Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpagev=Z0IPWmm7GDc Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlgiwB8V4scfeature=player_detailpage My theory explains this anomaly through the teleportation of entangled particles and their decoherence when they come into contact with the copper lattice of the copper coil. The decoherence of the delocalized particles causes extra dimensional heat transport transportation from inside the reaction chamber. This also happens in the Rossi reactor to thermalize gamma radiation. Test your theory by explaining this anomaly. By the way, you can see this anomaly first hand and experiment with it by buying the $350 kit. That is a small price to pay for a Nobel prize. Cheers: Axil On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.comwrote: Abd, First off, thank you for sharing your thoughts, you have a gift with words. We all filter the world thru our own beliefs and exerience. I have worked as a consulting engineer in industry for the past 21 years and 5 years prior installing industrial control systems. The bulk of my projects have been energy related from boilers to turbines to a large concentrated solar thermal project. I am currently working on a Natural Gas mid-stream storage supply system. I have to deal with alot of real world problems to make systems in the field perform. Not all do. Unfortunately I do not yet have Jed's team of robots to make my projects all work. When I look at LENR today (this name carries a much nicer connotation/ring to me than CF) I see a wide range of claimed reactants, products and heat gains. I also see a wide range of radiation emissions claimed from nothing to photons, gammas, x-rays, UV and even gravity waves (nanospire) I see a couple systems that catch my eye with claims in the kW range, both of these are gas/powder in a relatively low pressure high temp reactor which might be real and would be game changers if stable and brought to market. I see NASA already advertising flying LENR airframes into space but have not claimed one watt of gain from any research yet. I see NASA promoting WL theory and I see you tearing down the WL theory and appear soundly in the fusion camp. I see Krivit discrediting cold fusion. I see Brian Aherm promoting nanomagnetism. WL promotes beta decay and ULMNs to cover all the pathways. Mills and hydrinos. Brilluoin and q-pulse lattice rattling. Yes I have more questions maybe you can answer? (loaded question). I am at the point the only thing that explains what everyone is seeing is quantum singularities hiding in the voids of that lattice devouring atomic hydrogen and belching out photons, quarks, gluons, etc. mostly showing up as HEAT. The smallest singularity is theorized to be 22 micrograms based on a Planck length. Maybe a singularity masquerading as an electron that is either evaporating or becoming a WIMP? Maybe the singularity carries a charge and has an affinity for all the oppositely charged ions sent its way-either SPPs or hydride ions? Maybe the stress and strain and lattice cracking creates more singularities to bring to the dinner table, amplifying the effect? Singularities are the perfect black-body heat engine. Maybe gravity at the quantum level is strong enough to create these quantum singularities by adding just a few hundred degrees of heat and extra strain within the lattice? No Coulomb barrier to worry about penetrating anymore, just have to aim your ions very accurately at an extremely small target/horizon and there they go. Singularities are the perfect e=mc2 heat engine. LHC hot fusion guys recently addresed quantum singularities they might create and said they would just evaporate quickly. No explosions, just maybe give off some HEAT and then POOF! Gone. Once they are gone NO MORE HEAT effect. Maybe that explains the wicked behavior of CF. Since the event horizon erases all history of original reactants it is also hard/impossible to nail down pathways-anything goes. Only way I can explain their hidden mass is that it must be hiding in some of those 11 or so dimensions available at the quantum level according to string theory. Singularities are great at increasing entropy. Also, while singularities are evaporating they get HOTTER, which explains heat after death which would occur while these singularities consume remaining ions and evaporate? It also explains eruptions in the metallic structure caused by extreme point sources of high temperature? What I believe we have here my friend is a magnificent quantum singularity heat engine. This is my grand unification theory of cold fusion. No wine involved. I was hoping you could answer all of these questions by morning?... Godspeed On Monday, August 6, 2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 10:17 AM 8/6/2012, Chemical Engineer wrote: I have been following for a year and half but it is
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Your theory sounds like out of star trek while mine is more battlestar galactica On Tuesday, August 7, 2012, Axil Axil wrote: Part 1 John Rohner describes anomaly of coil heating in noble gas engine during no movement (1 of 2)http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpagev=Z0IPWmm7GDc Part 2 John Rohner describes anomaly of coil heating in noble gas engine during no movement (2 of 2)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlgiwB8V4scfeature=player_detailpage My theory explains this anomaly through the teleportation of entangled particles and their decoherence when they come into contact with the copper lattice of the copper coil. The decoherence of the delocalized particles causes extra dimensional heat transport transportation from inside the reaction chamber. This also happens in the Rossi reactor to thermalize gamma radiation. Test your theory by explaining this anomaly. By the way, you can see this anomaly first hand and experiment with it by buying the $350 kit. That is a small price to pay for a Nobel prize. Cheers: Axil On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.comwrote: Abd, First off, thank you for sharing your thoughts, you have a gift with words. We all filter the world thru our own beliefs and exerience. I have worked as a consulting engineer in industry for the past 21 years and 5 years prior installing industrial control systems. The bulk of my projects have been energy related from boilers to turbines to a large concentrated solar thermal project. I am currently working on a Natural Gas mid-stream storage supply system. I have to deal with alot of real world problems to make systems in the field perform. Not all do. Unfortunately I do not yet have Jed's team of robots to make my projects all work. When I look at LENR today (this name carries a much nicer connotation/ring to me than CF) I see a wide range of claimed reactants, products and heat gains. I also see a wide range of radiation emissions claimed from nothing to photons, gammas, x-rays, UV and even gravity waves (nanospire) I see a couple systems that catch my eye with claims in the kW range, both of these are gas/powder in a relatively low pressure high temp reactor which might be real and would be game changers if stable and brought to market. I see NASA already advertising flying LENR airframes into space but have not claimed one watt of gain from any research yet. I see NASA promoting WL theory and I see you tearing down the WL theory and appear soundly in the fusion camp. I see Krivit discrediting cold fusion. I see Brian Aherm promoting nanomagnetism. WL promotes beta decay and ULMNs to cover all the pathways. Mills and hydrinos. Brilluoin and q-pulse lattice rattling. Yes I have more questions maybe you can answer? (loaded question). I am at the point the only thing that explains what everyone is seeing is quantum singularities hiding in the voids of that lattice devouring atomic hydrogen and belching out photons, quarks, gluons, etc. mostly showing up as HEAT. The smallest singularity is theorized to be 22 micrograms based on a Planck length. Maybe a singularity masquerading as an electron that is either