[Vo]:Will the Media Choose the Winners of LENR?
Exciting times. If these Celani replications are accurate, and MIT has been witnessing Arata's excess heat, then expect a peer-reviewed paper from someone in the near future. If the patent work gets muddled due to decades of work by too many players, the courts may have their hands full for sometime. Before the courts determine a victor, who will the people identify as the inventor? I believe that it may just come down to branding. So, if Nickel Hydrogen really takes off, who gets the credit? Do Fleichmann and Ponns recapture the headlines purely for vindication? Do Focardi and Piantelli get the credit for the original Ni-H work and patents? Do Arata or Mills get credit based on more robust patents? Does Rossi get credit for the idea to use of nanoparticles? (Even if his current incarnation of the E-Cat proves to be a kludgy fraud, the nano-nickel was a good idea) Does Defkalion get credit for providing their radio frequency generator, and having a better-engineered product? I ask this, because the VAST majority of laymen only know of Cold Fusion, what the media told them in 1989/1990. The VAST majority of laymen have never heard the term LENR. The winners and losers during such a revelation may be those with the best PR team and spokesmen.
RE: [Vo]:Will the Media Choose the Winners of LENR?
Robert * Before the courts determine a victor, who will the people identify as the inventor? I believe that it may just come down to branding. So, if Nickel Hydrogen really takes off, who gets the credit? The first Ni-H device to achieve significant excess energy ( 10 watts continuous) and to run for a year in OU mode, and which was completely verified by NASA, and Haldeman at MIT - was the Thermacore reactor, based on Mills' theory and invented by Gernert, Shauback, and Ernst. Those three: Gernert, Shauback, and Ernst should get full credit IMO - not Piantelli, not Focardi, not Rossi, not even Mills who was technically the first theorist of Ni-H. These three guys have not only the legal priority date, but also the first replicated, strong, continuous results with gas phase hydrogen. (there was prior subwatt transitory results) As we have mentioned here before, their reactor got more energy per unit of Nickel surface area than the current Rossi reactor, and had not Thermacore gone through merger and corporate reorganization about this time fame (mid nineties) the inventors would surely have tried nanometric nickel - which was Rossi's main contribution. Note Piantelli was late on 'nano' too. Rossi does not even get credit for the nano since Mills used Raney nickel - by Mills neglected gas-phase. Why did Mills steer clear of gas-phase? ANS: probably he saw early on that the reactants became slowly radioactive, and RM had spurned LENR since the beginning. Thermacore Patent 5,273,635 December 28, 1993 This has the World wide priority date and it has expired. Inventors: Gernert; Nelson J. (Elizabethtown, PA); Shaubach; Robert M. (Litiz, PA); Ernst; Donald M. (Leola, PA) Note: Randell Mills is NOT listed as co-inventor. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Will the Media Choose the Winners of LENR?
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The first Ni-H device to achieve significant excess energy ( 10 watts continuous) and to run for a year in OU mode, and which was completely verified by NASA, and Haldeman at MIT - was the Thermacore reactor, based on Mills’ theory and invented by Gernert, Shauback, and Ernst. Good point. That was an important device. ** ** Those three: Gernert, Shauback, and Ernst should get full credit IMO – not Piantelli, not Focardi, not Rossi, not even Mills . . . I think that is putting it too strongly. Rossi deserves a great deal of credit for applying Arata's technique to the system. He probably added many of his own ideas. I do not know the extent of his contribution because it is still largely secret. There is no doubt he is the first to achieve kilowatt-level stable reactions. I've often said this is only a matter of engineering but I am being facetious. It is a major accomplishment. Nobel worthy. Like discovering integrated circuits. Cold fusion deserves a couple dozen Nobel prizes for various contributions. Certainly Arata deserves one. Fleischmann and Pons deserve at least two each, for physics and chemistry, plus one for putting up with nitwits. They should give me one in that category. As we have mentioned here before, their reactor got more energy per unit of Nickel surface area than the current Rossi reactor . . . How do you figure that? Are you saying that there is a great deal more surface area in nanoparticle material? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will the Media Choose the Winners of LENR?
