Working for Safe and More Efficient Heat Products to Serve You
Re: CF Suppression?
At 05:17 PM 9/13/2005, Edmund Storms wrote: Once again I have no idea what Swartz is talking about. If CF is at the engineering stage, I know of no evidence this is true. Only those with narrow minds fail to see that the definition of Impossible is 'Lack of imagination and incentive'. -- Serena Butler = This is known as science by politics -- it is disgusting. Storms doesn't have leg to stand on and he knows it. Dr. Eugene F. Mallove Subject: Storms' censorship
Re: CF Suppression?
At 02:47 PM 9/12/2005, Michael Foster wrote: Is cold fusion being actively suppressed? Simply put, yes. This is often discussed in detail in the Cold Fusion Times (such as in volume 12, number 2 which is in part at http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html [click on the picture for a larger picture of the front page and more information]. Dr. Mitchell Swartz = Cold Fusion Timeshttp://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html The journal of the scientific aspects of loading isotopic fuels into materials ISSN# 1072-2874 JET Thermal Products http://world.std.com/~mica/jet.html Working for Safe and More Efficient Heat Products to Serve You
Re: Article on energy in National Geographic
At 10:53 PM 7/24/2005, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Mitchell Swartz wrote: Also, corroborating this, we have made electricity for years using cold fusion systems [since before our first report in Fusion Facts (Hal Fox, editor) a decade ago when a small light bulb first turned on by CF, Are you claiming that ten years ago you were able to light a lightbulb using energy generated by cold fusion? That's sure what it sounds like. But if that's true, then ten years ago you were way, way ahead of everyone else in the feld, and you were already ahead of where everyone else in the field is today, as well. Steven: The generation of electricity by cold fusion, and its use to light LEDs and a small light bulb was first reported by us many years ago in 'Fusion Facts', following the achievement in January 1996. You can contact Hal Fox in Utah who briefly reported the event that Spring in his magazine, if memory serves. I had an issue somewhere around, but cannot find it at this moment. I've been following this online off and on for some years, and five years ago, you never seemed to have an answer to the jab, Where's the water heater? on sci.physics.fusion. If you could power a lightbulb with CF ten years back then surely you can make a water heater, too, even if it's only a small one. Certainly, with energy to drive a lightbulb you could heat enough water to make a cup of tea, and counter another of the standard jabs directed at CF in the news groups. Why did you never say so? Cup of tea? LOL. You could not drink the any liquid at the temperatures we achieve. [One run of core temperature is shown here: http://world.std.com/~mica/jet.html Is circa 90C not hot enough for you? ;-)X ] We have been near-boiling water for years; and publishing the results continuously, and have even shown lower power demonstration units, including at the MIT during the entire week of ICCF10 in the MIT EE building. http://world.std.com/~mica/jeticcf10demo.html Never say so? ROTFLOL. There has long been more than enough jabs consisting of scientific data for the skeptics. However, most of them are more interested in hot air than cold fusion, it seems. FWIW, more than 45 papers and presentations at many conferences and a public demonstration at MIT suggests much has been said. partial refs at: http://world.std.com/~mica/jetrefs.html Send me a snail mail address by private email, if you would like a copy of the COLD FUSION TIMES http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html to find out what is really going on in cold fusion. Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Article on energy in National Geographic
At 11:50 PM 7/23/2005, Ed Storms wrote: I think people in the CF field know and appreciate that two separate issues are important to the field. The first addresses whether the CF effect is real or not, and the second addresses whether commercially useful energy can be produced. It is clear that the effect is real, but it is not yet clear whether useful energy can be made. A few watts in a laboratory does not count when addressing the second issue, which is the thrust of the NG article. Most laboratory devices can not be scaled up in their present form. Until the effect can be produced near the kilowatt level on demand, the phenomenon can not be considered useful. Of course, this fact does not justify rejection of the claims as is common these days. I might add that the same criteria should be applied to hot fusion. In this case, the method is not useful unless excess power is in above megawatts because the size of the device is so large. Ed With all due respect, Ed Storms is wrong two ways. First, utility is dependent upon location and availability. Although Storms' very low level less-reproducible devices are not useful as he states, others' cold fusion devices are higher