evaporating or becoming a WIMP? Maybe the singularity carries a charge and has an affinity for all the oppositely charged ions sent its way-either SPPs or hydride ions? Maybe the stress and strain and lattice cracking creates more singularities to bring to the dinner table, amplifying the effect? Singularities are the perfect black-body heat engine. Maybe gravity at the quantum level is strong enough to create these quantum singularities by adding just a few hundred degrees of heat and extra strain within the lattice? No Coulomb barrier to worry about penetrating anymore, just have to aim your ions very accurately at an extremely small target/horizon and there they go. Singularities are the perfect e=mc2 heat engine. LHC hot fusion guys recently addresed quantum singularities they might create and said they would just evaporate quickly. No explosions, just maybe give off some HEAT and then POOF! Gone. Once they are gone NO MORE HEAT effect. Maybe that explains the wicked behavior of CF. Since the event horizon erases all history of original reactants it is also hard/impossible to nail down pathways-anything goes. Only way I can explain their hidden mass is that it must be hiding in some of those 11 or so dimensions available at the quantum level according to string theory. Singularities are great at increasing entropy. Also, while singularities are evaporating they get HOTTER, which explains heat after death which would occur while these singularities consume remaining ions and evaporate? It also explains eruptions in the metallic structure caused by extreme point sources of high temperature? What I believe we have here my friend is a magnificent quantum
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
ChemE, this is the first time I have read your Quantum Singularity theory. Do you have a more comprehensive writeup of your theory? How is the Quantum Singularity created in a lattice, when it is even difficult to do so in the LHC with all its energies? Do you have a hypothesis on how this might happen at low energies of the metal lattice? Jojo - Original Message - From: Chemical Engineer To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 2:36 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying Your theory sounds like out of star trek while mine is more battlestar galactica On Tuesday, August 7, 2012, Axil Axil wrote: Part 1 John Rohner describes anomaly of coil heating in noble gas engine during no movement (1 of 2) Part 2 John Rohner describes anomaly of coil heating in noble gas engine during no movement (2 of 2) My theory explains this anomaly through the teleportation of entangled particles and their decoherence when they come into contact with the copper lattice of the copper coil. The decoherence of the delocalized particles causes extra dimensional heat transport transportation from inside the reaction chamber. This also happens in the Rossi reactor to thermalize gamma radiation. Test your theory by explaining this anomaly. By the way, you can see this anomaly first hand and experiment with it by buying the $350 kit. That is a small price to pay for a Nobel prize. Cheers: Axil On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Abd, First off, thank you for sharing your thoughts, you have a gift with words. We all filter the world thru our own beliefs and exerience. I have worked as a consulting engineer in industry for the past 21 years and 5 years prior installing industrial control systems. The bulk of my projects have been energy related from boilers to turbines to a large concentrated solar thermal project. I am currently working on a Natural Gas mid-stream storage supply system. I have to deal with alot of real world problems to make systems in the field perform. Not all do. Unfortunately I do not yet have Jed's team of robots to make my projects all work. When I look at LENR today (this name carries a much nicer connotation/ring to me than CF) I see a wide range of claimed reactants, products and heat gains. I also see a wide range of radiation emissions claimed from nothing to photons, gammas, x-rays, UV and even gravity waves (nanospire) I see a couple systems that catch my eye with claims in the kW range, both of these are gas/powder in a relatively low pressure high temp reactor which might be real and would be game changers if stable and brought to market. I see NASA already advertising flying LENR airframes into space but have not claimed one watt of gain from any research yet. I see NASA promoting WL theory and I see you tearing down the WL theory and appear soundly in the fusion camp. I see Krivit discrediting cold fusion. I see Brian Aherm promoting nanomagnetism. WL promotes beta decay and ULMNs to cover all the pathways. Mills and hydrinos. Brilluoin and q-pulse lattice rattling. Yes I have more questions maybe you can answer? (loaded question). I am at the point the only thing that explains what everyone is seeing is quantum singularities hiding in the voids of that lattice devouring atomic hydrogen and belching out photons, quarks, gluons, etc. mostly showing up as HEAT. The smallest singularity is theorized to be 22 micrograms based on a Planck length. Maybe a singularity masquerading as an electron that is either evaporating or becoming a WIMP? Maybe the singularity carries a charge and has an affinity for all the oppositely charged ions sent its way-either SPPs or hydride ions? Maybe the stress and strain and lattice cracking creates more singularities to bring to the dinner table, amplifying the effect? Singularities are the perfect black-body heat engine. Maybe gravity at the quantum level is strong enough to create these quantum singularities by adding just a few hundred degrees of heat and extra strain within the lattice? No Coulomb barrier to worry about penetrating anymore, just have to aim your ions very accurately at an extremely small target/horizon and there they go. Singularities are the perfect e=mc2 heat engine. LHC hot fusion guys recently addresed quantum singularities they might create and said they would just evaporate quickly. No explosions, just maybe give off some HEAT and then POOF! Gone. Once they are gone NO MORE HEAT effect. Maybe that explains the wicked behavior of CF. Since the event horizon erases all history of original reactants it is also hard/impossible to nail down pathways-anything goes. Only way I can explain their hidden mass is that it must be hiding in some
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: I rest my case. That is a snide, content-free response. I suggest you un-rest your case. I suggest you do your homework. Learn about cold fusion before writing about it. You article reminds me of the sort of thing some reporters wrote about the Wright brothers in 1904. The described the airplane as a sort of balloon with a kite attached to it. Your reports are not merely inaccurate; they are a fantasy. They bear no resemblance to what the researchers claim in the peer-reviewed literature. You do your readers a disservice with this kind of sloppy reporting. You should be ashamed of yourself. If you are going to participate here, I think you should stop writing snide retorts and instead address the technical issues. This is a science forum, not a place to accuse people of believing in conspiracy theories. For the record, I do not believe in conspiracy theories and I do not know any researchers who do. Please note the title of this thread is . . . annoying. I am annoyed. Not particularly angry. With all the rain we have been getting in Atlanta lately, we have a lot of mosquitoes. I swat them when I can. They annoy me. They do not anger me. There are millions of them; way too many to get angry at each individual. There are thousands of ignorant, lazy, blood-sucking, two-bit reporters writing nonsense about cold fusion. Way too many to swat, or get angry at. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Jed,
I happen to be at the Kitty Hawk, NC beach today so i am channeling your
thoughts. The only planes flying overhead today are pulling banners
selling Geico insurance.