What happened to these men and their device? How can a functional generator fail to be mass produced all these years later? On Dec 16, 2011, at 13:15, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Robert Ø Before the courts determine a victor, who will the people identify as the inventor? I believe that it may just come down to branding… So, if Nickel Hydrogen really takes off, who gets the credit? The first Ni-H device to achieve significant excess energy ( 10 watts continuous) and to run for a year in OU mode, and which was completely verified by NASA, and Haldeman at MIT - was the Thermacore reactor, based on Mills’ theory and invented by Gernert, Shauback, and Ernst. Those three: Gernert, Shauback, and Ernst should get full credit IMO – not Piantelli, not Focardi, not Rossi, not even Mills who was technically the first theorist of Ni-H. These three guys have not only the legal priority date, but also the first replicated, strong, continuous results with gas phase hydrogen. (there was prior subwatt transitory results) As we have mentioned here before, their reactor got more energy per unit of Nickel surface area than the current Rossi reactor, and had not Thermacore gone through merger and corporate reorganization about this time fame (mid nineties) the inventors would surely have tried “nanometric” nickel – which was Rossi’s main contribution. Note Piantelli was late on ‘nano’ too. Rossi does not even get credit for the “nano” since Mills used Raney nickel – by Mills neglected gas-phase. Why did Mills steer clear of gas-phase? ANS: probably he saw early on that the reactants became slowly radioactive, and RM had spurned LENR since the beginning. Thermacore Patent 5,273,635 December 28, 1993 This has the World wide priority date and it has expired. Inventors: Gernert; Nelson J. (Elizabethtown, PA); Shaubach; Robert M. (Litiz, PA); Ernst; Donald M. (Leola, PA) Note: Randell Mills is NOT listed as co-inventor. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Will the Media Choose the Winners of LENR?
Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com wrote: What happened to these men and their device? I do not know what happened to those people. I lost track of them years ago. How can a functional generator fail to be mass produced all these years later? Well, those devices were far from being practical. They needed a lot of work. I think Gernert et al. would agree. Anyway, functional reactors broadly based on these principles are being made by Rossi and Defkalion, and perhaps by Focardi. Incidentally, the Thermacore report is here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf I do not have the patent. You can find patents fairly easily these days. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will the Media Choose the Winners of LENR?
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com wrote: What happened to these men and their device? I do not know what happened to those people. I lost track of them years ago. Really? You found a genuine, proven, properly documented cold fusion related project that worked and lost track of them? I used to have a platinum mine run by unicorns. Unfortunately, I lost track of that also. How can a functional generator fail to be mass produced all these years later? Well, those devices were far from being practical. They needed a lot of work. I think Gernert et al. would agree. Doesn't matter -- if these devices really did what they were said to, there'd be Nobel prizes all around already -- Thermacore was doing this stuff in 1994! Anyway, functional reactors broadly based on these principles are being made by Rossi and Defkalion, and perhaps by Focardi. There is no conclusive evidence that Rossi has accomplished anything except potentially deceptive demonstrations and Defkalion's evidence is absolutely nothing at all! And you're relying on those? Incidentally, the Thermacore report is here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf From that report:The average power was 57 W ± 26 W. Sorry. Not conclusive. Giant error band compared to output power data. Has it ever been replicated? Refined? Improved? The run I saw by browsing the paper briefly was five hours. Any longer ones properly documented? Isn't this sort of vague and inconclusive bottom line usually what so-called cold fusion and related papers always seem to produce?
RE: [Vo]:Will the Media Choose the Winners of LENR?