power and higher reproducibility, and do appear to be useful. Utility is in the 'eyes of the beholder' As example, the Rover on Mars has a power dissipation of circa 50 watts. Therefore, 50 or 100 watts excess energy converted to electricity using cold fusion might increase project longevity or in situ system availability by a factor of 50-100%. That is GREAT utility, and is only one example. Also, corroborating this, we have made electricity for years using cold fusion systems [since before our first report in Fusion Facts (Hal Fox, editor) a decade ago when a small light bulb first turned on by CF, and have shown clear excess energy demonstrated both by temperature rise AND by electricity generation in subsequent systems. This electrical generation is important because it has utility at least two ways. These cold fusion electric conversion systems have GREAT utility both for convincing skeptics (beyond the simple temperature rise of the MIT Demo shown at ICCF 10) AND for new useful products (e.g. as discussed above, briefly). Second, our realization that cold fusion is real and reproducible has directly paralleled the generation of useful excess electrical energy, especially in the prism of increasing in excess power density. Therefore, the two separate issues appear to not be separate but rather appear to be linked [perhaps in a way as are electrical conduction and electrical polarization through Hilbert space]. Mitchell Swartz == Update of Cold Fusion Times http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html also http://world.std.com/~mica/cftrev12-2.html
Re: Article on energy in National Geographic
At 12:13 PM 7/24/2005, Ed Storms wrote: The issue is what we consider to be useful. A laboratory instrument is useful when it produces reproducible results based on an understandable process. The level of power only has to exceed the sensitivity of the detection devices by a suitable amount. Many cold fusion devices do this including the calorimeter used by Mitchell Swartz. Some many errors in a few sentences requires some clarification. First, our multiring calorimeters are not the cold fusion devices -- which are Phusors. Everyone at the misnamed LENR site seems to get that wrong. The multiring calorimeters, with time integration in each of the rings, require multiple forms of calibration including ohmic (thermal controls). They have shown that thermoelectric and vertical mass flow calorimeters are at risk to be seriously non-quantitative - even though some such as Ed prefer them and worse, some sometimes run them without multiple controls and in the illusion that it does not matter where heat source is positioned. re: multiring calorimetry: Swartz. M., Consistency of the Biphasic Nature of Excess Enthalpy in Solid State Anomalous Phenomena with the Quasi-1-Dimensional Model of Isotope Loading into a Material, Fusion Technology, 31, 63-74 (1997) == A device useful in solving the energy needs of the world, which was the basis of the discussion in NG, is an entirely different animal. Granted, once CF is understood, small devices producing 50-100 watts will be very common. However, as far as I can determine, no one understands the effect well enough to create such a device or to amplify the effect in a practical way to levels that would be useful outside of a laboratory. I suggest the debate needs to focus on the real world and not on what we want to see happen some time in the unknown future. I suggest those who want to seriously pursue cold fusion examine the facts. The papers published, including the quasi-1-dimensional model of loading which predicts codeposition and optimal operating points (and other things) indicates that we DO understand the effect and its preconditions very well. Swartz, M., Quasi-One-Dimensional Model of Electrochemical Loading of Isotopic Fuel into a Metal, Fusion Technology, 22, 2, 296-300 (1992) Swartz, M., Isotopic Fuel Loading Coupled to Reactions at an Electrode, Fusion Technology, 26, 4T, 74-77 (December 1994) Futhermore, each and every issue of the COLD FUSION TIMES which is put out (24 pages this issue), and every Conference proceeding (albeit with some 'cherry picking') demonstrates that we DO understand the effect, and many of us do build devices which some of us have shown outside of the laboratory such as during the week of ICCF-10. It is understood that some prefer to ignore engineering and solid state physics on this, and good luck them. The debate is now shifting from the reality of the effect to its usefulness. If we in the field want to be part of that debate, we need to acknowledge the important issues in this debate, not the issues in the last one. The important question in the present debate is how can the effect be amplified using a device that is simple, cheap, and long lasting. I suggest the electrolytic method, although useful for study, does not qualify. Even the plasma methods would not scale easily. The only method that looks practical is direct gas loading of the nuclear active environment (NAE). The limitation to scaling to high power using any technique is not knowing the characteristics of