Re: [Vo]:Krivit praises Miles while dismissing his results
On Feb 10, 2011, at 5:57 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: The theory is the helium is the end of a sequence of fissions initiated by palladium nuclei absorbing neutrons. (end quote of Harry Veeder, Jed continues ...) Ah. I see. And I gather it involves lithium as well. Does it consume deuterium and produce helium at the same rate as DD fusion would? I guess the lithium depletes, but you could not detect that with the experiments done so far. Experts Tell Me (off line) that technically this would not be called fusion, so score one for Krivit. This is nonsense. We have seen WL's reactions. The chains all start with energy + p + e - n + neutrino so the reaction chains are of the form or include multiple occurrences of the form: energy + p + e + X - n + neutrino + X - Y + neutrino and it is perfectly valid to call them fusion reactions, regardless of what Y does following the fusion. WL state that the intermediate neutron state is ultra low momentum, has a short half-life, and doesn't move far within the lattice. It is merely an interim and partial catalytic state within the overall reaction. That said, it is probably irrelevant as Jed says, because my opinion so far is the theory itself makes no common sense at all: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg38261.html I think the notion of super heavy electrons suppressing gammas and other neuron activation radiation, especially delayed neutron activation gammas, is totally non credible. If it were credible we could create a film with heavy electrons in it, say by initiating the subject reaction conditions, and then simultaneously sending a beam of gammas through the film to see how much the gamma attenuation actuaally changes. Not enough to be of any practical consequence I expect! If so then this would prove the WL theory completely wrong. However, continuing with the assumption the WL theory has some validity, most common definitions of nuclear fusion include, technically, the equation: energy + p + e + X -- n + neutrino + X -- Y + neutrino as an example. The issue is at best a matter of opinion. See: http://www.google.com/search? hl=enclient=safarirls=enq=define:nuclear+fusiondefl=ensa=Xei=- N9UTaOTIYiqsAOB3qm7BQved=0CAUQowMoAQ fusion: a nuclear reaction in which nuclei combine to form more massive nuclei with the simultaneous release of energy wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn The combining of the nuclei of small atoms to form the nuclei of larger ones, with a resulting release of large quantities of energy; the process that makes the sun shine, and hydrogen bomb explode en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nuclear_fusion The combination of the nuclei of certain extremely light elements, especially hydrogen, effected by the application of high temperature and pressure. Nuclear fusion causes the release of an enormous amount of heat energy, comparable to that released by nuclear fission. ... college.cengage.com/geology/resources/geologylink/glossary/n.html the process used by stars to generate energy: less-massive nuclei are fused together under extremely high temperatures and densities to form more-massive nuclei plus some energy. The energy comes from the transformation of some of the mass into energy. www.astronomynotes.com/glossary/glossn.htm A process in which two smaller atomic nuclei fuse into one larger nucleus and release energy; the source of power in a hydrogen bomb. www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/glossaryn.html a nuclear process whereby several small nuclei are combined to make a larger one whose mass is slightly smaller than the sum of the small ones. The difference in mass is converted to energy by Einstein's famous equivalence E=mc2. ... nineplanets.org/help.html joining of two atomic nuclei to form a new nucleus mccroan.com/Glossary/n.htm The process of releasing energy from the nucleus of a small atom by fusing it together with the nucleus of another small atom. www.eon-uk.com/EnergyExperience/559.htm One of the two main processes in a star in which hydrogen is blown outward from the star's center. www.rdrop.com/users/green/school/glossary.htm The process by which the nuclei of atoms fuse together, thereby creating new, larger atoms. www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/earth2/glossary/n.htm Mechanism of energy generation in the core of the Sun, in which light nuclei are combined, or fused, into heavier ones, releasing energy in the process. lifeng.lamost.org/courses/astrotoday/CHAISSON/GLOSSARY/GLOSS_N.HTM a process in which substances fuse to from new substances and releasing large amounts of heat and light energy. www.wsd1.org/southd/science/glossary.htm I consider the following definition just plain wrong: is the supposed stellar process by which the nucleii of four hydrogen atoms collide with sufficient energy to coalesce forming a single helium nucleus having slightly
Re: [Vo]:Krivit praises Miles while dismissing his results