Simple, in the context of the time period. Old Hi-tech company (Thermacore) sells out to large International Conglomerate (Modine). New owner downsizes to pay for the acquisition. First thing to go is RD that is too far away from being a profit center. RD is consolidated at new owner’s facility. Inventors at Old company are encouraged into early retirement. Crude oil is selling at $15 barrel – 600% less than today. High grade coal is $20/ton. As for paying lip-service to ecology: natural gas is also cheaper. In short, new owners have a short research horizon, demand immediate profit, and “cold fusion” is in the highest disrepute in Science circles. (Not to mention the other RD staff wants to keep their jobs, and are saying that it will take too long to commercialize this). It is a perfect storm of coincidence leading to the biggest missed opportunity in alternative energy. From: Charles Hope What happened to these men and their device? How can a functional generator fail to be mass produced all these years later? Robert * Before the courts determine a victor, who will the people identify as the inventor? I believe that it may just come down to branding… So, if Nickel Hydrogen really takes off, who gets the credit? The first Ni-H device to achieve significant excess energy ( 10 watts continuous) and to run for a year in OU mode, and which was completely verified by NASA, and Haldeman at MIT - was the Thermacore reactor, based on Mills’ theory and invented by Gernert, Shauback, and Ernst. Those three: Gernert, Shauback, and Ernst should get full credit IMO – not Piantelli, not Focardi, not Rossi, not even Mills who was technically the first theorist of Ni-H. These three guys have not only the legal priority date, but also the first replicated, strong, continuous results with gas phase hydrogen. (there was prior subwatt transitory results) As we have mentioned here before, their reactor got more energy per unit of Nickel surface area than the current Rossi reactor, and had not Thermacore gone through merger and corporate reorganization about this time fame (mid nineties) the inventors would surely have tried “nanometric” nickel – which was Rossi’s main contribution. Note Piantelli was late on ‘nano’ too. Rossi does not even get credit for the “nano” since Mills used Raney nickel – by Mills neglected gas-phase. Why did Mills steer clear of gas-phase? ANS: probably he saw early on that the reactants became slowly radioactive, and RM had spurned LENR since the beginning. Thermacore Patent 5,273,635 December 28, 1993 This has the World wide priority date and it has expired. Inventors: Gernert; Nelson J. (Elizabethtown, PA); Shaubach; Robert M. (Litiz, PA); Ernst; Donald M. (Leola, PA) Note: Randell Mills is NOT listed as co-inventor. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Will the Media Choose the Winners of LENR?
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Simple, in the context of the time period. SNIP ** ** It is a perfect storm of coincidence leading to the biggest missed opportunity in alternative energy. Isn't there a more likely reason that fits the Occam's Razor principle? That they couldn't get a robust and reproducible result from the devices and gave up because they figured that it didn't really work? Otherwise it's hard to believe everyone concerned was willing to give up on a working energy source that new and that different and promising.
RE: [Vo]:Will the Media Choose the Winners of LENR?
No it is not more likely - this appears to be your bogosity quotient at work again - but it raises another issue. Why would anyone invent a bogus rationale unsupported by the record- especially under the guise of Occam - except to justify the continuing failure to do their homework in this field? This is reminiscent of Park's refusal to even accept papers on the subject, since his mind was already made up. Once again, Yugo has failed to avail herself of the information available on the LENR website. Here is NASA's replication of Thermacore's wet cell work http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NiedraJMreplicatio.pdf From: Mary Yugo JB: Simple, in the context of the time period. SNIP It is a perfect storm of coincidence leading to the biggest missed opportunity in alternative energy. MY: Isn't there a more likely reason that fits the Occam's Razor principle? That they couldn't get a robust and reproducible result from the devices and gave up because they figured that it didn't really work? Otherwise it's hard to believe everyone concerned was willing to give up on a working energy source that new and that different and promising.
Re: [Vo]:Will the Media Choose the Winners of LENR?