the NAE. Therefore, this is where I suggest the discussion needs to focus. Ed Sorry your low-level devices are not long lasting, Ed. FWIW, mathematics and engineering are the key, and they indicate that the desired reactions are NEITHER low energy nuclear reactions nor chemically assisted reactions. They are lattice assisted high energy nuclear reactions, where the lattice and low temperature bring the Bremsstrahlung down to the IR and locks it in due to skin depth. The lattice facilitates through quanta called Phusons which couple the energy of the excited nuclear state to the lattice through very large number sof phonons. Swartz, M, G. Verner, Bremsstrahlung in Hot and Cold Fusion, J New Energy, 3, 4, 90-101 (1999) Swartz, M., Phusons in Nuclear Reactions in Solids, Fusion Technology, 31, 228-236 (March 1997). Hope that clarifies. Dr. Mitchell Swartz == Update of Cold Fusion Times http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html also http://world.std.com/~mica/cftrev12-2.html
Re: Article on energy in National Geographic
At 06:34 PM 7/23/2005, Ed Storms wrote: Actually, the article was good and the statement about cold fusion was accurate. Cold fusion is not yet a source of energy of any value. Cold fusion is, however, a demonstrated phenomenon, which might have a value in the future, a possibility the article leaves open. Ed Flip flop. Actually, Ed Storms previously wrote just the opposite: Proof: The National Geographic in the August issue has a good article on the energy problem. They even mention cold fusion - A few scientists have claimed that cold fusion, which promises energy from a simple jar instead of a high-tech crucible, might work. The verdict so far: No such luck. The article goes on to point out the most serious problems with hot fusion. Not bad, we are now at the verdict so far stage. However, something better work soon because the situation is getting serious. Ed [Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:28:12 -0700 , Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] First, the statement, A few scientists have claimed that cold fusion, which promises energy from a simple jar instead of a high-tech crucible, might work. The verdict so far: No such luck. is simply not accurate. As one example, we have made cold fusion phusor systems capable of producing excess energy of hundreds of thousands of joules per day. Lower power systems demonstrated http://world.std.com/~mica/jeticcf10demo.html Other positive reports at: http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html So in summary, the verdict is: CF works. The conclusion: The article was not accurate do the degree that Ed Storms quoted it correctly. Second, the statement, ... we are now at the verdict so far stage. However, something better work soon because the situation is getting serious. is also inaccurate. Cold fusion works, and has for many years. Thus, Ed appears to herald that some, at the inaccurately named and censored LENR site, are apparently less aware of the success of others in the field. [Perhaps that uncertainty, lack of knowledge, is a reflection of their censorship (about which Gene Mallove complained before his murder).] So the verdict stage is over. CF works and MANY are working to develop and integrate it. Serious work indeed. Dr. Mitchell Swartz == Update of Cold Fusion Times http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html also http://world.std.com/~mica/cftrev12-2.html
Re: Article on energy in National Geographic
How good could the article be with such inaccuracy about cold fusion? The Real Deal, The verdict so far: Cold fusion is achievable by hard effort. Proof: Update to the Cold Fusion Times (volume 12, number 2) is up at http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html [click on pic for larger pic]. Dr. Mitchell Swartz === At 06:29 PM 7/21/2005, you wrote: The National Geographic in the August issue has a good article on the energy problem. They even mention cold fusion - A few scientists have claimed that cold fusion, which promises energy from a simple jar instead of a high-tech crucible, might work. The verdict so far: No such luck. The article goes on to point out the most serious problems with hot fusion. Not bad, we are now at the verdict so far stage. However, something better work soon because the situation is getting serious. Ed
Cold Fusion Times - volume 12, number 2
Update to the Cold Fusion Times (volume 12, number 2) is up at http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html [click on pic for larger pic]. Contents: The MIT 2005 Cold Fusion Colloquium with Tribute to Dr. Eugene Mallove FUSION ADVANCES Cavitation/Ferroelectic Fusion D-D Fusion in Ferroelectrics FUSION AROUND THE WORLD DOE 2nd Review 2nd DOE Review Analyzed Summary of DOE DOE Report on Cold Fusion Recommends More Research Update on Murder of Dr. Mallove Murder Suspects Identified Suspect In Mallove Murder Has Probable Cause Hearing Accountability
CF Colloquium/Tribute to Dr. Mallove - Pictures of Meeting