You are obviously one of the better resources for all scientific documents
and history associated with anomalous heat. I suggest instead of
alienating Mark, which you have obviously already done, you engage in some
meaningful discussion with him. To me he at least seemed open to
discussions and his last article was better than his first couple.
Also, there are not thousands of reporters writing about cold fusion.
Mostly a few bloggers. Very few even covered Martin's passing, which is
sad. Hopefully in the near future there will be lots to write about, maybe
not.
I have been following for a year and half but it is still very confusing to
me what the repeatable results are. To me the anomalous heat could include
anything from nanomagnetism, LENR, CANR, ZPE, vacuum energy, Hawking
Radiation (my theory), hydrinos, fusion, beta decays to aliens farting
through a wormhole.
I do not expect you to listen to me but I know you will read it as I am
your conservative concience.
On Monday, August 6, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'mgi...@gibbs.com'); wrote:
I rest my case.
That is a snide, content-free response. I suggest you un-rest your case. I
suggest you do your homework. Learn about cold fusion before writing about
it. You article reminds me of the sort of thing some reporters wrote about
the Wright brothers in 1904. The described the airplane as a sort of
balloon with a kite attached to it. Your reports are not merely inaccurate;
they are a fantasy. They bear no resemblance to what the researchers claim
in the peer-reviewed literature.
You do your readers a disservice with this kind of sloppy reporting. You
should be ashamed of yourself. If you are going to participate here, I
think you should stop writing snide retorts and instead address the
technical issues. This is a science forum, not a place to accuse people of
believing in conspiracy theories.
For the record, I do not believe in conspiracy theories and I do not know
any researchers who do.
Please note the title of this thread is . . . annoying. I am annoyed.
Not particularly angry. With all the rain we have been getting in Atlanta
lately, we have a lot of mosquitoes. I swat them when I can. They annoy me.
They do not anger me. There are millions of them; way too many to get angry
at each individual. There are thousands of ignorant, lazy, blood-sucking,
two-bit reporters writing nonsense about cold fusion. Way too many to swat,
or get angry at.
- Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
At 09:31 PM 8/5/2012, Mark Gibbs wrote: Jed and Craig, It's interesting that you both want the mainstream media to pay attention to cold fusion yet you complain when we don't write *exactly* as you think we should write. You complain endlessly about sloppy journalism and how the theories of cold fusion aren't clearly laid out (as you think they should be) for the average reader who you obviously look down upon (Craig tellingly dismisses them as establishment goons ... an ad hominem attack if ever there was one) yet you're perpetually angry at the lack of attention and funding for cold fusion! Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot. [mg] Well, Mark, perhaps you should factor for Jed having faced twenty years of sloppy journalism. Your report wasn't bad, but you, yourself, might profit from taking a sympathetic look at what he pointed out. Yes, establishment goons is an ad hominem attack, and silly. Perpetually angry, from you, likewise, is a projection. Jed is mostly resigned, and not so much about lack of attention -- that's people's right, after all -- but about ... sloppy journalism. Your article is not as sloppy as many, so something must have pushed him over the edge. I'll point out some problems with your post, below. But first, let me appreciate the positive. You are paying attention to the field. Great. You have effectively acknowledged the reality of the effect. That's great as well, but in the context of reams of truly sloppy journalism, that's easily overlooked, it will slide right past most people. It's an old confusion, often mixed up in critique of cold fusion: 1. Cold fusion doesn't exist. 2. It is too unreliable to be practical. Those are contradictory. Scientifically, for anyone willing to look at the evidence, and not firmly nailed to a position by prior commitment, cold fusion exists. That is, the heat effect is real, and it is nuclear, this was established through helium correlation, long ago discovered, and confirmed amply. There was a remarkable event in 2010 that has gone almost entirely unnoticed. There was a featured review of the field in a major mainstream peer-reviewed multidisciplinary journal, Naturwissenschaften, where cold fusion came in out of the cold, came out of the closet, being called cold fusion, rather than the less definitive low energy nuclear reactions. That's Status of cold fusion (2010), Edmund Storms. There is a preprint on lenr-canr.org, but the abstract alone is remarkable. Cold fusion had already come a long way by the time of the 2004 U.S. Department of Energy review, as can be seen by reading it and comparing it with the 1989 review. It was almost a majority position (it was evenly split, 9/18) that the heat effect was conclusively established, a vast difference from 1989, where probably only one or two out of 15 reviewers thought that it might be real. There is no accepted theory of how cold fusion works. But fusion is a term that includes any reaction that takes lower-Z elements and converts them to higher-Z. I.e., deuterium to helium. That conversion, regardless of mechanism, releases a characteristic amount of energy, a signature. That signature has been observed by many, and there is no contradictory experimental record. The early negative replications *confirm* the correlation, because they found no heat and no helium. There is now a simple harmonizing interpretation of all the experimental record with palladium deuteride: there is an unknown nuclear reaction that converts deuterium to helium, with little or no observed radiation, taking place on the surface, probably in cracks of a certain size. It's an error to think that a single reliable experiment is necessary to establish something as a scientific fact. In lots of cases, statistical analysis is necessary, because single experiments can turn out many different ways, sometimes. Plasma physicists are accustomed to running what amount to vast numbers of trials at once, where statistical variations even out. Cold fusion, however, so far, as manifest in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect, requires a very specific structure in the palladium, that is not present in pure palladium, but that *sometimes* appears there with repeated loading of deuterium into the lattice. And this structure is fragile, it does not remain indefinitely, it's probable that the reaction itself destroys the reaction sites. The reproducible experiment, then, involves running a series of cells according to the state of the art so that anomalous heat, measured with a reliable method, shows up some percentage of the time, and collecting and measuring (generally blind) helium in the outgas. The result of the experiment is a correlation. Is anomalous heat correlated with helium production? At what value? Nobody who has done this has failed to find the correlation. The dead cells are effectively the controls. The variability in the amount of