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Isn't there a more likely reason that fits the Occam's Razor principle? That they couldn't get a robust and reproducible result from the devices and gave up because they figured that it didn't really work? That is not a likely reason because it is factually wrong. They published additional papers showing progress. I suggest you stop speculating and do your homework. Read what happened. Learn. Find out. Stop babbling about subjects you know nothing about. You make yourself look silly, and you are annoying. Keep doing that, and most people will block your posts. This is not a forum for unfounded speculation. The Internet gives access to huge amounts of information, so please avail yourself of it. I was not aware of the history related by Beene, but it sounds plausible. Such developments cannot be analyzed by appealing to Occam's Razor. Corporate decisions and policies are often Byzantine. They are inexplicable. Not subject to the rules of logic or science. I note that elsewhere you again claim that cold fusion replicated by Thermacore might have resulted in a Nobel Prize. People who say that know nothing about academic politics and nothing about what happens to cold fusion researchers who announce positive results. They are not given Nobel prizes. They are harassed, denounced in the mass media, defunded, demoted and fired. If they work for the government, and Robert Park finds out about them, their career will be over. He told a cheering crowd of people at the APS that he and his friends will root out and fire anyone who so much as *talks about* cold fusion. He meant that. He did that. He will keep doing that until he dies. That is why no one does cold fusion research. Like many subjects, cold fusion is extremely unpopular because of academic politics. People who try to study such subjects are given the frozen boot (as they say in Russia). Please try to understand this is the real world, not a Walt Disney movie. This is about money and power. People do not hand over money and power. You have to destroy them to get it. If you fail to destroy them, they will destroy you. No one in academia gives a fart about whether cold fusion is real or not, or whether it might be a useful source of energy, or whether it violates theory. That stuff never crossed their minds. The only question they ever considered is: What is in this for me? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will the Media Choose the Winners of LENR?
Jones, did you read that paper before citing it? It's not a successful replication. Quote from the abstract: The apparent excess heat can not be readily explained either in terms of nonlinearity of the cell's thermal conductance a low temperature differential or by thermoelectric heat pumping. However, the present data do admit efficient recombination of dissolved hydrogen-oxygen as an ordinary explanation. They ran *one* active cell, and got ambiguous results. Contrast the original study, in which they ran dozens of cells, and found excess heat in about 1/5 of them. A replication with just one active cell would not be expected to see excess heat -- and, indeed, they probably didn't. On 11-12-16 04:05 PM, Jones Beene wrote: No it is not more likely - this appears to be your bogosity quotient at work again - but it raises another issue. Why would anyone invent a bogus rationale unsupported by the record-- especially under the guise of Occam - except to justify the continuing failure to do their homework in this field? This is reminiscent of Park's refusal to even accept papers on the subject, since his mind was already made up. Once again, Yugo has failed to avail herself of the information available on the LENR website. Here is NASA's replication of Thermacore's wet cell work http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NiedraJMreplicatio.pdf *From:*Mary Yugo JB: Simple, in the context of the time period. SNIP It is a perfect storm of coincidence leading to the biggest missed opportunity in alternative energy. MY: Isn't there a more likely reason that fits the Occam's Razor principle? That they couldn't get a robust and reproducible result from the devices and gave up because they figured that it didn't really work? Otherwise it's hard to believe everyone concerned was willing to give up on a working energy source that new and that different and promising.
Re: [Vo]:Will the Media Choose the Winners of LENR?
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: No it is not “more likely” - this appears to be your bogosity quotient at work again - but it raises another issue. ** ** Why would anyone invent a bogus rationale unsupported by the record– especially under the guise of Occam - except to justify the continuing failure to do their homework in this field? This is reminiscent of Park’s refusal to even accept papers on the subject, since his mind was already made up. ** ** Once again, Yugo has failed to avail herself of the information available on the LENR website. Sure. I am going to read 1000+ papers. Very reasonable. Here is NASA’s replication of Thermacore’s wet cell work ** ** http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NiedraJMreplicatio.pdf From that paper: The apparent energy evolved in the present experiments was inadequate to eliminate chemical reactions - runs too short for the power observed. However, this possibility has been examined and rejected by other workers operating very similar cells at 50 W apparent excess heat for months. Oh. OK I guess. And THAT was in 1996! Runs too short?? Looks like the same thing Rossi did. Someone needed to break for dinner or to pick up the kids? You're going to have to do better if you want to convince any non-dreamers.