The 2005 Cold Fusion Colloquium with Special Tribute to Dr. Eugene Mallove went from about 8 AM to 7 PM. and continued on into the night with a cold fusion movie. Based upon the pictures, several scores of people attended, who discussed cold fusion science and engineering throughout the day. Some pictures at http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html (They will be up for a short while; courtesy of Dr. Goldbaum and Cold Fusion Times. Reviews will be in the next issue.) JET Thermal Products Dr. Mitchell Swartz PO Box 81135 Wellesley Hills, MA 02481 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CF Colloquium/Tribute to Dr. Mallove - Final Program/Tours/Movie
Great news!! Because of the success of the program, the UPCOMING SYMPOSIUM on COLD FUSION at MIT, Cambridge Massachusetts has additional experimental speakers. The final program of The 2005 Cold Fusion and Clean Energy Colloquium with Special Tribute to Dr. Eugene Mallove now is lengthened in time from 8:30 AM to 6 PM. The final program is at: http://world.std.com/~mica/colloq.html Revised Colloquium Schedule: Saturday, 5/21/05, Cold Fusion Session: 8:30 AM to 6 PM Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA Tribute to Dr. Mallove 10 AM - 3 PM Killian Room with Group Tribute at 11:30 AM Killian Room Colloquium Information More information, program, pre-registration information http://world.std.com/~mica/colloq.html Colloquium Announcement and Updates http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html = The 2005 Cold Fusion and Clean Alternative Energy Colloquium with Special Tribute to Dr. Eugene Mallove '69 General Topics - Science and Engineering of Cold Fusion Cold Fusion Patents and Intellectual Property Theoretical Understandings of Cold Fusion Evidence That Cold Fusion Involves Nuclear Reactions Colloquium Schedule: Saturday, 5/21/05 Final registration 8:00 AM Kodak Room 6-120 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 8:30 AM - Noon Morning Science Program Experimental Reports of Cold Fusion Systems Mitchell Swartz - Introduction David Nagel - Evidence That Cold Fusion Involves Nuclear Reactions Russ George - Acoustic-induced Cold Fusion Experiments John Dash - Characterization of Titanium Cathodes after Electrolysis in Heavy Water Peter Hagelstein - Interactions of Phonons and Lattice Nuclei in Cold Fusion Mitchell Swartz - Possible Parameter to Describe Optimal Operating Point Width 11:30 - 12:00 Tribute to Dr. Eugene Mallove - Join others in the Killian Room (ongoing informally, as a second group session, from 10 AM - 3 PM) Formal Group Meeting circa 11:30 AM 12:00 - 1:00 Lunch Program (for Pre-registered Attendees) 1:00 - 6:00 PM Afternoon Science Program Theoretical Strides in Understanding of Cold Fusion Systems Yeong Kim - Mico/Nano High-Desity Plasmas and Cold Fusion/Acoustic-Induced Cold Fusion Talbot Chubb - Bloch Nuclei and Phonon De-excitation Scott Chubb - Understanding Cold Fusion using Conventional Condensed matter Physics Robert Bass - Do Current Concepts Resolve the Chief Challenge to Cold Fusion Theory? Mitchell Swartz - Absence of Bremsstrahlung is Consistent with Conventional Physics Keith Johnson - Anomalous Superconducting Properties of the PdHx/PdDx System and their Possible Relationship to Cold Fusion Intellectual Property, Patent Office Accountability Robert Rines - The Patent Office in Cold Fusion Group Discussion - Issues of Accountability Experimental Strides in New Alternative Clean Energy Systems Ken Shoulders - Charge Clusters and the Hutchinson Effect Peter Graneau - Alternative Energy using Latent Energy of Water Brian Ahern - Clean Diesel Technology Group Discussions - The Future of Cold Fusion 6:00 - 7:30 PM Evening Dinner/Break 7:30 PM - Special Treat: Cold Fusion Movie or MIT Tours Choice 1 - Movie - Breaking Symmetry http://www.breaksym.com Premiered in Cambridge at Cold Fusion Night at the Movies with Dr. Eugene Mallove, and is now the basis for a network television drama series, The Institute. Choice 2 - Tours to DMSE, Stata, Media Lab, select public and private Museums Poster Sessions/Discussions 9:00 - 6:00 Cold Fusion and Clean Alternative Energy Science Posters, Review Posters Engineering Advances Tribute to Dr. Eugene Mallove 10:00 AM - 3:00 PM Killian Room (ongoing informally, as a second group session, from 10 AM - 3 PM) circa 11:30 AMFormal Group Meeting
CF Colloquium with Tribute to Dr. Mallove - Final Program
Great news!! Because of the success of the program, the UPCOMING SYMPOSIUM on COLD FUSION at MIT, Cambridge Massachusetts The 2005 Cold Fusion and Clean Energy Colloquium with Special Tribute to Dr. Eugene Mallove now is lengthened in time from 8:30 AM to 6 PM. The final program is at: http://world.std.com/~mica/colloq.html Revised Colloquium Schedule: Saturday, 5/21/05, Cold Fusion Session: 8:30 AM to 6 PM Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA Tribute to Dr. Mallove 10 AM - 3 PM Killian Room with Group Tribute at 11:30 AM Killian Room Colloquium Information More information, program, pre-registration information http://world.std.com/~mica/colloq.html Colloquium Announcement and Updates http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
Re: CF demonstrations COPY 2?