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I happen to be at the Kitty Hawk, NC beach today so i am channeling your thoughts. What a great place! I love that that they have a small airfield next to the historic site. I suggest instead of alienating Mark, which you have obviously already done, you engage in some meaningful discussion with him. Not possible. He is one of these know-it-alls never willing to do his homework. I uploaded 1,200 papers he has either not read a single one, or he does not understand them. I mean for crying out loud! Various reactions that output more energy than is put into them . . . That could describe anything, chemical or nuclear! It proves nothing and it means nothing. It isn't even factually right, since there is no energy put into some of them. It is blather. This is what passes for science journalism these days. Also, there are not thousands of reporters writing about cold fusion. This is not show business, in which any news is good news. Better they should ignore us than publish nonsense based on their own imaginations. Anyway, scientists and engineers download 6,000 papers a week from LENR-CANR.org. We don't need the mass media. We have done an end-run around them. I do not expect you to listen to me but I know you will read it as I am your conservative concience. My conscience?!? Mine's clear. Mass media reporters can kiss my ass! I don't care what they say, and I sure don't care what they think of me. Most of them are useless, lazy, ignorant gits. In the whole history of this field, I can't think of more than a half dozen who bothered to learn anything. The people at 60 Minutes and a few others. The rest plagiarize Wikipedia. Most of are like Gary Taubes: they don't even know how electricity works. They wouldn't understand the papers even if they did try to read them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Abd, Great informative post with ego left out unlike others. On Monday, August 6, 2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 09:31 PM 8/5/2012, Mark Gibbs wrote: Jed and Craig, It's interesting that you both want the mainstream media to pay attention to cold fusion yet you complain when we don't write *exactly* as you think we should write. You complain endlessly about sloppy journalism and how the theories of cold fusion aren't clearly laid out (as you think they should be) for the average reader who you obviously look down upon (Craig tellingly dismisses them as establishment goons ... an ad hominem attack if ever there was one) yet you're perpetually angry at the lack of attention and funding for cold fusion! Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot. [mg] Well, Mark, perhaps you should factor for Jed having faced twenty years of sloppy journalism. Your report wasn't bad, but you, yourself, might profit from taking a sympathetic look at what he pointed out. Yes, establishment goons is an ad hominem attack, and silly. Perpetually angry, from you, likewise, is a projection. Jed is mostly resigned, and not so much about lack of attention -- that's people's right, after all -- but about ... sloppy journalism. Your article is not as sloppy as many, so something must have pushed him over the edge. I'll point out some problems with your post, below. But first, let me appreciate the positive. You are paying attention to the field. Great. You have effectively acknowledged the reality of the effect. That's great as well, but in the context of reams of truly sloppy journalism, that's easily overlooked, it will slide right past most people. It's an old confusion, often mixed up in critique of cold fusion: 1. Cold fusion doesn't exist. 2. It is too unreliable to be practical. Those are contradictory. Scientifically, for anyone willing to look at the evidence, and not firmly nailed to a position by prior commitment, cold fusion exists. That is, the heat effect is real, and it is nuclear, this was established through helium correlation, long ago discovered, and confirmed amply. There was a remarkable event in 2010 that has gone almost entirely unnoticed. There was a featured review of the field in a major mainstream peer-reviewed multidisciplinary journal, Naturwissenschaften, where cold fusion came in out of the cold, came out of the closet, being called cold fusion, rather than the less definitive low energy nuclear reactions. That's Status of cold fusion (2010), Edmund Storms. There is a preprint on lenr-canr.org, but the abstract alone is remarkable. Cold fusion had already come a long way by the time of the 2004 U.S. Department of Energy review, as can be seen by reading it and comparing it with the 1989 review. It was almost a majority position (it was evenly split, 9/18) that the heat effect was conclusively established, a vast difference from 1989, where probably only one or two out of 15 reviewers thought that it might be real. There is no accepted theory of how cold fusion works. But fusion is a term that includes any reaction that takes lower-Z elements and converts them to higher-Z. I.e., deuterium to helium. That conversion, regardless of mechanism, releases a characteristic amount of energy, a signature. That signature has been observed by many, and there is no contradictory experimental record. The early negative replications *confirm* the correlation, because they found no heat and no helium. There is now a simple harmonizing interpretation of all the experimental record with palladium deuteride: there is an unknown nuclear reaction that converts deuterium to helium, with little or no observed radiation, taking place on the surface, probably in cracks of a certain size. It's an error to think that a single reliable experiment is necessary to establish something as a scientific fact. In lots of cases, statistical analysis is necessary, because single experiments can turn out many different ways, sometimes. Plasma physicists are accustomed to running what amount to vast numbers of trials at once, where statistical variations even out. Cold fusion, however, so far, as manifest in the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect, requires a very specific structure in the palladium, that is not present in pure palladium, but that *sometimes* appears there with repeated loading of deuterium into the lattice. And this structure is fragile, it does not remain indefinitely, it's probable that the reaction itself destroys the reaction sites. The reproducible experiment, then, involves running a series of cells according to the state of the art so that anomalous heat, measured with a reliable method, shows up some percentage of the time, and collecting and measuring (generally blind) helium in the outgas. The result of the experiment is a correlation. Is anomalous heat correlated with helium production? At what value? Nobody who has done
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
At 10:17 AM 8/6/2012, Chemical Engineer wrote: I have been following for a year and half but it is still very confusing to me what the repeatable results are. To me the anomalous heat could include anything from nanomagnetism, LENR, CANR, ZPE, vacuum energy, Hawking Radiation (my theory), hydrinos, fusion, beta decays to aliens farting through a wormhole. CE, you haven't paid adequate attention. I'll say this much for you, the literature can be confusing. I came into the study of cold fusion in 2009, as a result of happening upon an abusive blacklisting (of lenr-canr.org) on Wikipedia. It puzzled me. So, cold fusion was fringe science, perhaps unreal. But why blacklist the major repository of scientific papers on the subject? I looked at the article and started to read the sources. I had the background to understand why cold fusion was considered impossible. That same background, my training in physics from Richard P. Feynman, had led me, as well, to know that experiment was King. That if experiment showed that, say, Newton's Laws of Motion were wrong, we'd better be ready re-examine the Laws (not just the experiment!). I knew from Feynman that we did not have the math to analyze the solid state, it was way too complex. Still, the lack of progress in the field (as I imagined from the lack of press coverage of progress), had led me to think (from 1990 or so) that cold fusion was a dud. Intrigued by what I found, I bought most of the major books on the topic, including the skeptical ones, i.e, Huizenga, Taubes, Park, etc. I bought Storms, Beaudette, Mizuno, and a figure in the field was kind enough to donate a copy of the 2008 ACS LENR Sourcebook to me. And I noticed something. Early on I figured out that the matter had actually been iced, as to the