Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
- codeposition (codep) = simultaneous deposition of Pd and D = palladium deuteride plating - cathode wire is the metal wire substrate on which codeposition is performed. For more information, see: http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/projects/tgp/Welcome.shtml and the documents it links to. Michel 2009/9/17 Frank froarty...@comcast.net: The codeposition I keep hearing reference to.. this is like SPAWARS plating the electrode with a Pd electrolyte simultaneous to the gas evolving? Are we just talking about electroplating two metals at once (I know the Pd is in solution for some SPAWAR experiments) or does the term codeposition in LENR have more signifigance? There was also previous threads about the different kinds of Pd and the need for it to be very rigid. How does plating stack up to rigid forms of Pd? I also investigated platin a porus stainless steel tube briefly and was informed that plating had to be electroless to form a membrane - I know you aren't seeking a macro membrane but are you cell loading on a micro scale by trapping the evolving gas? I know I am shy on the proper lingo here but am I correct in that you are trying to trap the evolving gas in tiny pockets where monatomic gas is free to accelerate while diatomic mobility is restricted or immediately torn apart if formed from fast the moving atoms? Thanks in Advance Fran
RE: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
Michel, Thanks for the link - I will check it out presently but just to be clear (I was sleep deprived in the previous post) I do realize the goal is fusion and was referring to a bootstrap step to get up to those velocities. I am assuming there are many such intermediate step theories but was trying to feel out which, if any, or a combination of all, they are using to guide the materials selection for the proposed kit. Regards Fran -Original Message- From: Michel Jullian [mailto:michelj...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 3:26 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier - codeposition (codep) = simultaneous deposition of Pd and D = palladium deuteride plating - cathode wire is the metal wire substrate on which codeposition is performed. For more information, see: http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/projects/tgp/Welcome.shtml and the documents it links to. Michel 2009/9/17 Frank froarty...@comcast.net: The codeposition I keep hearing reference to.. this is like SPAWARS plating the electrode with a Pd electrolyte simultaneous to the gas evolving? Are we just talking about electroplating two metals at once (I know the Pd is in solution for some SPAWAR experiments) or does the term codeposition in LENR have more signifigance? There was also previous threads about the different kinds of Pd and the need for it to be very rigid. How does plating stack up to rigid forms of Pd? I also investigated platin a porus stainless steel tube briefly and was informed that plating had to be electroless to form a membrane - I know you aren't seeking a macro membrane but are you cell loading on a micro scale by trapping the evolving gas? I know I am shy on the proper lingo here but am I correct in that you are trying to trap the evolving gas in tiny pockets where monatomic gas is free to accelerate while diatomic mobility is restricted or immediately torn apart if formed from fast the moving atoms? Thanks in Advance Fran
RE: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
At 08:30 AM 9/17/2009, Roarty, Francis X wrote: Thanks for the link - I will check it out presently but just to be clear (I was sleep deprived in the previous post) I do realize the goal is fusion and was referring to a bootstrap step to get up to those velocities. I am assuming there are many such intermediate step theories but was trying to feel out which, if any, or a combination of all, they are using to guide the materials selection for the proposed kit. Actually, the goal is not fusion, per se, but to demonstrate the physical effects that lead many of us to conclude that low-energy nuclear reactions are taking place. By making replication cheap, the kit project aims to improve public understanding of these effects, as well as to facilitate certain kinds of investigation into the source of the effects. Other kinds of investigation, as Jed Rothwell points out, require highly sophisticated instrumentation and researchers. In my mind, it all fits together: wider public interest and acceptance will eventually foster and facilitate better acceptance and funding of research. As some have pointed out, if, when codeposition results were first reported, someone had run a kit project like this, we might be a decade ahead of the game. To me, it is not crucial if the reaction is actually fusion, or even if it is actually nuclear. I want the kits to demonstrate at least some of the effects that lead some to conclude that it's nuclear. It is theoretically possible that the kits will result in a rejection of some substantial fraction of cold fusion claims. That would happen if the kits are tested, and reliably show the effects that are the basis of, say, the SPAWAR claims of neutrons and the older and more substantiated claims of charged particle radiation and cathode heating, the kits are sold more widely, *and then* someone uses the kits to conclusively show that the pitting of CR-39 isn't from charged radiation, or that, perhaps, somehow codeposition sucks up radon from the atmosphere, and other claimed effects likewise have more prosaic explanations. On the other hand, that's not the result I expect! (Failures during the kit design and early testing process will be different, because we may run into apparently harmless engineering variations that aren't harmless. Unless we get donor money, and maybe even if we do, the early kits will also be sold, I assume -- funding has to come from somewhere -- but with clear caveats, no representation that they work beyond reporting very small-scale testing.)
Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
2009/9/15 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: At 08:59 AM 9/15/2009, Michel Jullian wrote: Silver would be eaten away and would plate out onto the cathode, so ... About the silver, of course. Yes, the anode must be platinum, or plated platinum. I just found out that the Galileo Project protocol had been released, a very nice work: http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/projects/tgp/TGP0-V5.1b%20Package.zip (even Google didn't know this url, nor did it know the file name, why such modesty Steve?) Quoting the main file TGP0-Lab Protocol V5.1b.pdf entitled The Galileo Project December 3, 2008 Update 5.1b: Tentatively, gold cathode wire seems to give strongest results, then palladium, silver and nickel, in decreasing order. This would preclude use of platinum as a cathode wire as you are proposing, or is this a typo (palladium instead of platinum)? Michel
Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
Afterthought: independently of whether this is a typo, the fact that gold gives strongest results should make us lean towards gold or gold plated wire for the CFP (ColdFusionProject) cathode, don't you think Abd? 2009/9/16 Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com: Tentatively, gold cathode wire seems to give strongest results, then palladium, silver and nickel, in decreasing order. This would preclude use of platinum as a cathode wire as you are proposing, or is this a typo (palladium instead of platinum)?
Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
At 03:43 AM 9/16/2009, you wrote: Afterthought: independently of whether this is a typo, the fact that gold gives strongest results should make us lean towards gold or gold plated wire for the CFP (ColdFusionProject) cathode, don't you think Abd? I'd like to see as much information as possible from those with experience. Certainly gold is an option, it's a little cheaper than platinum. Plating over some sturdy substrate makes sense to me. A palladium substrate, i.e., palladium wire, would, I'd think, suck deuterium from the surface, and would thus slow down loading. What we will do, I expect, is to discuss each detail on the mailing list. There will then be one or more independent working groups that develop a product or products, presumably in communication with the overall list. The project list won't make final decisions, those will be made by those investing their own time and resources or what they have been able to gather. Still looking for information on visible light emissions or other visible behavior of an active cathode.