At 10:39 AM 5/6/2005, Jed Rothwell wrote: [I sent this before but it did not come back to me. This version has a few corrections] Mitchell Swartz wrote: There have been no LENR demos! Demos may not even be possible. Utter nonsense. JET Thermal Products gave an open demonstration of a robust cold fusion Phusor system at MIT for a week at ICCF10. Good point. I forgot about that one. I do not think it convinced many people, because the calorimetry is so exotic, Not true at all. In fact, the calorimetry was not exotic - it was simple with two cells in electrical series [the cold fusion device and the ohmic control]. It is only seen as 'exotic' by those who do not use controls and eschew their (logical and requisite) use. For this lower power demonstration system at MIT, http://world.std.com/~mica/jeticcf10demo.html which was in part encouraged by the late Dr. Eugene Mallove, the calorimetry was necessarily simple, and taken care of with full controls. Two identical volumes were compared, and they were wired in electrical series. One contained an ohmic control and the other contained the cold fusion Phusor device in heavy water. For approximately half the power to the cold fusion system, there resulted approximately twice the delta-T in the cold fusion Phusor device (and its surrounding water) compared to the ohmic control (and its surrounding water). BTW, the purpose of the low power demonstration system was to demonstrate in a single afternoon the optimal operating point of these systems. That was accomplished. More on this at: http://world.std.com/~mica/jet.html The publication on the demonstration itself is: Swartz. M., Can a Pd/D2O/Pt Device be Made Portable to Demonstrate the Optimal Operating Point?, ICCF-10 (Camb. MA), Proceedings of ICCF-10, (2003). The publications on theoptimal operating point of these systems include: Swartz. M., G. Verner, Excess Heat from Low Electrical Conductivity Heavy Water Spiral-Wound Pd/D2O/Pt and Pd/D2O-PdCl2/Pt Devices, ICCF-10 (Camb. MA), Proceedings of ICCF-10, (2003) Swartz. M., Photoinduced Excess Heat from Laser-Irradiated Electrically-Polarized Palladium Cathodes in D2O, ICCF-10 (Camb. MA), Proceedings of ICCF-10, (2003). Swartz. M., Generality of Optimal Operating Point Behavior in Low Energy Nuclear Systems, Journal of New Energy, 4, 2, 218-228 (1999) Swartz. M., G. Verner, A. Frank, H. Fox Importance of Non-dimensional Numbers and Optimal Operating Points in Cold Fusion, Journal of New Energy, 4, 2, 215-217 (1999) Swartz, M, Optimal Operating Point Characteristics of Nickel Light Water Experiments, Proceedings of ICCF-7 (1998) Swartz. M., Consistency of the Biphasic Nature of Excess Enthalpy in Solid State Anomalous Phenomena with the Quasi-1-Dimensional Model of Isotope Loading into a Material, Fusion Technology, 31, 63-74 (1997) Swartz. M., Biphasic Behavior in Thermal Electrolytic Generators Using Nickel Cathodes, IECEC 1997 Proceedings, paper #97009 (1997) with the background continuum electromechanics (applied to loading) here: Swartz, M., Isotopic Fuel Loading Coupled To Reactions At An Electrode, Fusion Technology, 26, 4T, 74-77 (1994) Swartz. M., Generalized Isotopic Fuel Loading Equations Cold Fusion Source Book, International Symposium On Cold Fusion And Advanced Energy Systems. Ed. Hal Fox, Minsk, Belarus (1994) Swartz, M., Quasi-One-Dimensional Model of Electrochemical Loading of Isotopic Fuel into a Metal, Fusion Technology, 22, 2, 296-300 (1992) === But then these demonstations were of overunity cold fusion systems. By contrast, the (misnamed) LENR probably cannot give a similar demonstation. ;-)X What is the difference between overunity cold fusion systems and LENR? As far as I know the two mean exactly the same thing. Cold fusion systems use lattices such as palladium, nickel and titanium to produce nuclear products and heat. The (lattice) heat results from the HIGH ENERGY of the first excited state, such as the He4* state, that results before the HIGH ENERGY is redistributed to the lattice by the plethora of phonons and polarons. Cold fusion is high energy, involving nuclear states which then collapse as the lattice takes the energy, which appears as excess energy and heat. More on this at http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html More on cold fusion at the upcoming 2005 Cold Fusion Colloquium at MIT. http://world.std.com/~mica/colloq.html 'LENR' is more amorphous, perhaps because it was in part an attempt to avoid the use of the words: 'cold fusion'. Anyway, it now also encompasses phenomena which have far less to zero credibility, of which a long list could be given from rotating water machines to putative biological transmutation. Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dr. Mitchell Swartz JET Thermal
Re: ICCF-11 papers are depressing
At 05:43 PM 5/2/2005, Rothwellwrote: This field is dying, and I cannot think of any way to save it. - Jed Utter nonsense. Cold fusion research and development is (and has been) very much alive. Success in the field requires advanced calculus, metallurgy and engineering. Much will be covered at the 2005 Cold Fusion Colloquium. http://world.std.com/~mica/colloq.html also: http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