reality of cold fusion, when Miles found a correlation between the anomalous heat found so erratically in palladium deuteride, and helium produced. I.e., the amount of heat might be erratic, but then, regardless, helium was found in the evolved gases at a particular ratio to the heat, consistent with a hypothesis that the heat was the result of some kind of fusion process, fusing deuterium to helium, with some of the helium remaining trapped at least temporarily. *Rougly* half is released, under that hypothesis. This was very strong evidence that the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect (FPHE) is nuclear in nature, and is very likely some kind of fusion. Huizenga noticed this in the second edition of his book. Good thing I bought that edition! He wrote that, if confirmed, this would solve a major mystery of cold fusion, i.e., the ash. Before that, there was total uncertainty about the ash, and it didn't seem there was one. Some early efforts to find helium had looked in the palladium rod. It's not found there, except for very near the surface, and they had taken off the surface to avoid contamination from ambient helium! -- As I recall. One of Fleischmann's errors, God rest his soul, was a belief that the reaction was taking place in the lattice, in the bulk. I can understand why he thought that, but ... it wasn't so. Huizenga expected that the result would not be confirmed. But it was. There is actually no contrary experimental evidence, and plenty of confirmation. If the field were being treated normally, the issue would long ago have been considered resolved. What I noticed, however, was that heat/helium wasn't emphasized in the reviews and articles in the field *from those who accept the reality of LENR.* I suspect that this may be that most were already convinced by the calorimetry, and the level of pseudoskepticism involved in the massive rejection of calorimetry as evidence was indeed enormous and frustrating. Beaudette covers this very well. Chemical Engineer, if you want a repeatable result, you would do this: Set up and run a series of cells, as many as possible, using a protocol known to *occasionally* produce excess heat, use the state of the art for the electrolysis and calorimetry. Measure helium in the evolved gas (or sample it from the cell if it's a closed cell; for this purpose, though, it's a bit more efficient to use an open cell, because the helium will then reflect the recent history of the cell and you can take more and more meaningful samples from the cell. But it's also worth considering using closed cells and thus measuring total accumulated helium. You'll have to compensate for slow leakage of helium out of the cells, if they are glass. Helium can leak through glass.) Measure the helium blind, whoever is running the analysis should not know the history of the cell from which it came. Sample from all cells the same, whether or not they show heat. Compare the excess energy, determined from calorimetry, with the helium measurements, extrapolated back to evolution rates using methods you work out in advance. Something like this has been done many times. The
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Abd, First off, thank you for sharing your thoughts, you have a gift with words. We all filter the world thru our own beliefs and exerience. I have worked as a consulting engineer in industry for the past 21 years and 5 years prior installing industrial control systems. The bulk of my projects have been energy related from boilers to turbines to a large concentrated solar thermal project. I am currently working on a Natural Gas mid-stream storage supply system. I have to deal with alot of real world problems to make systems in the field perform. Not all do. Unfortunately I do not yet have Jed's team of robots to make my projects all work. When I look at LENR today (this name carries a much nicer connotation/ring to me than CF) I see a wide range of claimed reactants, products and heat gains. I also see a wide range of radiation emissions claimed from nothing to photons, gammas, x-rays, UV and even gravity waves (nanospire) I see a couple systems that catch my eye with claims in the kW range, both of these are gas/powder in a relatively low pressure high temp reactor which might be real and would be game changers if stable and brought to market. I see NASA already advertising flying LENR airframes into space but have not claimed one watt of gain from any research yet. I see NASA promoting WL theory and I see you tearing down the WL theory and appear soundly in the fusion camp. I see Krivit discrediting cold fusion. I see Brian Aherm promoting nanomagnetism. WL promotes beta decay and ULMNs to cover all the pathways. Mills and hydrinos. Brilluoin and q-pulse lattice rattling. Yes I have more questions maybe you can answer? (loaded question). I am at the point the only thing that explains what everyone is seeing is quantum singularities hiding in the voids of that lattice devouring atomic hydrogen and belching out photons, quarks, gluons, etc. mostly showing up as HEAT. The smallest singularity is theorized to be 22 micrograms based on a Planck length. Maybe a singularity masquerading as an electron that is either evaporating or becoming a WIMP? Maybe the singularity carries a charge and has an affinity for all the oppositely charged ions sent its way-either SPPs or hydride ions? Maybe the stress and strain and lattice cracking creates more singularities to bring to the dinner table, amplifying the effect? Singularities are the perfect black-body heat engine. Maybe gravity at the quantum level is strong enough to create these quantum singularities by adding just a few hundred degrees of heat and extra strain within the lattice? No Coulomb barrier to worry about penetrating anymore, just have to aim your ions very accurately at an extremely small target/horizon and there they go. Singularities are the perfect e=mc2 heat engine. LHC hot fusion guys recently addresed quantum singularities they might create and said they would just evaporate quickly. No explosions, just maybe give off some HEAT and then POOF! Gone. Once they are gone NO MORE HEAT effect. Maybe that explains the wicked behavior of CF. Since the event horizon erases all history of original reactants it is also hard/impossible to nail down pathways-anything goes. Only way I can explain their hidden mass is that it must be hiding in some of those 11 or so dimensions available at the quantum level according to string theory. Singularities are great at increasing entropy. Also, while singularities are evaporating they get HOTTER, which explains heat after death which would occur while these singularities consume remaining ions and evaporate? It also explains eruptions in the metallic structure caused by extreme point sources of high temperature? What I believe we have here my friend is a magnificent quantum singularity heat engine. This is my grand unification theory of cold fusion. No wine involved. I was hoping you could answer all of these questions by morning?... Godspeed On Monday, August 6, 2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 10:17 AM 8/6/2012, Chemical Engineer wrote: I have been following for a year and half but it is still very confusing to me what the repeatable results are. To me the anomalous heat could include anything from nanomagnetism, LENR, CANR, ZPE, vacuum energy, Hawking Radiation (my theory), hydrinos, fusion, beta decays to aliens farting through a wormhole. CE, you haven't paid adequate attention. I'll say this much for you, the literature can be confusing. I came into the study of cold fusion in 2009, as a result of happening upon an abusive blacklisting (of lenr-canr.org) on Wikipedia. It puzzled me. So, cold fusion was fringe science, perhaps unreal. But why blacklist the major repository of scientific papers on the subject? I looked at the article and started to read the sources. I had the background to understand why cold fusion was considered impossible. That same background, my training in physics from Richard P. Feynman, had led me, as well, to