RE: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
There may be reason to give Pd preferential consideration being a membrane to H2 and D2. The lattice structure of Pd may be contributing to the process in SPAWARS, and similar type vs those performed in a reactor which cooks the gas monatomic. Fran -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 8:56 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier At 03:43 AM 9/16/2009, you wrote: Afterthought: independently of whether this is a typo, the fact that gold gives strongest results should make us lean towards gold or gold plated wire for the CFP (ColdFusionProject) cathode, don't you think Abd? I'd like to see as much information as possible from those with experience. Certainly gold is an option, it's a little cheaper than platinum. Plating over some sturdy substrate makes sense to me. A palladium substrate, i.e., palladium wire, would, I'd think, suck deuterium from the surface, and would thus slow down loading. What we will do, I expect, is to discuss each detail on the mailing list. There will then be one or more independent working groups that develop a product or products, presumably in communication with the overall list. The project list won't make final decisions, those will be made by those investing their own time and resources or what they have been able to gather. Still looking for information on visible light emissions or other visible behavior of an active cathode.
Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
2009/9/16 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: At 03:43 AM 9/16/2009, you wrote: Afterthought: independently of whether this is a typo, the fact that gold gives strongest results should make us lean towards gold or gold plated wire for the CFP (ColdFusionProject) cathode, don't you think Abd? I'd like to see as much information as possible from those with experience. Reading the TGP documents seems the best way to get such info. Certainly gold is an option, it's a little cheaper than platinum. Plating over some sturdy substrate makes sense to me. A palladium substrate, i.e., palladium wire, would, I'd think, suck deuterium from the surface, and would thus slow down loading. Yes, good point, it would make sense that the less H permeable the material, the better for co-dep, even if there are other criteria. Palladium as cathode wire material must definitely have been a typo in the TGP protocol, I did some googling and found no other reference to that in Galileo Project experiments, whereas I found several mentions of using platinum. Anyway, if gold is cheaper than platinum and gives better results (notably more tracks on the back side of the chip, attributed to neutron induced proton recoil, have you seen that in the reports?), the choice isn't hard to make IMHO. Michel
RE: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
The codeposition I keep hearing reference to.. this is like SPAWARS plating the electrode with a Pd electrolyte simultaneous to the gas evolving? Are we just talking about electroplating two metals at once (I know the Pd is in solution for some SPAWAR experiments) or does the term codeposition in LENR have more signifigance? There was also previous threads about the different kinds of Pd and the need for it to be very rigid. How does plating stack up to rigid forms of Pd? I also investigated platin a porus stainless steel tube briefly and was informed that plating had to be electroless to form a membrane - I know you aren't seeking a macro membrane but are you cell loading on a micro scale by trapping the evolving gas? I know I am shy on the proper lingo here but am I correct in that you are trying to trap the evolving gas in tiny pockets where monatomic gas is free to accelerate while diatomic mobility is restricted or immediately torn apart if formed from fast the moving atoms? Thanks in Advance Fran
Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
2009/9/14 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: At 06:38 AM 9/14/2009, you wrote: I'll wait for the detail of your ideas regarding the electronics, but it seems to me a few dollars worth of components would be sufficient for the computing and electrical equipment, which could boil down to a tiny USB key with some relatively simple microcontroller and power electronics design work. A full blown computer plus a programmable power supply are certainly not necessary. Programmable power supply means that the electrolysis protocol can be automatically followed. That's pretty simple. It's not different from the power electronics design work you mention. By the way, I was primarily a printed circuit designer for years, I still have the business, but the design work is now being done in Brazil, I'm really rusty, but I have the Altium software. That's good. The design work could be simplified by starting from a reference design, what do you think of this one: http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/51798a.pdf Regarding current reversal: a/ no it's not stupid I don't think, indeed I seem to recall platinum works as a cathode substrate in those experiments (i.e. pits are produced). But you'll have to verify that the plating on the cathode does redissolve when it becomes an anode, things are not exactly symmetrical as Cl2 will have evolved from the solution in the first run I think. Anyone knows? b/ if it does redissolve, the electrode on the bottom doesn't have to be a permanent anode as you proposed, it could be an extension of one of only two electrodes (rather than three), which would thus occupy one side and the bottom, agreed? No, it should be separate, very simple to do, and it allows the bottom anode to function with either polarity. Otherwise we would have to do the de-plating run as a separate run. Good point. You're right, three electrodes is better. The cathode doesn't care whether the palladium in the electrolyte was added as a chemical at the beginning or was dissolved from the anode. The bottom anode can be silver, it's just there to scavenge palladium. So we'd have two platinum wire electrodes which do alternate duty as cathode/anode, and a bottom electrode which is probably silver foil, or some other metal with silver plating, or maybe silver plating on the bottom of the cell? Silver would be eaten away and would plate out onto the cathode, so this anode too would have to be Pt or Pt plated I guess. Which makes me wonder, Pd is close to Pt chemically, so why would it anodically dissolve in this particular electrolyte if Pt doesn't ? I know Pd does anodically dissolve in (at last some) acidic electrolytes, but in LiCl, I have no idea. And if it does, will it dissolve at a sufficiently high rate? Help, is there an electrochemist on the plane? Michel Ideas about the chlorine would be useful. Could that be recycled? Or would it limit the number of runs that could be done?
Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
At 08:59 AM 9/15/2009, Michel Jullian wrote: Silver would be eaten away and would plate out onto the cathode, so this anode too would have to be Pt or Pt plated I guess. Which makes me wonder, Pd is close to Pt chemically, so why would it anodically dissolve in this particular electrolyte if Pt doesn't ? I know Pd does anodically dissolve in (at last some) acidic electrolytes, but in LiCl, I have no idea. And if it does, will it dissolve at a sufficiently high rate? Help, is there an electrochemist on the plane? About the silver, of course. Yes, the anode must be platinum, or plated platinum. Plating would allow sturdier anodes and cathodes than using wire or foil, might not raise cost increase surface area by plating onto mesh, perhaps. Reading a Szpak paper, they took a piezoelectric sensor and plated it to form a substrate (silver?) and then ran codep on top of that. They used a Croy digital oscilloscope to capture the sensor data, but the sample rate was fairly low, this could be cheaply captured. Now, I've asked before with no response. Has anyone looked for visible light emission with a microscope from an operating electrode? I think that common CCD image sensors will detect IR, but not with the kind of sensitivity that was used in the SPAWAR published images. If we are looking at an active surface, what will we see in the visible and near-IR?
RE: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
The big surprise, if one believes that a version of the Mills hydrino/deuterino is involved at a fundamental level in all of LENR, would be the appearance of EUV. Unfortunately this radiation spectrum is universally absorbed by every element in the periodic table, so you would need to somehow incorporate the detector into the electrode itself. Mills uses a pinhole detector. -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax If we are looking at an active surface, what will we see in the visible and near-IR?