Re: Jed about Mills
At 04:54 PM 5/5/2005, Rothwell wrote: There have been no LENR demos! Demos may not even be possible. Utter nonsense. JET Thermal Products gave an open demonstration of a robust cold fusion Phusor system at MIT for a week at ICCF10. John Dash also gave a demonstration on that Tuesday. But then these demonstations were of overunity cold fusion systems. By contrast, the (misnamed) LENR probably cannot give a similar demonstation. ;-)X Demonstration URL is here: http://world.std.com/~mica/jeticcf10demo.html More on the Phusor system is here: http://world.std.com/~mica/jet.html Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dr. Mitchell Swartz JET Thermal Products PO Box 81135 Wellesley Hills, MA 02481 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ===
2005 CF Colloquium at MIT
Vorts: It is a pleasure to announce that the 2005 COLD FUSION Colloquium at MIT, Cambridge Massachusetts is now expanded from 9AM to (at least) 5 PM with the addition of several new speakers, including MIT Prof. Robert Rines who will lead the discussion on the Patent Offices' response to cold fusion patent applications. Many thanks to those who are contributing to this educational scientific cornucopia. Dr. Mitchell Swartz The 2005 Cold Fusion Colloquium with Special Tribute to Dr. Eugene Mallove, Cold Fusioneer, Investigator and MIT Graduate '69 General Topics Science and Engineering Discussions of Cold Fusion Material Science, Review of Present literature concerning Cold Fusion Theoretical Understandings of Cold Fusion Cold Fusion Device Engineering Cold Fusion Patents and Intellectual Property Colloquium Schedule: Saturday, 5/21/05, 9 AM Massachusetts Institute of Technology Colloquium Information - More information, program, pre-registration: http://world.std.com/~mica/colloq.html Colloquium Announcement and Updates http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html Colloquium Registration To register for the program, e-mail Richard Shyduroff [EMAIL PROTECTED] === Tentative Scientific/Engineering Program (in progress): Morning Program: Experiment Reports of Cold Fusion Systems Acoustic-induced Cold Fusion Experiments Experimental Cold Fusion Results Experimental Evidence of Optimal Operating Points Palladium Catalysis of Deuterium Chemistry/Economics of Palladium Catalysis of Deuterium Late Morning Program: Theoretical Strides in Understanding of Cold Fusion Systems Theory - Continuum Electromechanical Control of Loading Theory - Phonons and Cold Fusion Theory - Explanations for the Absence of Neutrons and Bremsstrahlung Theory - Deuteron and Charge Transfer in Loaded Palladium Theory - Ion Band States and Cold Fusion Theory - Micro/Nano Scale High-Density Plasmas and Cold Fusion/Acoustic-Induced Cold Fusion Lunch == Afternoon Program Tribute to Dr. Eugene Mallove, Cold Fusioneer, Investigator and MIT Graduate More Experimental Reports Alternative Energy using Latent Energy of Water Cold Fusion Remediation Experiments Developments in Emerging Energy Solutions Late Afternoon Program: Panel Discussion Cold Fusion Patents and Intellectual Property Future Developments in Cold Fusion and Alternative Clean Energy Sources Cold Fusion Panel and Lecture Participants = Scientific Coordinator: Dr. Mitchell Swartz, '70, http://world.std.com/%7Emica/jet.htmlJET Thermal Products General Coordinator Richard Shyduroff, MIT Prof. Peter Hagelstein, MIT Prof. Keith Johnson, MIT Prof Robert Rines, MIT Dr. Scott Chubb Dr. Talbot Chubb Prof. John Dash Prof. David Nagel Prof. Yeong Kim Dr. Robert Bass Dr. Russ George Prof. Peter Graneau Dr. Les Case Dr. Hal Fox Location and Time of Colloquium Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge Massachusetts Eastman Kodak Room, 6-120 Saturday, 5/21/05, 9 AM to 5 PM Pre-registration To register for the program, e-mail Richard Shyduroff [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you have further interest in the developing technical program, or wish to help, email Dr. Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] = HOSTED BY: The MIT E-Club MIT Seminar 089 MIT Seminar 095 Cold Fusion Times JET Thermal Products ZeroPoint
CF Colloquium at MIT with Special Tribute to Dr. Eugene Mallove
UPCOMING SYMPOSIUM on COLD FUSION at MIT, Cambridge Massachusetts The 2005 Cold Fusion Colloquium Cold Fusion and other Clean Energy Investigations from the Edge of the Envelope with Special Tribute to Dr. Eugene Mallove, Cold Fusioneer, Investigator and MIT Graduate General Topics Science and Engineering Discussions of Cold Fusion Material Science, Review of Present literature concerning Cold Fusion Theoretical Understandings of Cold Fusion Cold Fusion Device Engineering Colloquium Schedule: Saturday, 5/21/05, 9 AM to 4 PM Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA Colloquium Information - More information, program, pre-registration: http://world.std.com/~mica/colloq.html Colloquium Announcement and Updates http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
Re: CF