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Jed, He did say ...there are various reactions that output more energy than is put in... which is good enough for me. What i think is more curious is that everyone, including you want to call it cold fusion. Even Martin F. regretted calling it that according to what i read. On Sunday, August 5, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: The most recent Gibbs article is here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/08/04/the-state-of-the-cold-fusion-market/ I find this annoying. He writes: So, is cold fusion real? Well, from the thousands of experiments performed over the last few decades it seems that there are various reactions that output more energy than is put into them but whether these effects can be scaled up into devices that output a significant amount of energy and operate reliably still isn’t clear. This response does not answer the question! Gibbs asks Is cold fusion real and then -- instead of answering that -- he talks about whether these efforts can be scaled up. Real and scalable are two different things. No one disputes that muon catalyzed fusion is real, but it cannot be scaled up. Tokama plasma fusion is real but it cannot be scaled *down*. This is sloppy. Ask a question and then answer it. Do not answer another question. The answer is: Yes, cold fusion is real, because it has been replicated in hundreds of major laboratories, and these replications have been published in carefully vetted, top-of-the-line peer reviewed journals. That is the definition of real in experimental science. There is no other criterion for being real. Whether it is scaled up or commercialized has no bearing on that question. To answer this, Gibbs should cite the journals. If you are asking: can cold fusion be scaled up? the answer is: we don't know yet. It seems Rossi has scaled up but there is no independent proof yet. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: He did say ...there are various reactions that output more energy than is put in... which is good enough for me. Not good enough! 1. Many reactions output more energy than is put in, including chemical reactions. That is too vague. He should have said there are various reactions that produce thousands of times more energy than any chemical reaction, and they are accompanied by the production of helium nuclear ash. 2. He should have put a period after that, and then asked the next question about commercialization. There is no punctuation at all. That is sloppy writing. You should ask a question, then answer it. Then ask another. Do not cram two unrelated thoughts into one sentence. Punctuate! What i think is more curious is that everyone, including you want to call it cold fusion. Because that is what it generally called in 2012. Whether it is actually fusion or some other nuclear reaction is not relevant. Many things are called by technically inaccurate or obsolete names, such as folders in computers. Nothing is folded in a folder. Even Martin F. regretted calling it that according to what i read. He did not call it that. Other people did. He regretted that it become known by that name. That is technical nitpicking. It would have been attacked by any name. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Jed,
On one hand you want to be technical and on the other hand you do not.
Which is It?
Actually I think you call it cold fusion to promote your book else you will
need to change the name...
On Sunday, August 5, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'cheme...@gmail.com'); wrote:
He did say ...there are various reactions that output more energy than
is put in... which is good enough for me.
Not good enough!
1. Many reactions output more energy than is put in, including chemical
reactions. That is too vague. He should have said there are various
reactions that produce thousands of times more energy than any chemical
reaction, and they are accompanied by the production of helium nuclear ash.
2. He should have put a period after that, and then asked the next
question about commercialization. There is no punctuation at all. That is
sloppy writing. You should ask a question, then answer it. Then ask
another. Do not cram two unrelated thoughts into one sentence. Punctuate!
What i think is more curious is that everyone, including you want to call
it cold fusion.
Because that is what it generally called in 2012. Whether it is actually
fusion or some other nuclear reaction is not relevant. Many things are
called by technically inaccurate or obsolete names, such as folders in
computers. Nothing is folded in a folder.
Even Martin F. regretted calling it that according to what i read.
He did not call it that. Other people did. He regretted that it become
known by that name.
That is technical nitpicking. It would have been attacked by any name.
- Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote On one hand you want to be technical and on the other hand you do not. Which is It? There is no confusion. A discussion as to whether cold fusion produces heat and helium is technical. A discussion about the name -- cold fusion -- is semantic nitpicking. There are countless words in English, Japanese and all other languages which are technically inaccurate, obsolete, confusing, obscure or in some other way not a good one-for-one logical description. Language is not a good description of reality. Words are arbitrary symbols. The word is not itself the thing it represents. The word taken literally may well be absurd. Folder meaning for a collection of computer files is a good example. It is not even a little like a manila folder. For that matter, manila folders have little to do with the Philippines. Word definitions wander around and are forever in flux. Cold fusion or LENR or the F-P effect all refer to the same thing. They refer to the phenomenon characterized by heat without a chemical reaction that far exceeds the limits of chemical reaction; helium; sporadic tritium, and so on. The experimental results define what the phenomenon is. The name is merely a tag or placeholder used to indicate the phenomenon. A person who would argue which of these various designations is best, based on the word root (the literal meaning), does not understand how language works. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Jed,
You were nit picking Mark, we all new what he meant.
I will await the next edition of your book, Anomalous Heat and the Future
On Sunday, August 5, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'cheme...@gmail.com'); wrote
On one hand you want to be technical and on the other hand you do not.
Which is It?
There is no confusion. A discussion as to whether cold fusion produces
heat and helium is technical.
A discussion about the name -- cold fusion -- is semantic nitpicking.
There are countless words in English, Japanese and all other languages
which are technically inaccurate, obsolete, confusing, obscure or in some
other way not a good one-for-one logical description. Language is not a
good description of reality. Words are arbitrary symbols. The word is not
itself the thing it represents. The word taken literally may well be
absurd. Folder meaning for a collection of computer files is a good
example. It is not even a little like a manila folder. For that matter,
manila folders have little to do with the Philippines. Word definitions
wander around and are forever in flux.
Cold fusion or LENR or the F-P effect all refer to the same thing.
They refer to the phenomenon characterized by heat without a chemical
reaction that far exceeds the limits of chemical reaction; helium; sporadic
tritium, and so on. The experimental results define what the phenomenon is.
The name is merely a tag or placeholder used to indicate the phenomenon. A
person who would argue which of these various designations is best, based
on the word root (the literal meaning), does not understand how language
works.
- Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: You were nit picking Mark, we all new what he meant. No, he himself did not know what he meant. Various reactions that output more energy than is put in can describe anything from striking a match to fusion in the sun. It is vague. Just saying there are exothermic reactions tells us nothing. Regarding his writing I am not nit picking. That was seriously bad prose. He is a professional writer. He should know better than to cram two unrelated thoughts into one sentence with no punctuation in a response to one question and he also should know better than to write run-on sentences with multiple thoughts because that is the sort of they teach in high school or at least they used to and they darn well should now. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
He did not use the word exothermic you made that up to support your point.
I am going to tune out now and get an update on one of your robots landing
on Mars in T-3:45.
Let's all pray for that dude coming in hot at 13,000 mph
On Sunday, August 5, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'cheme...@gmail.com'); wrote:
You were nit picking Mark, we all new what he meant.
No, he himself did not know what he meant. Various reactions that output
more energy than is put in can describe anything from striking match to
fusion in the sun. It is vague. Just saying there are exothermic reactions
tells us nothing.
Regarding his writing I am not nit picking. That was seriously bad prose.
He is a professional writer. He should know better than to cram two
unrelated thoughts into one sentence with no punctuation in a response to
one question and he also should know better than to write run-on sentences
with multiple thoughts because that is the sort of they teach in high
school or at least they used to and they darn well should now.
- Jed
RE: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Gibbs should cease writing about cold fusion and stick to writing about USB flash drives or whatever other tech stories are appealing to his readership of establishment goons. His bias and regular omission of the facts clearly comes through in the tone and content of his articles. It's a wonder Randi or Bob Park haven't offered him a job as chief spin-doctor. Original Message Subject: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Date: Mon, August 06, 2012 10:23 am To: vortex-l@eskimo.com The most recent Gibbs article is here:http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/08/04/the-state-of-the-cold-fusion-market/ I find this annoying. He writes:"So, is cold fusion real? Well, from the thousands of experiments performed over the last few decades it seems that there are various reactions that output more energy than is put into them but whether these effects can be scaled up into devices that output a significant amount of energy and operate reliably still isn’t clear." This response does not answer the question! Gibbs asks "Is cold fusion real" and then -- instead of answering that -- he talks about "whether these efforts can be scaled up." "Real" and "scalable" are two different things. No one disputes that muon catalyzed fusion is real, but it cannot be scaled up. Tokama plasma fusion is real but it cannot be scaled down. This is sloppy. Ask a question and then answer it. Do not answer another question.The answer is: Yes, cold fusion is real, because it has been replicated in hundreds of major laboratories, and these replications have been published in carefully vetted, top-of-the-line peer reviewed journals. That is the definition of "real" in experimental science. There is no other criterion for being real. Whether it is scaled up or commercialized has no bearing on that question. To answer this, Gibbs should cite the journals. If you are asking: "can cold fusion be scaled up?" the answer is: "we don't know yet. It seems Rossi has scaled up but there is no independent proof yet." - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
see it all the landing live on NASA TV http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.comwrote: He did not use the word exothermic you made that up to support your point. I am going to tune out now and get an update on one of your robots landing on Mars in T-3:45. Let's all pray for that dude coming in hot at 13,000 mph On Sunday, August 5, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: You were nit picking Mark, we all new what he meant. No, he himself did not know what he meant. Various reactions that output more energy than is put in can describe anything from striking match to fusion in the sun. It is vague. Just saying there are exothermic reactions tells us nothing. Regarding his writing I am not nit picking. That was seriously bad prose. He is a professional writer. He should know better than to cram two unrelated thoughts into one sentence with no punctuation in a response to one question and he also should know better than to write run-on sentences with multiple thoughts because that is the sort of they teach in high school or at least they used to and they darn well should now. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: He did not use the word exothermic you made that up to support your point. I was restating his assertion, obviously! That is elegant variation. Not in the pejorative sense. What is your point? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Jed and Craig, It's interesting that you both want the mainstream media to pay attention to cold fusion yet you complain when we don't write *exactly* as you think we should write. You complain endlessly about sloppy journalism and how the theories of cold fusion aren't clearly laid out (as you think they should be) for the average reader who you obviously look down upon (Craig tellingly dismisses them as establishment goons ... an ad hominem attack if ever there was one) yet you're perpetually angry at the lack of attention and funding for cold fusion! Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot. [mg] On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Craig Brown cr...@overunity.co wrote: Gibbs should cease writing about cold fusion and stick to writing about USB flash drives or whatever other tech stories are appealing to his readership of establishment goons. His bias and regular omission of the facts clearly comes through in the tone and content of his articles. It's a wonder Randi or Bob Park haven't offered him a job as chief spin-doctor. Original Message Subject: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Date: Mon, August 06, 2012 10:23 am To: vortex-l@eskimo.com The most recent Gibbs article is here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/08/04/the-state-of-the-cold-fusion-market/ I find this annoying. He writes: So, is cold fusion real? Well, from the thousands of experiments performed over the last few decades it seems that there are various reactions that output more energy than is put into them but whether these effects can be scaled up into devices that output a significant amount of energy and operate reliably still isn’t clear. This response does not answer the question! Gibbs asks Is cold fusion real and then -- instead of answering that -- he talks about whether these efforts can be scaled up. Real and scalable are two different things. No one disputes that muon catalyzed fusion is real, but it cannot be scaled up. Tokama plasma fusion is real but it cannot be scaled *down*. This is sloppy. Ask a question and then answer it. Do not answer another question. The answer is: Yes, cold fusion is real, because it has been replicated in hundreds of major laboratories, and these replications have been published in carefully vetted, top-of-the-line peer reviewed journals. That is the definition of real in experimental science. There is no other criterion for being real. Whether it is scaled up or commercialized has no bearing on that question. To answer this, Gibbs should cite the journals. If you are asking: can cold fusion be scaled up? the answer is: we don't know yet. It seems Rossi has scaled up but there is no independent proof yet. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: It's interesting that you both want the mainstream media to pay attention to cold fusion yet you complain when we don't write *exactly* as you think we should write. This has nothing to do with what I think. I am not the issue here. I am suggesting you write something that resembles the claims in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. You ignore what the experiments show and what the researchers claim. You should read McKubre, Storms or Fleischmann and try to summarize *what they claim*. You complain endlessly about sloppy journalism and how the theories of cold fusion aren't clearly laid out . . . This is not about theory. Cold fusion is an experimental finding. There are no widely accepted theories to explain it. I see no need for you to discuss theory, any more than you would with high temperature superconducting, which also cannot be explained. On the other hand, everyone agrees that the experiments produce thousands of times more energy than a chemical reaction with the same mass reactants can produce, and that there are no chemical changes in the cell. So chemistry is ruled out. That is shown in hundreds of papers, in research replicated thousands of times by thousands of researchers. So I think that is what you should describe, rather than merely saying they output more energy than is put into them. Also note that in many cases, no one puts energy into the reactions. (as you think they should be) for the average reader who you obviously look down upon (Craig tellingly dismisses them as establishment goons ... You misunderstand. Cold fusion researchers are the establishment. As Martin said, we are painfully conventional people. Martin was an FRS; Bockris literally wrote the book on Modern Electrochemistry; Miles was Fellow at China Lake. Most cold fusion researchers are tenured professors and a large fraction of them are distinguished, leading experts in their fields. an ad hominem attack if ever there was one) yet you're perpetually angry at the lack of attention and funding for cold fusion! I am angry at people who make sloppy, ignorant claims about an important scientific breakthrough. I am angry at lazy journalists and scientists who do not make the effort to learn the facts, and instead write their own made-up version of things. I am strong believer in doing things by the numbers, following rules, and doing your homework. Check and recheck. In short, I am a programmer. Also a translator and tech writer, which is why I am such a pedant about grammar and English prose. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
I rest my case. [mg] On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: It's interesting that you both want the mainstream media to pay attention to cold fusion yet you complain when we don't write *exactly* as you think we should write. This has nothing to do with what I think. I am not the issue here. I am suggesting you write something that resembles the claims in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. You ignore what the experiments show and what the researchers claim. You should read McKubre, Storms or Fleischmann and try to summarize *what they claim*. You complain endlessly about sloppy journalism and how the theories of cold fusion aren't clearly laid out . . . This is not about theory. Cold fusion is an experimental finding. There are no widely accepted theories to explain it. I see no need for you to discuss theory, any more than you would with high temperature superconducting, which also cannot be explained. On the other hand, everyone agrees that the experiments produce thousands of times more energy than a chemical reaction with the same mass reactants can produce, and that there are no chemical changes in the cell. So chemistry is ruled out. That is shown in hundreds of papers, in research replicated thousands of times by thousands of researchers. So I think that is what you should describe, rather than merely saying they output more energy than is put into them. Also note that in many cases, no one puts energy into the reactions. (as you think they should be) for the average reader who you obviously look down upon (Craig tellingly dismisses them as establishment goons ... You misunderstand. Cold fusion researchers are the establishment. As Martin said, we are painfully conventional people. Martin was an FRS; Bockris literally wrote the book on Modern Electrochemistry; Miles was Fellow at China Lake. Most cold fusion researchers are tenured professors and a large fraction of them are distinguished, leading experts in their fields. an ad hominem attack if ever there was one) yet you're perpetually angry at the lack of attention and funding for cold fusion! I am angry at people who make sloppy, ignorant claims about an important scientific breakthrough. I am angry at lazy journalists and scientists who do not make the effort to learn the facts, and instead write their own made-up version of things. I am strong believer in doing things by the numbers, following rules, and doing your homework. Check and recheck. In short, I am a programmer. Also a translator and tech writer, which is why I am such a pedant about grammar and English prose. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
That was my point, thanks for confirming
On Sunday, August 5, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'cheme...@gmail.com'); wrote:
He did not use the word exothermic you made that up to support your
point.
I was restating his assertion, obviously! That is elegant variation. Not
in the pejorative sense. What is your point?
- Jed
RE: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
You're absolutely right Jed. Gibbs, Science has little to do with being practical; it's purpose is NOT to answer the question, is this new discovery of practical use? Science is about determining what *is*. the truth about the physics of something. ENGINEERING is about optimizing, scaling up/down, and making it practical; making it into a product. Fraid the Collective is not going to let you get away with sloppy reporting. J -Mark Iverson
RE: [Vo]:Gibbs article is annoying
Hehe...so you DO read Vortex after all - I had suspected you may be paying attention Mark ;) If mainstream media pundits such as yourself want to continually present cold fusion in a less than positive light through a series of badly researched and establishment skewed opinion pieces then you are doing your readership a disservice, for example - in the latest Forbes article you still refer to those with an alternative opinion of the 1989 Pons and Fleischmann saga as "conspiracy theorists" knowing well the implied baggage this carries and that your readership will immediately want to distance themselves from this position. Here's a radical thought, why not tell your readers about the many other researchers in all corners of the world who have produced clear and unambiguous scientific results of excess heat - the results of which are documented in various papers online. I highlighted this to you over a year ago, but still you have done nothing to address this obvious gap in the realistic portrayal of the advancements in cold fusion / LENR still currently being presented by Forbes, and just for clarity, I am not referring to Rossi or Defkalion here. I am definitely not angry as you wrongly suggest, instead I would say it's mildly frustrating to continually witness supposedly educated scientific journalists and influential media commentators focus in on the more controversial figures in the field such as Rossi, meanwhile ignoring everything else and boiling the discussion down to a few soundbites and pictures of snakes and clowns. http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/02/14/e-cat-proof-challenge-100-is-a-clownerie/ If there's a lack of attention and funding to cold fusion / LENR then it is most certainly not being helped by mainstream media publications such as Forbes (among many others) who rather than leaving the discussion open are appearing to reinforce the "swamp gas" explanation for what is already a scientifically proven phenomena. Time is moving on, it's no longer 1989, It's 2012 - say after me "It's OK to say in public that LENR is a real phenomena". It is not my fault that Forbes or the other establishment press have chosen to ignore the rest of the LENR field and to zero in on Rossi et al. I suppose writing about the more controversial claims like Rossi's must sell advertising better while providing an outlet for the establishment biased Forbes readers to bash those pesky cold fusion conspiracy theorists in the comments section while polishing their USB coffee-cup warmers.Forbes (as a publication), has a long standing track record of pouring scorn on anything that's even slightly controversial in the field of alternative energy. I wouldn't expect anything less.