From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: Vortex-L vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, February 11, 2011 1:54:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Krivit praises Miles while dismissing his results I think the notion of super heavy electrons suppressing gammas and other neuron activation radiation, especially delayed neutron activation gammas, is totally non credible. If it were credible we could create a film with heavy electrons in it, say by initiating the subject reaction conditions, and then simultaneously sending a beam of gammas through the film to see how much the gamma attenuation actuaally changes. Not enough to be of any practical consequence I expect! If so then this would prove the WL theory completely wrong. - Don't you think Nagel gives some fatuous reasons for not even mentioning the W-L theory at the current ICCF conference? http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/02/10/american-%e2%80%9ccold-fusion%e2%80%9d-authorities-exclude-colleagues-research/ An experimentalist at the conference won't perform a test of the W-L unless they hear more about the theory. Or is it strictly the job of the theorist to first propose tests of their own theory before it is taken seriously by an experimentalist? harry
Re: [Vo]:Krivit praises Miles while dismissing his results
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: I think an end should be put to the con-fusion, Hear here! :-) T
[Vo]:Krivit praises Miles while dismissing his results
This is exceptionally weird, even for Steve Krivit: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/02/07/missing-cold-fusion-from-new-energy-times/ I posted a note here mentioning that the best evidence for helium is the work of Melvin Miles. Krivit said that New Energy Times has found Melvin Miles’ reports of helium to be well-supported and unambiguous. Yet he continues to claim that cold fusion cannot be fusion. I responded: Well, if helium is the product, then assuming deuterium is the starting material, that makes it fusion by definition. Deuterons fuse together to become helium. Krivit responded with a vigorous attack on McKubre. I responded with a message he does not wish to post: Assume for the sake of argument all of [this attack on McKubre is] true. It has no bearing on the results reported by Miles, Gozzi and others who confirmed helium, and therefore it has no bearing on whether the Pd-D system fuses deuterium to form helium. If you agree that Miles is correct, then it seems to me that unless you think the starting material is something other than deuterium, you agree it is fusion. Perhaps I misunderstand your position. I cannot make head or tail of Krivit's views on why cold fusion is not fusion. How can anyone agree that Miles is well-supported one moment, and then claim they don't indicate fusion the next moment?!? What else could they possibly indicate? Miles himself has no doubt the helium proves it is fusion. I think even Huizenga would agree. Perhaps Krivit's views are in tune with the Windom - Larsen theory. I don't know anything about that theory. If it claims the Pd-D process does not convert deuterium into helium then it is wrong. A theory has to conform to the known facts. Krivit's attack on McKubre is outrageous nonsense. As Lomax pointed out, it is not good for the field that someone with such weird notions is taken seriously by the mass media. I don't worry about Krivit. This field has any number of both enemies and misguided supporters. I cannot tell which he is, but I expect one more can do little harm. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Krivit praises Miles while dismissing his results
Jed, You are overlooking helium as being supplied by alpha emission from Pd, instead of from fusion. This has been the WL stance - yes, there is helium but it comes from alpha emission following a beta decay of other weak force interaction. That was my reason for re-presenting the Forsley presentation from Mizzou/2009 yesterday. He finds numerous channels for fusion, and by implication, there are numerous possible nuclear reactions other than fusion, all at the same time. All in the same experiment. This flies in the face of Ockham, but Forsley is entirely correct IMO, even if he did not go as far as he could at that time. This field cannot be simplified into an either/or situation. Ockham has no place in this field - LENR it is inherently complex. Krivit and his sponsors are half-right (but half-wrong), as is anyone who says that LENR is pure fusion and nothing else. There are clearly both weak-force reactions, and multi-channel fusion going on, at the same time, and in the same experiment. Forsley nailed it in 2009. End of debate for me (and also for many others who are a lot better qualified). This is a growing consensus on this. Jones From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 9:15 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Krivit praises Miles while dismissing his results This is exceptionally weird, even for Steve Krivit: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/02/07/missing-cold-fusion-from-new-energ y-times/ I posted a note here mentioning that the best evidence for helium is the work of Melvin Miles. Krivit said that New Energy Times has found Melvin Miles' reports of helium to be well-supported and unambiguous. Yet he continues to claim that cold fusion cannot be fusion. I responded: Well, if helium is the product, then assuming deuterium is the starting material, that makes it fusion by definition. Deuterons fuse together to become helium. Krivit responded with a vigorous