At 10:01 PM 4/11/2005, Akira Kawasaki wrote: April 11, 2005 Vortex, Has the discussion group that poplulated Vortex been moved? I am not too much into, or interested in, biblical topics mixed into CF. -ak- The 2005 Cold Fusion Colloquium Cold Fusion and other Clean Energy Investigations from the Edge of the Envelope with Special Tribute to Dr. Eugene Mallove, Cold Fusioneer, Investigator and MIT Graduate General Topics Science and Engineering Discussions of Cold Fusion Material Science, Review of Present literature concerning Cold Fusion Theoretical Understandings of Cold Fusion Cold Fusion Device Engineering Colloquium Schedule: Saturday, 5/21/05, 9 AM to 4 PM Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA Colloquium - More information, program, pre-registration: http://world.std.com/~mica/colloq.html Colloquium Announcement http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
Re: Survey questions from Dr. Peter Gluck
At 10:21 PM 4/8/2005, Mike Carrell wrote: Vorts, Peter Gluck is a veteran CF supporter who lives in Romania. He asked me to forward the questions below for comment on vortex. Mike Carrell -- Dear Friends, This was once a group dedicated to Cold Fusion and perhaps it still is. Therefore I am trying to ressurect this tradition. I am writing a paper re: CF- a problem that must be solved and I need your help. Please have the very kindness to answer the following 4 short questions: I have already asked a colleague whose opinion I highly respect and have received such good and stimulating answers that I have decided to make a survey- and to try a synthesis of this survey- to understand the situation of CF after more than 16 years of history. - WHAT IS COLD FUSION (LENR, CANR, CMNS)? Mike and Peter: Cold fusion is the generation of anomalous excess heat at low temperatures. It began with experiments using an immersed palladium electrode activated in heavy water. In March, 1989, when the achievement of cold fusion was first reported in the press, electrochemically induced reactions were very difficult to reproduce. Despite the ensuing controversy, much work has persisted. http://world.std.com/~mica/cftsci.html --- - HOW DOES IT WORK? One way is here: http://world.std.com/~mica/jet.html More here: http://world.std.com/~mica/jetinfo.html more here The 2005 Cold Fusion Colloquium Cold Fusion and other Clean Energy Investigations from the Edge of the Envelope with Special Tribute to Dr. Eugene Mallove, Cold Fusioneer, Investigator and MIT Graduate General Topics Science and Engineering Discussions of Cold Fusion Material Science, Review of Present literature concerning Cold Fusion Theoretical Understandings of Cold Fusion Cold Fusion Device Engineering Colloquium Schedule: Saturday, 5/21/05, 9 AM to 4 PM Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA Colloquium - More information, program, pre-registration: http://world.std.com/~mica/colloq.html Colloquium Announcement http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
Re: Assistance For Posting Mitchell Swartz's Papers On LENR-CANR.ORG
At 06:02 PM 1/27/2005, you wrote: Dear Dr. Swartz, In answer to my private e-mail inquiry about this matter, Jed Rothwell said that he'd be happy to make your research papers available on lenr-canr.org, but that he was unable to find the files on your website, and that his CD drive could not read the CD-R disk you sent him. Mark: Thank you. Your comment is a naive, although very well-intentioned. First, despite Rothwell's nonsense, the files were handed to Rothwell in my car in front of a witness. The files were also e-mailed and they were received and discussed. The files were also sent by regular mail to Storms and Rothwell. Second, the files discussed here are not the papers, but the NAMES of the papers and the names which were removed. They still are if you go to http://www.lenr-canr.org/Collections/ICCF10.htm , entitled PROCEEDINGS - Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF-10). Do you think one needs a CD-ROM to do that when you list the titles in your next line? Now give me one reason why someone would do that? even after Dr. Hagelstein who conducted ICCF10 explicitly told Storms and Rothwell to stop. If you want an issue of the current COLD FUSION TIMES, send us an address. Best wishes. In previous messages, you referred to these two papers: Swartz. M., G. Verner, Excess Heat from Low Electrical Conductivity Heavy Water Spiral-Wound Pd/D2O/Pt and Pd/D2O-PdCl2/Pt Devices, ICCF-10 (Camb. MA), Proceedings of ICCF-10, (2003), Swartz. M., Photoinduced Excess Heat from Laser-Irradiated Electrically-Polarized Palladium Cathodes in D2O, ICCF-10 (Camb. MA), Proceedings of ICCF-10, (2003). . Sincerely, Mark Bilk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Physics Today 1/25/05 - Feder
At 11:44 AM 1/27/2005, Edmund Storms wrote: Dr. Swartz, if you have a problem with what Jed or I have done with your papers, take it up with us personally. Do not waste the time of everyone on Vortex. They can not solve your problem. Ed: First, Rothwell brought this up. He wasted everyone's time his false statement and useless allegation. The problem of the misnamed (and censored) LENR-CANR site is your own. You apparently continue it for reasons known only to you (and perhpas those who attended LENR-2 in Texas). God knows, Jed has tried and failed. Interested viewpoint that you have, Edmund.