RE: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
Fran, You might be interested in this alternative or reinforcing explanation for finding a gateway to free energy from the mainstream copycats and plagiarists at PhysOrg.com Could Exotic Matter Provide an Infinite Source of Energy? September 15th, 2009 By Lisa Zyga The best thing about this piece is a cool image which is the cover of the October 1920 issue of Popular Science magazine, painted by Norman Rockwell - depicting an inventor working on a perpetual motion machine. (PhysOrg.com) -- Generally, scientists prefer to avoid the concept of perpetual motion. The idea of a machine that could produce movement that goes on forever, and using that movement to generate an endless stream of energy, is usually considered more science fiction than science. But recently, physicist Pavel Ivanov has investigated previous speculation that an exotic fluid with unusual properties could cause energy to flow continuously between different regions of space, resulting in a runaway transfer of energy. If an advanced civilization were able to construct a device to capture this energy, it might finally possess its own perpetuum mobile -- or perpetual motion. Ivanov, from both the University of Cambridge and the Lebedev Physical Institute in Moscow, has analyzed this possibility in a study accepted to Physics Letters B. The idea is that a one-dimensional exotic fluid, whose unique properties such as violating the weak energy condition in particle physics, leads to a scenario in which there is a light cone with regions of negative and positive total energies. Ivanov has calculated the equations of state which give a continuous energy transfer from the negative regions to the positive regions, resulting in what he calls perpetuum mobile of the third kind. However, Ivanov conjectures that theories plagued by solutions involving continuous energy flows should be discarded as inherently unstable. END of quoted material My comment is that this negative region of space sounds all too much like Dirac's sea of negative energy, for it not to be called that from the git-go, and furthermore, this is all too similar to ZPE theories which are out there. This could all be a thinly disguised ploy by the Ivory Tower late-comers to try to usurp some of the prior art of us perp-mo's and assorted vorticians - now that we are on the verge of demonstrating something that they have been trying to convince the public is impossible. Shame on them ;-) From: Roarty, Francis X Jones, I don't believe in the hydrino definition regarding fractional ground states but Yes I do think fast or relativistic hydrogen is involved at a fundamental level in all of LENR. Below is a snip from Wikipedia on Balmer series visible light spectrum from hydrogen. I suspect the gradient of the equivalence boundary as suggested by Di Fiore et all is shifting the visible spectrum in the same way vacuum fluctuations are supposed to be upconverted. If you can accept that upconversion is relativistic and not just displacing long flux in favor of short then space time itself twists inside the cavity taking EVERY spectrum with it from our perspective. Why darker visible instead of lighter is beyond my skill set but perhaps there is a sub visible line that becomes dominant and exhibits itself as Black Light plasma? Best Regards Fran [Snip from Wikipedia] The visible spectrum of light from hydrogen displays four wavelengths, 410 nm, 434 nm, 486 nm, and 656 nm, that reflect emissions of photons by electrons in excited states transitioning to the quantum level described by the principal quantum number n equals 2.[1] There are also a number of ultraviolet Balmer lines with wavelengths shorter than 400 nm. [end snip] -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 11:08 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier The big surprise, if one believes that a version of the Mills hydrino/deuterino is involved at a fundamental level in all of LENR, would be the appearance of EUV. Unfortunately this radiation spectrum is universally absorbed by every element in the periodic table, so you would need to somehow incorporate the detector into the electrode itself. Mills uses a pinhole detector. -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax If we are looking at an active surface, what will we see in the visible and near-IR?
RE: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
Jones, We can only hope to get honorable mention at best; I am not worried about reputation or remuneration other than savings due to free energy. I am resigned to let the mainstream take the ball and run with it, Without a big name to command respect ZPF will be forever shouted down - I am still answering critics that throw Parks 1991 comments at me and absolutely insist on centering the arguments around Mills sub ground state like all the other players and theories don't even exist. They stop just short of name calling. Why Mills evokes such hatred is beyond me but I have to go out of my way every time I mention his results to say the sub ground state was a wrong interpretation or I immediately get nasty comments. Its' like waving a red flag! His mistake wasn't really all that big or surprising given the data he was observing and the date of his research, It was before the Italians had even introduced the idea that an equivalence could exist in a Casimir cavity or that a Casimir cavity and catalyst might be related, Anybody would have assumed from the equations that the radius must be changing because things like time and planks constant can only change relativistically and there wasn't sure any event horizon around . Best Regards Fran From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 3:28 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier Fran, You might be interested in this alternative or reinforcing explanation for finding a gateway to free energy from the mainstream copycats and plagiarists at PhysOrg.com Could Exotic Matter Provide an Infinite Source of Energy? September 15th, 2009 By Lisa Zyga The best thing about this piece is a cool image which is the cover of the October 1920 issue of Popular Science magazine, painted by Norman Rockwell - depicting an inventor working on a perpetual motion machine. (PhysOrg.com) -- Generally, scientists prefer to avoid the concept of perpetual motion. The idea of a machine that could produce movement that goes on forever, and using that movement to generate an endless stream of energy, is usually considered more science fiction than science. But recently, physicist Pavel Ivanov has investigated previous speculation that an exotic fluid with unusual properties could cause energy to flow continuously between different regions of space, resulting in a runaway transfer of energy. If an advanced civilization were able to construct a device to capture this energy, it might finally possess its own perpetuum mobile -- or perpetual motion. Ivanov, from both the University of Cambridge and the Lebedev Physical Institute in Moscow, has analyzed this possibility in a study accepted to Physics Letters B. The idea is that a one-dimensional exotic fluid, whose unique properties such as violating the weak energy condition in particle physics, leads to a scenario in which there is a light cone with regions of negative and positive total energies. Ivanov has calculated the equations of state which give a continuous energy transfer from the negative regions to the positive regions, resulting in what he calls perpetuum mobile of the third kind. However, Ivanov conjectures that theories plagued by solutions involving continuous energy flows should be discarded as inherently unstable. END of quoted material My comment is that this negative region of space sounds all too much like Dirac's sea of negative energy, for it not to be called that from the git-go, and furthermore, this is all too similar to ZPE theories which are out there. This could all be a thinly disguised ploy by the Ivory Tower late-comers to try to usurp some of the prior art of us perp-mo's and assorted vorticians - now that we are on the verge of demonstrating something that they have been trying to convince the public is impossible. Shame on them ;-) From: Roarty, Francis X Jones, I don't believe in the hydrino definition regarding fractional ground states but Yes I do think fast or relativistic hydrogen is involved at a fundamental level in all of LENR. Below is a snip from Wikipedia on Balmer series visible light spectrum from hydrogen. I suspect the gradient of the equivalence boundary as suggested by Di Fiore et all is shifting the visible spectrum in the same way vacuum fluctuations are supposed to be upconverted. If you can accept that upconversion is relativistic and not just displacing long flux in favor of short then space time itself twists inside the cavity taking EVERY spectrum with it from our perspective. Why darker visible instead of lighter is beyond my skill set but perhaps there is a sub visible line that becomes dominant and exhibits itself as Black Light plasma? Best Regards Fran [Snip from Wikipedia] The visible spectrum of light from hydrogen displays four wavelengths, 410 nm, 434 nm, 486 nm, and 656
Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
Hi Abd, I'll wait for the detail of your ideas regarding the electronics, but it seems to me a few dollars worth of components would be sufficient for the computing and electrical equipment, which could boil down to a tiny USB key with some relatively simple microcontroller and power electronics design work. A full blown computer plus a programmable power supply are certainly not necessary. Regarding current reversal: a/ no it's not stupid I don't think, indeed I seem to recall platinum works as a cathode substrate in those experiments (i.e. pits are produced). But you'll have to verify that the plating on the cathode does redissolve when it becomes an anode, things are not exactly symmetrical as Cl2 will have evolved from the solution in the first run I think. Anyone knows? b/ if it does redissolve, the electrode on the bottom doesn't have to be a permanent anode as you proposed, it could be an extension of one of only two electrodes (rather than three), which would thus occupy one side and the bottom, agreed? Michel 2009/9/13 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: At 05:15 AM 9/13/2009, you wrote: 2009/9/7, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: Computer interface, standard USB. We could even have the kit _powered _by the USB interface, I am pretty sure we don't need more than the 5 V at 500 mA = 2.5 W it can deliver for a small codep cell. The inexpensive USB CF kit would even withstand power outages if connected to a laptop! Yeah, attractive. If more power is required, UPS devices are cheap, but that's up to the end user, I'd say. I'm inclining toward thinking that the interface (i.e., what I've been calling the instrumentation, which includes power supply, I assume, would have its own computer, they are *very* cheap now, and could easily be designed to withstand power outages and other interruptions. More money can go into the interface than the cells, much more. Part of what I have in mind would collect data even if the user forgets to do anything but turn the thing on. We'll get into more detail on coldfusionproj...@yahoogroups.com, I assume, much more, broken down into the various aspects that need to be brainstormed/discussed/decided. Anode cost: A silver wire as you proposed would corrode, but we could use a platinum _plated_ wire. That's interesting. Someone tell me about symmetry. What happens if, say, we have platinum plated silver anodes and cathodes, both, and we run the cell one way for a time, then reverse the polarity? If I understand it, the palladium that was plated onto the former cathode will be dissolved in the electrolyte, being plated at the same time onto the former anode. Palladium that falls off the original cathode, if it does, will be lost unless somehow it falls onto another anode, possibly the bottom of the cell is an anode always, it recycles the palladium that flakes off and falls. Being able to cycle the cell multiple times would have some obvious value, if it works. I'm just asking, perhaps, all the stupid questions I can think of. Obviously, I don't know that they are stupid or I wouldn't ask them, but once in a while I ask a stupid question and it's something nobody thought of before; and even if it is, I get to learn. After a while, I assure you all, the questions get better.
Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
At 06:38 AM 9/14/2009, you wrote: I'll wait for the detail of your ideas regarding the electronics, but it seems to me a few dollars worth of components would be sufficient for the computing and electrical equipment, which could boil down to a tiny USB key with some relatively simple microcontroller and power electronics design work. A full blown computer plus a programmable power supply are certainly not necessary. Programmable power supply means that the electrolysis protocol can be automatically followed. That's pretty simple. It's not different from the power electronics design work you mention. By the way, I was primarily a printed circuit designer for years, I still have the business, but the design work is now being done in Brazil, I'm really rusty, but I have the Altium software. Regarding current reversal: a/ no it's not stupid I don't think, indeed I seem to recall platinum works as a cathode substrate in those experiments (i.e. pits are produced). But you'll have to verify that the plating on the cathode does redissolve when it becomes an anode, things are not exactly symmetrical as Cl2 will have evolved from the solution in the first run I think. Anyone knows? b/ if it does redissolve, the electrode on the bottom doesn't have to be a permanent anode as you proposed, it could be an extension of one of only two electrodes (rather than three), which would thus occupy one side and the bottom, agreed? No, it should be separate, very simple to do, and it allows the bottom anode to function with either polarity. Otherwise we would have to do the de-plating run as a separate run. The cathode doesn't care whether the palladium in the electrolyte was added as a chemical at the beginning or was dissolved from the anode. The bottom anode can be silver, it's just there to scavenge palladium. So we'd have two platinum wire electrodes which do alternate duty as cathode/anode, and a bottom electrode which is probably silver foil, or some other metal with silver plating, or maybe silver plating on the bottom of the cell? Ideas about the chlorine would be useful. Could that be recycled? Or would it limit the number of runs that could be done?
Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
2009/9/7, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: Computer interface, standard USB. We could even have the kit _powered _by the USB interface, I am pretty sure we don't need more than the 5 V at 500 mA = 2.5 W it can deliver for a small codep cell. The inexpensive USB CF kit would even withstand power outages if connected to a laptop! Anode cost: A silver wire as you proposed would corrode, but we could use a platinum _plated_ wire. Michel
Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
At 05:15 AM 9/13/2009, you wrote: 2009/9/7, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: Computer interface, standard USB. We could even have the kit _powered _by the USB interface, I am pretty sure we don't need more than the 5 V at 500 mA = 2.5 W it can deliver for a small codep cell. The inexpensive USB CF kit would even withstand power outages if connected to a laptop! Yeah, attractive. If more power is required, UPS devices are cheap, but that's up to the end user, I'd say. I'm inclining toward thinking that the interface (i.e., what I've been calling the instrumentation, which includes power supply, I assume, would have its own computer, they are *very* cheap now, and could easily be designed to withstand power outages and other interruptions. More money can go into the interface than the cells, much more. Part of what I have in mind would collect data even if the user forgets to do anything but turn the thing on. We'll get into more detail on coldfusionproj...@yahoogroups.com, I assume, much more, broken down into the various aspects that need to be brainstormed/discussed/decided. Anode cost: A silver wire as you proposed would corrode, but we could use a platinum _plated_ wire. That's interesting. Someone tell me about symmetry. What happens if, say, we have platinum plated silver anodes and cathodes, both, and we run the cell one way for a time, then reverse the polarity? If I understand it, the palladium that was plated onto the former cathode will be dissolved in the electrolyte, being plated at the same time onto the former anode. Palladium that falls off the original cathode, if it does, will be lost unless somehow it falls onto another anode, possibly the bottom of the cell is an anode always, it recycles the palladium that flakes off and falls. Being able to cycle the cell multiple times would have some obvious value, if it works. I'm just asking, perhaps, all the stupid questions I can think of. Obviously, I don't know that they are stupid or I wouldn't ask them, but once in a while I ask a stupid question and it's something nobody thought of before; and even if it is, I get to learn. After a while, I assure you all, the questions get better.
Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: We'll get into more detail on coldfusionproj...@yahoogroups.com, Abd, that is an email address. You should be sending folks to: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/coldfusionproject/ Regards, Terry
Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
2009/9/10 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: At 09:56 AM 9/9/2009, Michel Jullian wrote: I also recall an old SPAWAR codeposition experiment claiming to produce tritium, which they mentioned in a recent review of their work. If that was not bogus, tritium being very easy to detect unmistakably, what else is needed to prove CF is indisputably real? We need ONE SINGLE multiply replicated positive experiment to defend, not tens, not hundreds, as I am sure you agree considering your present approach. Yes, precisely. Actually, I'm looking for more than one, and especially more than one suggestion, but, really, one is the point. If we don't have one, it doesn't matter, eh? Absolutely. The tritium producing SPAWAR experiment I was talking about was discussed here in January: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg29943.html and in the ensuing discussion, where Horace was already writing (in msg 29965) However, it seems to me the CF community needs to home in on one, just one, highly repeatable, unambiguous, cheap and easy experiment to demonstrate that CF is real. So far we've not done a good job of that. So, let's do just that, shall we? Michel
Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
At 08:25 AM 9/10/2009, Michel Jullian wrote: The tritium producing SPAWAR experiment I was talking about was discussed here in January: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg29943.html and in the ensuing discussion, where Horace was already writing (in msg 29965) However, it seems to me the CF community needs to home in on one, just one, highly repeatable, unambiguous, cheap and easy experiment to demonstrate that CF is real. So far we've not done a good job of that. So, let's do just that, shall we? Thanks. I believe, in spite of the negativity, that we can do it. And how we do it, I suggest, is through joining coldfusionproj...@yahoogroups.com, which will be used as part of a decision-making mechanism that will seek maximum consensus; the way it will be done will leave actual decisions in the hands of what I call caucuses, which will decide to form a company or companies or other activities. (One person can be a caucus! In this case, if the person has the money or time to invest.) Consensus is powerful, there is high motivation to find it, because whatever is decided will be easier with more support, but it is not necessary to find complete agreement or even a majority; a caucus can decide to go ahead no matter what the rest of the participants think. My own decisions will be just that: my own decisions, as advised by the community. In a sense, I'm setting all this up to get the best advice, and also to find people with whom to cooperate; I expect that I'll be putting in some of my own limited resources. Not a lot, for sure, but something. My time will be the most valuable thing I put in, I'm sure, because I have only very limited savings, actually inadequate for my age and responsibilities. But you do what you can do. Hence I want this to work the first time, if it becomes a money sink, it will be a disaster for me. The mailing list will not be allowed to become a free-form debate on, say, cold fusion theories. But you'll see if you join. It hasn't really started yet, just a few foundation posts, and there will be more. The cell cost, in particular, is, contrary to Jed's proclamations, crucial, even if the instrumentation is more expensive than I expect. If cells are cheap, one can run many cells individually, and keep varying one condition at a time. It's real science, all right, but it's also a toy, it should be fun.
Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: And how we do it, I suggest, is through joining coldfusionproj...@yahoogroups.com . . . This does not appear to work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/coldfusionproject/ is the URL. Terry On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: And how we do it, I suggest, is through joining coldfusionproj...@yahoogroups.com . . . This does not appear to work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
Terry Blanton wrote: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/coldfusionproject/ is the URL. I meant the sign up message bounces. Looking at it closely, that could be because it says grous instead of groups: coldfusionproject-subscr...@yahoogrous.com Hey, that's what the man said . . . - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
You can join from the URL site. On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/coldfusionproject/ is the URL. I meant the sign up message bounces. Looking at it closely, that could be because it says grous instead of groups: coldfusionproject-subscr...@yahoogrous.com Hey, that's what the man said . . . - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
Blue box on the right says Join this group. Terry On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: You can join from the URL site. On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/coldfusionproject/ is the URL. I meant the sign up message bounces. Looking at it closely, that could be because it says grous instead of groups: coldfusionproject-subscr...@yahoogrous.com Hey, that's what the man said . . . - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
At 10:47 AM 9/10/2009, you wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: And how we do it, I suggest, is through joining coldfusionproj...@yahoogroups.com . . . This does not appear to work. No, it works. You are now subscribed, Jed. The problem is that to prevent spammers from joining and harvesting email addresses, membership is moderated. I'm not going to reject anyone who shows, in the subscription request, any clue. But the list is configured like this one, your email address is revealed to everyone who subscribes. (It isn't visible in the on-line archive.) You can join by sending a mail to coldfusionproject-subscr...@yahoogroups.com, or through the Yahoo web interface, if you have a Yahoo account, which is recommended because you will then have access to the web features, such as files, photos, databases, polls, calendars, etc., and you can control your own subscription parameters. Thanks, Jed.
Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
At 03:39 PM 9/10/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/coldfusionproject/ is the URL. I meant the sign up message bounces. Looking at it closely, that could be because it says grous instead of groups: coldfusionproject-subscr...@yahoogrous.com Hey, that's what the man said . . . The man is seriously flaky. What he says must be taken as an approximation, from which one infers the meaning Engineering documentation gets much better, because it gets lots of checks
Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
2009/9/8 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: At 09:08 AM 9/8/2009, you wrote: Yes indeed, codeposition + looking for tracks in CR-39 are the keys to low cost (very low material cost, very low equipment cost), the question is, as I asked recently in another thread where I got no answer, are the numerous pits observed in those CR-39 experiments the result of (electro?)chemical attack or genuine energetic particle tracks? Or only some of them maybe? Your opinions welcome. Ed? Jed? I find the chemical attack explanation rather thin. That a chemical attack of the CR-39 occurs in those cells is not debatable, see: http://www.earthtech.org/CR39/index.html During our investigation, we observed one effect that was clearly caused by chemical damage to the CR-39. We carefully measured the thickness of the CR-39 at various stages of the experiment. The thickness did not change after exposure to the electrolyte. However, when chips that had been exposed to the electrolyte for weeks were placed in the etching solution, the etch rate was unusually high at first, but returned to a normal rate after a few hours. Normally, CR-39 will etch at a rate of 1.5 microns per hour using TGP etch parameters. However, these chips lost 80 microns in the first 1.5 hours. They also observed damage to the plastic cell walls, see their expts A and B. I'm concerned about the difficulty of reproduction angle. I had assumed that the codep technique avoids the materials issues, i.e., having just the right palladium for Fleischmann cells. Just how variable can a thin layer of palladium be? Palladium doesn't seem to be required, the Earthtech people claim in the above page that they also got pits in CR-39 by codepositing Cu or Ni (using respectively CuSO4 and NiCl2 instead of PdCl2 in the electrolyte). Had a long talk with Storms yesterday, he was generous with his time. On the one hand, quite negative. Apparently he's tried to reproduce the SPAWAR work without success. If I didn't misunderstand him, there may be some very serious obstacles. I was under the impression that the success rate in TGP was quite high on the contrary, Steve Krivit may want to infirm/confirm. On the one hand, but Ed and Jed are very negative about the prospects for a kit that anyone could use; every proposal is met with very negative response, such as I suggested infrared imaging and Ed said maybe you could get a camera to do it for $10,000 (actually the first number he gave was higher). But what I had in mind wasn't a full blown industrial camera, but a kludged setup using a night vision device and lenses, fixed focus. The idea is to get different kinds of data from the cell, besides ones that are necessarily proof of nuclear activity. I mentioned sound. Well, electrolytic cells are noisy, apparently, from the bubbles. Noisy at what frequencies? Are there any effects *associated* with excess heat and/or radiation and/or helium? Lots and lots and lots of questions. Jed has recommended pursuing Arata-type replications. I find it unfortunate that the most recent /less verified CF experiments always seem to be the most fashionable among most CF researchers and friends, as if the old ones were considered worthless. I have myself enquired about the proverbial indisputable CF demo experiment in the past, without much more success than you're having now, and I also think it's about time we had one. Even if it's only say 10% reproducible, who cares? If hundreds of people attempt it, there will still be tens of positive replications! I also recall an old SPAWAR codeposition experiment claiming to produce tritium, which they mentioned in a recent review of their work. If that was not bogus, tritium being very easy to detect unmistakably, what else is needed to prove CF is indisputably real? We need ONE SINGLE multiply replicated positive experiment to defend, not tens, not hundreds, as I am sure you agree considering your present approach. Michel
Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
At 09:56 AM 9/9/2009, Michel Jullian wrote: I also recall an old SPAWAR codeposition experiment claiming to produce tritium, which they mentioned in a recent review of their work. If that was not bogus, tritium being very easy to detect unmistakably, what else is needed to prove CF is indisputably real? We need ONE SINGLE multiply replicated positive experiment to defend, not tens, not hundreds, as I am sure you agree considering your present approach. Yes, precisely. Actually, I'm looking for more than one, and especially more than one suggestion, but, really, one is the point. If we don't have one, it doesn't matter, eh?
Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
Yes indeed, codeposition + looking for tracks in CR-39 are the keys to low cost (very low material cost, very low equipment cost), the question is, as I asked recently in another thread where I got no answer, are the numerous pits observed in those CR-39 experiments the result of (electro?)chemical attack or genuine energetic particle tracks? Or only some of them maybe? Your opinions welcome. Ed? Jed? Michel P.S. Abd, it's a good thing you're discussing your projects here, where you may catch more ideas/suggestions/objections than on your lower diffusion mailing list. 2009/9/8 Harry Veeder hvee...@ncf.ca: I think one kit should focus on anmoulous particle production rather than excess heat. See Richard Oriani research on Ludwik Kowalski's page: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/368project.html Harry - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com Date: Monday, September 7, 2009 5:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier At 02:40 PM 9/7/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: My goal is that each test cell be cheap, very cheap, well under, say, the cost of a Galileo Project replication . . . I do not understand this goal. The cost of materials has never been a barrier to replicating cold fusion, except perhaps when I could not afford to buy 1 kg of Johnson-Matthey Pd. You are not usual, Jed. What you are showing is part of the thinking that kept Cold fusion down. I don't blame you, and I certainly respect your experience. But you have also come up with some real nonsense. The material cost is trivial -- immaterial if you will -- compared to the cost of the instruments and effort. I have never seen a credible cold fusion experiment that costs less than ~$100,000 and probably a lot more if you take into account the cost of people's time. I don't think this is true. Galileo project. You know the situation with Mizuno, how hard it was for him because of the costs. Perhaps the key word is credible. There is a lost performative here. Credible isn't an absolute characteristic of some phenomenon or, in this case, experimental result. It refers to a reaction by people. The reaction by people will depend on many factors that aren't part of the experimental report! Many cold fusion researchers were convinced by some happening that they could not use to convince others. They saw it. Now, suppose we could create a few hundred young people and a few hundred scientists who have all see the same phenomenon? In a certain sense, I don't need to focus on the ultimate effect of a cheap cold fusion demonstration kit. I only need to look at the practicality: can it be done? If it can be done, enough money, I believe, can be made with it to justify the activity and the investment. The only worrisome possibility is that it can't be done. I just spend a long time on the phone with Dr. Storms. He's encouraging, but, at the same time, quite as negative as you about the possibility of doing such a kit. However, we did examine in some detail his objections, and the objections were coming largely from assumptions about what a kit would be like. In short, it won't be what most researchers in the field expect. It won't necessarily produce bulletproof evidence, unimpeachable. It will produce a body of *experience* that is shared. It's not necessary to convince a lot of people to support this. A few who are willing to work on it or help it can do it. If people are interested, they can join the project. If not, that's fine, everyone decides where to put their effort. Whether the materials cost $20 or $200, or even $2,000 does not make the slightest difference and has not stopped anyone from trying the experiment, as far as I know. I have never heard from someone who said I would love to try this but I can't afford the palladium. I have heard from people who said they can't find the palladium; or they don't feel competent to test it per Storms' instructions; or -- most often -- they don't have the time or the instruments they need. Codeposition, Jed. Not palladium, but palladium chloride. Now, Storms say that he's been unable to reproduce the codeposition results of the SPAWAR group. That's worrisome, Jed. On the other hand, there were some positive results from the Galileo Project. I'm going to need to ask Mr. Krivit more about that The only thing you should look for in materials is something that works. Whether it costs $20 or $2000 should not be a consideration. Wrong. If the kit is expensive, it causes two problems. It can't be purchased by kids or their parents on a limited budget. An experimenter can't decide to test *many* cells instead of one or a very few. You are thinking of ordinary scientific replication. I'm not. I'm thinking of bypassing the entire existing system and creating something that could be studied by others, later, the
Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: But apparently the Kitamura work only found a small effect, unlike the much larger effect that Arata reported. Kitamura used only a small sample. That is to say, he took a large sample and divided it into 6 small samples, for reasons I explained here previously. He hopes to try a single large sample soon. (He may already be doing that.) If you compare the strength of the reaction to the mass of material, I believe it is comparable to Arata's results. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
At 11:05 PM 9/7/2009, Harry Veeder wrote: I think one kit should focus on [anomalous] particle production rather than excess heat. See Richard Oriani research on Ludwik Kowalski's page: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/368project.html I already linked to Kowalski's work on the project list. The other project of serious interest is the Galileo project. Thanks.
Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
At 09:08 AM 9/8/2009, you wrote: Yes indeed, codeposition + looking for tracks in CR-39 are the keys to low cost (very low material cost, very low equipment cost), the question is, as I asked recently in another thread where I got no answer, are the numerous pits observed in those CR-39 experiments the result of (electro?)chemical attack or genuine energetic particle tracks? Or only some of them maybe? Your opinions welcome. Ed? Jed? I find the chemical attack explanation rather thin. Charged particle tracks with CR-39 were reported by the Chinese in, I think, 1990. Chemical attack was an obvious possibility, but it seems to have been ruled out by the SPAWAR group, their responses to Kowalski seem credible. CR-39 tracks are an obvious option. I'm concerned about the difficulty of reproduction angle. I had assumed that the codep technique avoids the materials issues, i.e., having just the right palladium for Fleischmann cells. Just how variable can a thin layer of palladium be? Had a long talk with Storms yesterday, he was generous with his time. On the one hand, quite negative. Apparently he's tried to reproduce the SPAWAR work without success. If I didn't misunderstand him, there may be some very serious obstacles. The approach I want to take should *theoretically* work. (The approach is not some specific formula or protocol, but a practical engineering approach that is design to find reproducible effects without understanding the theory; Storms seemed to think this impossible until the theory is understood, but I suspect that is backwards. Until there are effects that are solid enough that controlled experiments produce definitive results, exploring theory will remain very difficult. On the one hand, but Ed and Jed are very negative about the prospects for a kit that anyone could use; every proposal is met with very negative response, such as I suggested infrared imaging and Ed said maybe you could get a camera to do it for $10,000 (actually the first number he gave was higher). But what I had in mind wasn't a full blown industrial camera, but a kludged setup using a night vision device and lenses, fixed focus. The idea is to get different kinds of data from the cell, besides ones that are necessarily proof of nuclear activity. I mentioned sound. Well, electrolytic cells are noisy, apparently, from the bubbles. Noisy at what frequencies? Are there any effects *associated* with excess heat and/or radiation and/or helium? Lots and lots and lots of questions. Jed has recommended pursuing Arata-type replications. Maybe. But apparently the Kitamura work only found a small effect, unlike the much larger effect that Arata reported. No data from Arata on absolute heat generation, no way to assess the work. Sterling engine running, great. Now is that delayed heat release from hydride formation that is perhaps slower with deuterium, some kind of leaking into the particles that doesn't happen with hydrogen? Claim is much more energy out, presumably in the extended period, than can be explained chemically, but without any calorimetry data and only weak results from Kitamura P.S. Abd, it's a good thing you're discussing your projects here, where you may catch more ideas/suggestions/objections than on your lower diffusion mailing list. The mailing list is more for a working group, a place to support the making of decisions. It's working again, by the way, it was down for more than a day. coldfusionproj...@yahoogroups.com
Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
At 11:06 AM 9/8/2009, you wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: But apparently the Kitamura work only found a small effect, unlike the much larger effect that Arata reported. Kitamura used only a small sample. That is to say, he took a large sample and divided it into 6 small samples, for reasons I explained here previously. He hopes to try a single large sample soon. (He may already be doing that.) If you compare the strength of the reaction to the mass of material, I believe it is comparable to Arata's results. I really need to get a copy of the Kitamura paper. Is it, or a prepublication version, available? If it's comparable to Arata's results, that leads to some possibilities. I understand the Kitamura material should be available.
Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
At 02:40 PM 9/7/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: My goal is that each test cell be cheap, very cheap, well under, say, the cost of a Galileo Project replication . . . I do not understand this goal. The cost of materials has never been a barrier to replicating cold fusion, except perhaps when I could not afford to buy 1 kg of Johnson-Matthey Pd. You are not usual, Jed. What you are showing is part of the thinking that kept Cold fusion down. I don't blame you, and I certainly respect your experience. But you have also come up with some real nonsense. The material cost is trivial -- immaterial if you will -- compared to the cost of the instruments and effort. I have never seen a credible cold fusion experiment that costs less than ~$100,000 and probably a lot more if you take into account the cost of people's time. I don't think this is true. Galileo project. You know the situation with Mizuno, how hard it was for him because of the costs. Perhaps the key word is credible. There is a lost performative here. Credible isn't an absolute characteristic of some phenomenon or, in this case, experimental result. It refers to a reaction by people. The reaction by people will depend on many factors that aren't part of the experimental report! Many cold fusion researchers were convinced by some happening that they could not use to convince others. They saw it. Now, suppose we could create a few hundred young people and a few hundred scientists who have all see the same phenomenon? In a certain sense, I don't need to focus on the ultimate effect of a cheap cold fusion demonstration kit. I only need to look at the practicality: can it be done? If it can be done, enough money, I believe, can be made with it to justify the activity and the investment. The only worrisome possibility is that it can't be done. I just spend a long time on the phone with Dr. Storms. He's encouraging, but, at the same time, quite as negative as you about the possibility of doing such a kit. However, we did examine in some detail his objections, and the objections were coming largely from assumptions about what a kit would be like. In short, it won't be what most researchers in the field expect. It won't necessarily produce bulletproof evidence, unimpeachable. It will produce a body of *experience* that is shared. It's not necessary to convince a lot of people to support this. A few who are willing to work on it or help it can do it. If people are interested, they can join the project. If not, that's fine, everyone decides where to put their effort. Whether the materials cost $20 or $200, or even $2,000 does not make the slightest difference and has not stopped anyone from trying the experiment, as far as I know. I have never heard from someone who said I would love to try this but I can't afford the palladium. I have heard from people who said they can't find the palladium; or they don't feel competent to test it per Storms' instructions; or -- most often -- they don't have the time or the instruments they need. Codeposition, Jed. Not palladium, but palladium chloride. Now, Storms say that he's been unable to reproduce the codeposition results of the SPAWAR group. That's worrisome, Jed. On the other hand, there were some positive results from the Galileo Project. I'm going to need to ask Mr. Krivit more about that The only thing you should look for in materials is something that works. Whether it costs $20 or $2000 should not be a consideration. Wrong. If the kit is expensive, it causes two problems. It can't be purchased by kids or their parents on a limited budget. An experimenter can't decide to test *many* cells instead of one or a very few. You are thinking of ordinary scientific replication. I'm not. I'm thinking of bypassing the entire existing system and creating something that could be studied by others, later, the scientists who will publish, if they care to. Standard baseline experiment, cheap. Some variations may be expensive. Equipment, you call it instruments, for simple demonstrations, fairly cheap and it will be rented to customers. Programmable power supply. Temp sensors, possibly some other sensors, say, pressure and acoustic or light or even radiation, though radiation may mostly be with CR-39, which is pretty expensive, but small pieces. Computer interface, standard USB. Storms assumed that individual experimenters would be etching their own CR-39, and, indeed, some may do this, but I expect the company will offer that service along with other analysis. Process lots of chips at once. Done by people who know what they are doing. Storms assumed a lot of things that would make kit usage much more subject to individual variations. Perhaps kit is a misnomer. The full kit would be a demonstration operated in the base mode, designed for maximum reliability, whatever that turns out to be. But then customers could
Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