RE: [Vo]:Will the Media Choose the Winners of LENR?
Stephen, Sorry, but you are quite mistaken. Here is the conclusion: Replication of experiments claiming to demonstrate excess heat production in light water-Ni-K2CO3 electrolytic cells was found to produce an apparent excess heat of 11 W maximum, for 60 W electrical power into the cell. Power gains ranged from 1.06 to 1.68. How is a gain of 1.68 NOT successful? When is Considering the large magnitude of benefit if this effect is found to be a genuine new energy source, a more thorough investigation of evolved heat in the nickel-hydrogen system in both electrolytic and gaseous loading cells remains warranted. .not an endorsement? I think you failed to see that even though they put in the usual 'escape clause' (after all this is NASA and we are dealing with fundamental NEW PHYSICS) that they are completely clear that they have demonstrated a prima facie case for a genuine new energy source. They sought additional funding. Politics intervened and they did not get it. Jones From: Stephen A. Lawrence Jones, did you read that paper before citing it? It's not a successful replication. Quote from the abstract: The apparent excess heat can not be readily explained either in terms of nonlinearity of the cell's thermal conductance a low temperature differential or by thermoelectric heat pumping. However, the present data do admit efficient recombination of dissolved hydrogen-oxygen as an ordinary explanation. They ran *one* active cell, and got ambiguous results. Contrast the original study, in which they ran dozens of cells, and found excess heat in about 1/5 of them. A replication with just one active cell would not be expected to see excess heat -- and, indeed, they probably didn't. On 11-12-16 04:05 PM, Jones Beene wrote: No it is not more likely - this appears to be your bogosity quotient at work again - but it raises another issue. Why would anyone invent a bogus rationale unsupported by the record- especially under the guise of Occam - except to justify the continuing failure to do their homework in this field? This is reminiscent of Park's refusal to even accept papers on the subject, since his mind was already made up. Once again, Yugo has failed to avail herself of the information available on the LENR website. Here is NASA's replication of Thermacore's wet cell work http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NiedraJMreplicatio.pdf From: Mary Yugo JB: Simple, in the context of the time period. SNIP It is a perfect storm of coincidence leading to the biggest missed opportunity in alternative energy. MY: Isn't there a more likely reason that fits the Occam's Razor principle? That they couldn't get a robust and reproducible result from the devices and gave up because they figured that it didn't really work? Otherwise it's hard to believe everyone concerned was willing to give up on a working energy source that new and that different and promising.
Re: [Vo]:Will the Media Choose the Winners of LENR?
Mary Yugo wrote: Once again, Yugo has failed to avail herself of the information available on the LENR website. Sure. I am going to read 1000+ papers. Very reasonable. There is a remarkable internet utility available called Google. You will find a link to it at the top of the front page at LENR-CANR.org. Try it! Stop being such a pill. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will the Media Choose the Winners of LENR?
On 11-12-16 04:48 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Stephen, Sorry, but you are quite mistaken. Here is the conclusion: *Replication of experiments claiming to demonstrate excess* *heat production in light water-Ni-K2CO3 electrolytic cells* *was found to produce an apparent excess heat of 11 W* *maximum, for 60 W electrical power into the cell. Power* *gains ranged from 1.06 to 1.68.* ** *How is a gain of 1.68 NOT successful? * Go back and read what it says, not what you wish it said. They said it, right there in the abstract: They couldn't rule out in-cell recombo as the source of the excess heat. In other words, the excess was a book-keeping result which came from adding the calculated energy lost to electrolyzed gas to the measured heat output. It was not an actual, measured, excess. That's suggestive but it's not conclusive, and as such it doesn't replicate, and barely supports, McCubre's results, which were far more solid all by themselves. Why do you think they used the term *apparent* excess heat?