attack on McKubre. I responded with a message he does not wish to post: Assume for the sake of argument all of [this attack on McKubre is] true. It has no bearing on the results reported by Miles, Gozzi and others who confirmed helium, and therefore it has no bearing on whether the Pd-D system fuses deuterium to form helium. If you agree that Miles is correct, then it seems to me that unless you think the starting material is something other than deuterium, you agree it is fusion. Perhaps I misunderstand your position. I cannot make head or tail of Krivit's views on why cold fusion is not fusion. How can anyone agree that Miles is well-supported one moment, and then claim they don't indicate fusion the next moment?!? What else could they possibly indicate? Miles himself has no doubt the helium proves it is fusion. I think even Huizenga would agree. Perhaps Krivit's views are in tune with the Windom - Larsen theory. I don't know anything about that theory. If it claims the Pd-D process does not convert deuterium into helium then it is wrong. A theory has to conform to the known facts. Krivit's attack on McKubre is outrageous nonsense. As Lomax pointed out, it is not good for the field that someone with such weird notions is taken seriously by the mass media. I don't worry about Krivit. This field has any number of both enemies and misguided supporters. I cannot tell which he is, but I expect one more can do little harm. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Krivit praises Miles while dismissing his results
From Jones ... This field cannot be simplified into an either/or situation. Ockham has no place in this field – LENR it is inherently complex. Krivit and his sponsors are half-right (but half-wrong), as is anyone who says that LENR is pure fusion and nothing else. There are clearly both weak-force reactions, and multi-channel fusion going on, at the same time, and in the same experiment. Forsley nailed it in 2009. End of debate for me (and also for many others who are a lot better qualified). This is a growing consensus on this. ... all the more reason to cease what appears to be efforts to vilify the term cold fusion - and presumably all that this catchy little place-holder term is alleged (by certain parties) to stand for. Trashing what cold fusion allegedly means (as if it couldn't possibly mean anything else) strikes me as an unproductive objective. It accomplishes very little other than to muddy the waters even more than they already are. I need a new filter for my aquarium. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Krivit praises Miles while dismissing his results
The theory is the helium is the end of a sequence of fissions initiated by palladium nuclei absorbing neutrons. harry From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, February 10, 2011 12:15:12 PM Subject: [Vo]:Krivit praises Miles while dismissing his results This is exceptionally weird, even for Steve Krivit: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/02/07/missing-cold-fusion-from-new-energy-times/ I posted a note here mentioning that the best evidence for helium is the work of Melvin Miles. Krivit said that New Energy Times has found Melvin Miles’ reports of helium to be well-supported and unambiguous. Yet he continues to claim that cold fusion cannot be fusion. I responded: Well, if helium is the product, then assuming deuterium is the starting material, that makes it fusion by definition. Deuterons fuse together to become helium. Krivit responded with a vigorous attack on McKubre. I responded with a message he does not wish to post: Assume for the sake of argument all of [this attack on McKubre is] true. It has no bearing on the results reported by Miles, Gozzi and others who confirmed helium, and therefore it has no bearing on whether the Pd-D system fuses deuterium to form helium.
Re: [Vo]:Krivit praises Miles while dismissing his results
Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: The theory is the helium is the end of a sequence of fissions initiated by palladium nuclei absorbing neutrons. Ah. I see. And I gather it involves lithium as well. Does it consume deuterium and produce helium at the same rate as DD fusion would? I guess the lithium depletes, but you could not detect that with the experiments done so far. Experts Tell Me (off line) that technically this would not be called fusion, so score one for Krivit. Beene wrote: There are clearly both weak-force reactions, and multi-channel fusion going on, at the same time, and in the same experiment. I don't know anyone who would argue with that. I don't recall anyone saying that LENR is pure fusion and nothing else so that is a strawman argument. Come to think of it, I recall that Krivit claimed I said that. But I didn't. I agree 100% with Steven Vincent Johnson: Trashing what 'cold fusion' allegedly means (as if it couldn't possibly mean anything else) strikes me as an unproductive objective. . . . It accomplishes very little other than to muddy the waters even more than they already are. Even if the W/L theory is correct, there is no way it will make opponents more likely to accept the results. They don't care whether we call it fusion, or whether it is actually fusion or some complex lithium reaction. They don't believe a word of it no matter what it is or what anyone calls it. - Jed