I think one kit should focus on anmoulous particle production rather than excess heat. See Richard Oriani research on Ludwik Kowalski's page: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/368project.html Harry - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com Date: Monday, September 7, 2009 5:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier At 02:40 PM 9/7/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: My goal is that each test cell be cheap, very cheap, well under, say, the cost of a Galileo Project replication . . . I do not understand this goal. The cost of materials has never been a barrier to replicating cold fusion, except perhaps when I could not afford to buy 1 kg of Johnson-Matthey Pd. You are not usual, Jed. What you are showing is part of the thinking that kept Cold fusion down. I don't blame you, and I certainly respect your experience. But you have also come up with some real nonsense. The material cost is trivial -- immaterial if you will -- compared to the cost of the instruments and effort. I have never seen a credible cold fusion experiment that costs less than ~$100,000 and probably a lot more if you take into account the cost of people's time. I don't think this is true. Galileo project. You know the situation with Mizuno, how hard it was for him because of the costs. Perhaps the key word is credible. There is a lost performative here. Credible isn't an absolute characteristic of some phenomenon or, in this case, experimental result. It refers to a reaction by people. The reaction by people will depend on many factors that aren't part of the experimental report! Many cold fusion researchers were convinced by some happening that they could not use to convince others. They saw it. Now, suppose we could create a few hundred young people and a few hundred scientists who have all see the same phenomenon? In a certain sense, I don't need to focus on the ultimate effect of a cheap cold fusion demonstration kit. I only need to look at the practicality: can it be done? If it can be done, enough money, I believe, can be made with it to justify the activity and the investment. The only worrisome possibility is that it can't be done. I just spend a long time on the phone with Dr. Storms. He's encouraging, but, at the same time, quite as negative as you about the possibility of doing such a kit. However, we did examine in some detail his objections, and the objections were coming largely from assumptions about what a kit would be like. In short, it won't be what most researchers in the field expect. It won't necessarily produce bulletproof evidence, unimpeachable. It will produce a body of *experience* that is shared. It's not necessary to convince a lot of people to support this. A few who are willing to work on it or help it can do it. If people are interested, they can join the project. If not, that's fine, everyone decides where to put their effort. Whether the materials cost $20 or $200, or even $2,000 does not make the slightest difference and has not stopped anyone from trying the experiment, as far as I know. I have never heard from someone who said I would love to try this but I can't afford the palladium. I have heard from people who said they can't find the palladium; or they don't feel competent to test it per Storms' instructions; or -- most often -- they don't have the time or the instruments they need. Codeposition, Jed. Not palladium, but palladium chloride. Now, Storms say that he's been unable to reproduce the codeposition results of the SPAWAR group. That's worrisome, Jed. On the other hand, there were some positive results from the Galileo Project. I'm going to need to ask Mr. Krivit more about that The only thing you should look for in materials is something that works. Whether it costs $20 or $2000 should not be a consideration. Wrong. If the kit is expensive, it causes two problems. It can't be purchased by kids or their parents on a limited budget. An experimenter can't decide to test *many* cells instead of one or a very few. You are thinking of ordinary scientific replication. I'm not. I'm thinking of bypassing the entire existing system and creating something that could be studied by others, later, the scientists who will publish, if they care to. Standard baseline experiment, cheap. Some variations may be expensive. Equipment, you call it instruments, for simple demonstrations, fairly cheap and it will be rented to customers. Programmable power supply. Temp sensors, possibly some other sensors, say, pressure and acoustic or light or even radiation, though radiation may mostly be with CR-39, which is pretty expensive, but small pieces. Computer interface, standard USB. Storms assumed that individual experimenters would be etching
Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier
I mean anomalous particles. Anmoulous particles are even stranger! ;-) Harry - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder hvee...@ncf.ca Date: Monday, September 7, 2009 11:05 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier I think one kit should focus on anmoulous particle production rather than excess heat. See Richard Oriani research on Ludwik Kowalski's page: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/368project.html Harry - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com Date: Monday, September 7, 2009 5:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier At 02:40 PM 9/7/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: My goal is that each test cell be cheap, very cheap, well under, say, the cost of a Galileo Project replication . . . I do not understand this goal. The cost of materials has never been a barrier to replicating cold fusion, except perhaps when I could not afford to buy 1 kg of Johnson-Matthey Pd. You are not usual, Jed. What you are showing is part of the thinking that kept Cold fusion down. I don't blame you, and I certainly respect your experience. But you have also come up with some real nonsense. The material cost is trivial -- immaterial if you will -- compared to the cost of the instruments and effort. I have never seen a credible cold fusion experiment that costs less than ~$100,000 and probably a lot more if you take into account the cost of people's time. I don't think this is true. Galileo project. You know the situation with Mizuno, how hard it was for him because of the costs. Perhaps the key word is credible. There is a lost performative here. Credible isn't an absolute characteristic of some phenomenon or, in this case, experimental result. It refers to a reaction by people. The reaction by people will depend on many factors that aren't part of the experimental report! Many cold fusion researchers were convinced by some happening that they could not use to convince others. They saw it. Now, suppose we could create a few hundred young people and a few hundred scientists who have all see the same phenomenon? In a certain sense, I don't need to focus on the ultimate effect of a cheap cold fusion demonstration kit. I only need to look at the practicality: can it be done? If it can be done, enough money, I believe, can be made with it to justify the activity and the investment. The only worrisome possibility is that it can't be done. I just spend a long time on the phone with Dr. Storms. He's encouraging, but, at the same time, quite as negative as you about the possibility of doing such a kit. However, we did examine in some detail his objections, and the objections were coming largely from assumptions about what a kit would be like. In short, it won't be what most researchers in the field expect. It won't necessarily produce bulletproof evidence, unimpeachable. It will produce a body of *experience* that is shared. It's not necessary to convince a lot of people to support this. A few who are willing to work on it or help it can do it. If people are interested, they can join the project. If not, that's fine, everyone decides where to put their effort. Whether the materials cost $20 or $200, or even $2,000 does not make the slightest difference and has not stopped anyone from trying the experiment, as far as I know. I have never heard from someone who said I would love to try this but I can't afford the palladium. I have heard from people who said they can't find the palladium; or they don't feel competent to test it per Storms' instructions; or -- most often -- they don't have the time or the instruments they need. Codeposition, Jed. Not palladium, but palladium chloride. Now, Storms say that he's been unable to reproduce the codeposition results of the SPAWAR group. That's worrisome, Jed. On the other hand, there were some positive results from the Galileo Project. I'm going to need to ask Mr. Krivit more about that The only thing you should look for in materials is something that works. Whether it costs $20 or $2000 should not be a consideration. Wrong. If the kit is expensive, it causes two problems. It can't be purchased by kids or their parents on a limited budget. An experimenter can't decide to test *many* cells instead of one or a very few. You are thinking of ordinary scientific replication. I'm not. I'm thinking of bypassing the entire existing system and creating something that could be studied by others, later, the scientists who will publish, if they care to. Standard baseline experiment, cheap. Some variations may be expensive. Equipment, you call it instruments, for