Physics Today 1/25/05 - Feder
Physics Today appears to have come down heavy, and somewhat inaccurately, on the DOE report. Claims of cold fusion are no more convincing today than they were 15 years ago. That's the conclusion of the Department of Energy's fresh look at advances in extracting energy from low-energy nuclear reactions. A report released on 1 December 2004 echoes DOE's 1989 study that followed the headline-making claims of cold fusion by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann. Those who have followed this are aware that this is not accurate. First, eighteen anonymous DOE reviewers split approximately evenly on whether or not there is excess power observed in the cold fusion phenomena. That is a great change since the 1989 ERAB report.] Second, not all 2004 cold fusion data was reported to the DOE. Third, FWIW, these are not low-energy nuclear reactions, but involve many MeV per nucleon. Link and other comments at COLD FUSION TIMES web site = The COLD FUSION TIMES - the Uncensored cold fusion web site http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
Re: Concord Monitor: Mallove murder unsolved
At 02:30 PM 1/25/2005, Erik Baard wrote: Hi All - A woman was killed by crossfire across the way from me early last year. A few weeks later I heard gunshots and ran out the door to see if I might help, but the victim was a young man on the sidewalk, his brains blasted out. His vacant eyes stared up into the light pre-dawn rain when they rolled him onto the stretcher. A man at my subway stop, also just around the corner, had his face blasted inward. And a homeless man was sliced and stabbed to death quietly off to the side of our plaza. Hey, my rent is cheap at least. But the point is, not one of these cases has been solved. It's sad but true that families will often have no resolution. My family was lucky, when my 23-year old uncle was murdered days before Christmas and two weeks before his wife gave birth to their first child. His killers were picked up at another murder scene just hours later. But I can also say that two decades later the police were still probing around my former step father for a murder they believed he commited in 1974 (no, we didn't know about this when my mother married him). The fact is that outdoor scenes make life difficult; that much more chaos and complexity. And robberies gone bad, because of their impersonal nature, are terribly difficult unless the killer boasts or confesses. The fact is, however, that Eugene Mallove was not a large threat to the world order. He might have been correct, but he was not alone in his beliefs nor even the primary scientific mind behind Cold Fusion. I know of no other advocates who have been silence with fear as a result of his murder either. Cold Fusion has lost a passionate and articulate advocate. The talented circle of people involved with this movement will need to continue without him. But spinning vague conspiracy theories are more likely to hurt his family then bring them justice. Erik Baard Erik: Friends of the late Dr. Eugene Mallove are quite disappointed that DNA evidence has not been returned to the local detectives from the Connecticut state laboratory (see excerpt below). Neither this delay, nor the lack of accountability, are probably conspiracies, but ALL victims of homicides, and their families, deserve better -- including a faster turn-around than almost a year delay. No one expects a 15-minute DNA identification turn around, like on TV with Lilly Rush or the CSI series, but the tardive and inadequate response of three seasons does not herald an efficiency of which any competent community should be satisfied. Dr. Mitchell Swartz === 1. Anyone with information about Mallove's death please call the Norwich Police Department at (860) 886-5561. The anonymous tip line can be reached at (860) 886-5561, ext. 500. 2. More on this story: 8 months after his death, no leads in Mallove case http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050124/REPOSITORY/501240347/1031Concord Monitor - AnnMarie Timmins Soon after Eugene Mallove of Pembroke was found murdered in Connecticut, outside his childhood home, the local police said they had talked to a couple of suspects and expected to have fingerprint and DNA evidence within a month. That was eight months ago, and the police said last week that they are no closer to solving the case. Some of that DNA evidence - the best hope of tying someone to the scene - still hasn't come back from Connecticut's state lab. The police haven't recovered any of the items taken from Mallove, a watch, cell phone and credit cards, said Lt. Timothy Menard of the Norwich, Conn., police. And despite pleas to the public for help, no one has called. 3. Link to the story, with \other comments at COLD FUSION TIMES web site = The COLD FUSION TIMES - the Uncensored cold fusion web site http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
