RE: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion
Axil wrote: The field of cold fusion and free energy systems has been a free for all filled with some wild and crazy guys. And it's that kind of chaotic environment that breeds innovation and will bring forth the technologies that will make the world a better place for the masses; it will not be governments nor large corporations - they will only regulate it, or refine it. -Mark Iverson From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 11:45 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion Dear Eric, Satire and flame baiting is one of the most difficult ambitions for a writer to achieve. The reader almost always assumes that you are serious. It is always wise the say what you mean and mean what you say. But sometimes the opposite happens. When a serious posit is taken as satire, When I read this sentence as you might read it: It's important to not permit the SCAMS of yesterday to effect the LENR systems of tomorrow. I could not stop laughing.ROTFL. The field of cold fusion and free energy systems has been a free for all filled with some wild and crazy guys. When you look at this unusual state of affairs with a well-honed sense of humor as you oftentimes do, I can see how lots of humor can spring forth. Cheers: Axil
Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion
Le Aug 31, 2012 à 6:23 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com a écrit : The noble gas reaction that underpins the Papp engine is the most likely reaction that works and the most promising. It must receive priority in future LENR RD funding. Axil, your satire and flame baiting are funny. People aren't picking up on the humor. Eric
Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion
Dear Eric, Satire and flame baiting is one of the most difficult ambitions for a writer to achieve. The reader almost always assumes that you are serious. It is always wise the say what you mean and mean what you say. But sometimes the opposite happens. When a serious posit is taken as satire, When I read this sentence as you might read it: *It's important to not permit the SCAMS of yesterday to effect the LENR systems of tomorrow.* I could not stop laughing…ROTFL. The field of cold fusion and free energy systems has been a free for all filled with some wild and crazy guys. When you look at this unusual state of affairs with a well-honed sense of humor as you oftentimes do, I can see how lots of humor can spring forth. Cheers: Axil On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 2:00 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Le Aug 31, 2012 à 6:23 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com a écrit : The noble gas reaction that underpins the Papp engine is the most likely reaction that works and the most promising. It must receive priority in future LENR RD funding. Axil, your satire and flame baiting are funny. People aren't picking up on the humor. Eric
Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion
We don't know what it is. When we do, maybe resonant fusion? proton absorption? BEC fusion Sent from my iPhone On Aug 31, 2012, at 11:00 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: It's a question with many nuances. I generally agree with Jed about the realities and the regulatory issues. Yet at the same time, we have an example: the terminology change from NMR to MRI. It was significant from perspective of consumer acceptance, and therefore it was economically significant. If we believe LENR will be incorporated in consumer products, then words probably do matter. Jeff On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 7:28 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I tend to agree with Axil, i think the nanopowder is a distraction if you want to generate power. Powder may be mainly good for transmutations and maybe heat transfer. I think both a Papp type engine and possibly the Terrawatt Research magnetic drive are an impulse/shock type drive with charge, compression and magnetic alignment all repeated at high frequencies. The Papp motor runs at about 47 Hz and the Terrawatt unit shows data up to 20 Hz with a steep power curve from there. The Papp unit uses noble gasses and the terrawatt magnetic oscillator just has an air gap between rotating magnetics. There must be an issue though (besides fraud which i do not believe). Since the UL data for TWR was from 2008 it should not take that long for the Terrawatt drive to make it to market. The think issue is either safety or reliability or both. This may be that the system will generate an UNGODLY amount of power at 100 or 150 Hz destroying itself and those around it. I also wonder what type of EMR spectrum of emissions is generated during operation and whether that is healthy. Papp at some point seemed to give up either after the explosion and somebody was killed or after he became ill with cancer. Patterson also seemed to give up on launching a product after his grandson died that was helping him. This all seems very strange to me. All of these systems seemed to have the potential to transform the world and yet their development appears delayed or halted. Maybe I am making too much of it. Jed might know some of the history better. Stewart On Friday, August 31, 2012, Axil Axil wrote: We think we know what is going on. Do we? One must remain open. I agree, being open minded is important. It's important to not permit the SCAMS of yesterday to effect the LENR systems of tomorrow. The noble gas reaction that underpins the Papp engine is the most likely reaction that works and the most promising. It must receive priority in future LENR RD funding. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: blush Don't forget the crater in the floor in Salt Lake City and the explosion in Tadahiko Mizuno's experiment. Key on explosion in the LENR-CANR.org search window. We think we know what is going on. Do we? One must remain open. T
Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion
Apple is probably secretly working on 'ifusion'. Harry On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: We don't know what it is. When we do, maybe resonant fusion? proton absorption? BEC fusion Sent from my iPhone On Aug 31, 2012, at 11:00 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: It's a question with many nuances. I generally agree with Jed about the realities and the regulatory issues. Yet at the same time, we have an example: the terminology change from NMR to MRI. It was significant from perspective of consumer acceptance, and therefore it was economically significant. If we believe LENR will be incorporated in consumer products, then words probably do matter. Jeff On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 7:28 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I tend to agree with Axil, i think the nanopowder is a distraction if you want to generate power. Powder may be mainly good for transmutations and maybe heat transfer. I think both a Papp type engine and possibly the Terrawatt Research magnetic drive are an impulse/shock type drive with charge, compression and magnetic alignment all repeated at high frequencies. The Papp motor runs at about 47 Hz and the Terrawatt unit shows data up to 20 Hz with a steep power curve from there. The Papp unit uses noble gasses and the terrawatt magnetic oscillator just has an air gap between rotating magnetics. There must be an issue though (besides fraud which i do not believe). Since the UL data for TWR was from 2008 it should not take that long for the Terrawatt drive to make it to market. The think issue is either safety or reliability or both. This may be that the system will generate an UNGODLY amount of power at 100 or 150 Hz destroying itself and those around it. I also wonder what type of EMR spectrum of emissions is generated during operation and whether that is healthy. Papp at some point seemed to give up either after the explosion and somebody was killed or after he became ill with cancer. Patterson also seemed to give up on launching a product after his grandson died that was helping him. This all seems very strange to me. All of these systems seemed to have the potential to transform the world and yet their development appears delayed or halted. Maybe I am making too much of it. Jed might know some of the history better. Stewart On Friday, August 31, 2012, Axil Axil wrote: We think we know what is going on. Do we? One must remain open. I agree, being open minded is important. It's important to not permit the SCAMS of yesterday to effect the LENR systems of tomorrow. The noble gas reaction that underpins the Papp engine is the most likely reaction that works and the most promising. It must receive priority in future LENR RD funding. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: blush Don't forget the crater in the floor in Salt Lake City and the explosion in Tadahiko Mizuno's experiment. Key on explosion in the LENR-CANR.org search window. We think we know what is going on. Do we? One must remain open. T
Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion
Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: Yet at the same time, we have an example: the terminology change from NMR to MRI. It was significant from perspective of consumer acceptance, and therefore it was economically significant. If we believe LENR will be incorporated in consumer products, then words probably do matter. I agree! That is a different story. That has no bearing on how the thing will be regulated. Actually, I predict that cold fusion will be so pervasive there will eventually be extensive laws and new regulatory agencies to deal with it. It will resemble the Internet in that respect. In 1985 there were no Internet regulations or laws. Now there are thousands, covering things like spamming, file sharing, free speech and so on. There are laws nowadays which would have been meaningless in 1980. The very words they are written in did not exist. I mean words such as ISP, spam or net neutrality. Many older agencies will wither away, and older laws will become a dead letter. Laws mandating fuel efficiency and reducing pollution will remain on the books, but no one will bother about them. The DoE may shrink to a small agency mainly concerned with mothballing nuclear power reactors. It is myth that government never grows smaller, or abandons obsolete functions. There are probably still laws on the books governing the use of horses in city traffic. But I doubt there are any full-time government employees enforcing such laws, except maybe in New York City where there are still many horse-drawn carriages for the tourist trade. It makes you wonder . . . There are seldom clear transitions in history, or even in technology. The very last Western Union telegraph was delivered not long ago. In 2006! Probably around 1920 the last barrel of whale oil was sold. Sometime in the 1930s, the last square-rigged freighter departed the port of New York. The LORAN navigation system was shut down in 2010. I wonder if laws governing telegraph delivery, whale oil, and navigation by sail are still on the books? - Jed
RE: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion
Jeff Berkowitz wrote: Yet at the same time, we have an example: the terminology change from NMR to MRI. It was significant from perspective of consumer acceptance, and therefore it was economically significant. If we believe LENR will be incorporated in consumer products, then words probably do matter. The oddest coincidence about this particular terminology observation in the context of nickel, is that if some version of nano-magnetism is found to be at the basis of the Ni-H thermal anomaly, it will surely be very closely related to NMR. Going further, it is probably no accident that the other metal recently associated with thermal gain with confined hydrogen, (when in the nano-geometry) is cobalt, which is ferromagnetic. The reason that iron, the third and of the 3 ferromagnetic metals, does not readily catalyzed thermal gain in nano-confinement, is probably related to the relative ease of hydrogen embrittlement in iron. Once again, this alignment of facts with nickel and cobalt and nano-magnetism - points to a bosonic process and to cavity QED. Could it be that the Casimir cavity functions mainly to increase the lifetime (and increase the rate) of diproton (2He) stability like it does with tritium (Reifenschweiler effect)? BTW - the diproton is bosonic, but normally the lifetime is extremely short. That kind of confinement stability would satisfy almost all of the objections associated with the suggestion that what we see in Ni-H is basically the first step in the solar reaction - where P+P - 2He, but instead of beta decay to deuterium (which is far too rare) or elastic scattering, we find instead that the gain in the decay dynamics relates to charge (Coulomb) repulsion. Interesting astrophysics paper on diproton stability, and the implications for the 'big picture'. http://www.ias.ac.in/jaa/jun2009/JAA0008.pdf BTW - In elastic scattering, the kinetic energy of the protons is conserved. In inelastic scattering, which is the way a 2He process would appear to the outside observer, some of the energy of the incident particle can be lost or gained or transferred. Coulomb repulsion can supply the gain in a proximate sense, but in an ultimate accounting - atomic mass would need to be converted to energy. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion
This paragraph makes no sense to me: So, the LENR term is problematic due to such serious scientific reasons. But there is one more problematic effect from the use of such wrong definition: Certification of products based on such technologies when named “nuclear”, will result the involvement of lobbies dominating the present related Nuclear Authorities, that they will use any of their spades to delay any improvement out of their control or interest, when the area of interest and responsibility of such Authorities has nothing to do with the phenomena we are talking about! The phenomenon is what it is. It makes no difference what you call it: LENR, cold fusion or HENI-heat. It makes no difference what you claim the theoretical explanation is. The actual explanation will eventually emerge. It the effect is nuclear, then the present Nuclear Authorities must regulate it. They are obligated by law. If it is not nuclear, they will not regulate it. The opinions of the people at Defkalion -- and their theories, and what they choose to call it -- can play no role in the decision to regulate this, or not to regulate it. The decision is entirely out of their hands. As I said, the authorities are *obligated by law* to regulate a nuclear effect. Defkalion, or Rossi, cannot change regulations. The are not governments. They can lobby to have the law changed. They can appeal to the public to put pressure on governments. But they cannot magically change laws by using different terminology to describe their technology. The true nature of the technology will be established by having thousands of researchers examine the effects in laboratory tests worldwide. In my opinion, there is not the slightest chance this effect will be used in any end-user application until thousands of laboratories have replicated, confirmed that it is safe, determined whether it is nuclear or not, and developed a working model if not a complete theory to explain it. Society will not allow an unexplained, unknown source of energy that looks a lot like nuclear fusion to be used in thousands of houses, buildings and automobiles without regulation and without careful testing. Rossi -- and apparently Defkalion -- seem to be betting that they can slide in under the radar as it were, and start selling this profitably without first spending billions of dollars to ensure safety. I think that is preposterous. That is not how the world works in the 21st century. Some people think it is a shame that our society is heavily regulated. They prefer the 19th or early 20th century freedom to start selling things that have not been carefully vetted and approved. In the early 1900s, people sold water with lots of radium as a health drink. This killed the people who drank it. Many other dangerous products were allowed back then. We are never going to return to those freewheeling times. I agree that regulations slow down the pace of progress, and some regulations are absurd, but whether they are good or bad, I am sure they are not going away, and it is not possible for Defkalion to do an end-run around them by renaming the phenomenon. Some people hope that cold fusion will get its start in places like India, where regulators have little power. I doubt it. Regulators in India and China have lots of power. Far too much. They are corrupt and will demand more control and a larger kickback than they would in the U.S. They are not responsive to public pressure on the legislatures. This technology will be developed, certified safe and sold in the first world -- the U.S., Europe and Japan -- or it will not be developed at all. It will be developed like any other major innovation, with the full cooperation, involvement and compliance of government regulators and private regulators such as UL. Or it will not be developed at all. Something as big as this will not be secretly, gradually introduced. It will not be manufactured in cottage industry fashion, or bootstrapped by Rossi. This is wishful thinking. It is likely there will be opposition from existing energy producers and nuclear regulators. If not at first, then later on. That opposition will have to be dealt with by existing political mechanisms. Mainly by having voters demand the Congress overrule existing interests. If the Congress does not do that, we will not have cold fusion. The Congress is dysfunctional. But not totally dysfunctional. It was dysfunctional and deeply corrupt in the 1860s yet it managed to legislate railroads into existence, and pay for them with Uncle Sam's money. (The money was paid back with interest before the end of the century.) I am sure that with enough pressure from the voters, the opposition will be defeated. In the end, everything will depend on public opinion, and the will of the people. There is no other way to defeat the opposition. There are no shortcuts. There are no magic spells invoked by changing the name to HENI-heat. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion
Jed, I totally agree. Our firm designs industrial ASME certified vessels to handle high temperatures and pressures. These vessels also have to confirm to API and NFPA guidelines. If a customer came to us with a reactor design that they could not define what the exact reaction kinetics were along with emissions it would be impossible to design and certify an industrial product. Nuclear Regulations are a whole new level of certification and I am by no means qualified to comment on them. It is best that this technology be studied by as many experts as possible to nail down the reaction(s), kinetics and emissions. That is the only way to insure public safety. Who knows, maybe it is very benign/safe at a low levels but becomes more of a bad actor had higher level energy output. Stewart On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: This paragraph makes no sense to me: So, the LENR term is problematic due to such serious scientific reasons. But there is one more problematic effect from the use of such wrong definition: Certification of products based on such technologies when named “nuclear”, will result the involvement of lobbies dominating the present related Nuclear Authorities, that they will use any of their spades to delay any improvement out of their control or interest, when the area of interest and responsibility of such Authorities has nothing to do with the phenomena we are talking about! The phenomenon is what it is. It makes no difference what you call it: LENR, cold fusion or HENI-heat. It makes no difference what you claim the theoretical explanation is. The actual explanation will eventually emerge. It the effect is nuclear, then the present Nuclear Authorities must regulate it. They are obligated by law. If it is not nuclear, they will not regulate it. The opinions of the people at Defkalion -- and their theories, and what they choose to call it -- can play no role in the decision to regulate this, or not to regulate it. The decision is entirely out of their hands. As I said, the authorities are *obligated by law* to regulate a nuclear effect. Defkalion, or Rossi, cannot change regulations. The are not governments. They can lobby to have the law changed. They can appeal to the public to put pressure on governments. But they cannot magically change laws by using different terminology to describe their technology. The true nature of the technology will be established by having thousands of researchers examine the effects in laboratory tests worldwide. In my opinion, there is not the slightest chance this effect will be used in any end-user application until thousands of laboratories have replicated, confirmed that it is safe, determined whether it is nuclear or not, and developed a working model if not a complete theory to explain it. Society will not allow an unexplained, unknown source of energy that looks a lot like nuclear fusion to be used in thousands of houses, buildings and automobiles without regulation and without careful testing. Rossi -- and apparently Defkalion -- seem to be betting that they can slide in under the radar as it were, and start selling this profitably without first spending billions of dollars to ensure safety. I think that is preposterous. That is not how the world works in the 21st century. Some people think it is a shame that our society is heavily regulated. They prefer the 19th or early 20th century freedom to start selling things that have not been carefully vetted and approved. In the early 1900s, people sold water with lots of radium as a health drink. This killed the people who drank it. Many other dangerous products were allowed back then. We are never going to return to those freewheeling times. I agree that regulations slow down the pace of progress, and some regulations are absurd, but whether they are good or bad, I am sure they are not going away, and it is not possible for Defkalion to do an end-run around them by renaming the phenomenon. Some people hope that cold fusion will get its start in places like India, where regulators have little power. I doubt it. Regulators in India and China have lots of power. Far too much. They are corrupt and will demand more control and a larger kickback than they would in the U.S. They are not responsive to public pressure on the legislatures. This technology will be developed, certified safe and sold in the first world -- the U.S., Europe and Japan -- or it will not be developed at all. It will be developed like any other major innovation, with the full cooperation, involvement and compliance of government regulators and private regulators such as UL. Or it will not be developed at all. Something as big as this will not be secretly, gradually introduced. It will not be manufactured in cottage industry fashion, or bootstrapped by Rossi. This is wishful thinking. It is likely there will be opposition from
Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion
In the field of politics and public relations, the words that are used are tools to influence perceptions. Some words are good and some words are bad in forming impressions and connections in people’s minds. LENR and CANR are acronyms and contain bad words in themselves. These terms should not be used in conversations with the general public. It has the word nuclear associated with it. The acronym HENI is better but is restrictive to the element nickel. Nickel will be replaced by other elements as the future of LENR unfolds. The associations in the word HENI will be weaken over time and such a situation should be avoided. It’s better to get the right word up front like what has been done for LASER and RADAR. The advocates of LENR should stay away from association with physics and especially nuclear physics. We want to be associated with chemistry. Instead of using words like fission and fusion, we want to use a word like transmutation. It is transmutation of elements that provide energy. Transmutation is associated with alchemy, magic, and the conversion of lead into gold. So a name like Chemically Assisted Transmutation Reaction(CATR) is a tool to avoid the association with NUCLEAR, a very bad word indeed.Cheers: Axil . On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: This paragraph makes no sense to me: So, the LENR term is problematic due to such serious scientific reasons. But there is one more problematic effect from the use of such wrong definition: Certification of products based on such technologies when named “nuclear”, will result the involvement of lobbies dominating the present related Nuclear Authorities, that they will use any of their spades to delay any improvement out of their control or interest, when the area of interest and responsibility of such Authorities has nothing to do with the phenomena we are talking about! The phenomenon is what it is. It makes no difference what you call it: LENR, cold fusion or HENI-heat. It makes no difference what you claim the theoretical explanation is. The actual explanation will eventually emerge. It the effect is nuclear, then the present Nuclear Authorities must regulate it. They are obligated by law. If it is not nuclear, they will not regulate it. The opinions of the people at Defkalion -- and their theories, and what they choose to call it -- can play no role in the decision to regulate this, or not to regulate it. The decision is entirely out of their hands. As I said, the authorities are *obligated by law* to regulate a nuclear effect. Defkalion, or Rossi, cannot change regulations. The are not governments. They can lobby to have the law changed. They can appeal to the public to put pressure on governments. But they cannot magically change laws by using different terminology to describe their technology. The true nature of the technology will be established by having thousands of researchers examine the effects in laboratory tests worldwide. In my opinion, there is not the slightest chance this effect will be used in any end-user application until thousands of laboratories have replicated, confirmed that it is safe, determined whether it is nuclear or not, and developed a working model if not a complete theory to explain it. Society will not allow an unexplained, unknown source of energy that looks a lot like nuclear fusion to be used in thousands of houses, buildings and automobiles without regulation and without careful testing. Rossi -- and apparently Defkalion -- seem to be betting that they can slide in under the radar as it were, and start selling this profitably without first spending billions of dollars to ensure safety. I think that is preposterous. That is not how the world works in the 21st century. Some people think it is a shame that our society is heavily regulated. They prefer the 19th or early 20th century freedom to start selling things that have not been carefully vetted and approved. In the early 1900s, people sold water with lots of radium as a health drink. This killed the people who drank it. Many other dangerous products were allowed back then. We are never going to return to those freewheeling times. I agree that regulations slow down the pace of progress, and some regulations are absurd, but whether they are good or bad, I am sure they are not going away, and it is not possible for Defkalion to do an end-run around them by renaming the phenomenon. Some people hope that cold fusion will get its start in places like India, where regulators have little power. I doubt it. Regulators in India and China have lots of power. Far too much. They are corrupt and will demand more control and a larger kickback than they would in the U.S. They are not responsive to public pressure on the legislatures. This technology will be developed, certified safe and sold in the first world -- the U.S., Europe and Japan -- or it will not be
Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion
If a piece of metal/wire just sits there and generates long term anomalous heat while slooowly losing mass, which is what this is doing, let's just call it evaporation like we do with water, sounds soothing. We might even have RossiSauna franchises very soon. On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: In the field of politics and public relations, the words that are used are tools to influence perceptions. Some words are good and some words are bad in forming impressions and connections in people’s minds. LENR and CANR are acronyms and contain bad words in themselves. These terms should not be used in conversations with the general public. It has the word nuclear associated with it. The acronym HENI is better but is restrictive to the element nickel. Nickel will be replaced by other elements as the future of LENR unfolds. The associations in the word HENI will be weaken over time and such a situation should be avoided. It’s better to get the right word up front like what has been done for LASER and RADAR. The advocates of LENR should stay away from association with physics and especially nuclear physics. We want to be associated with chemistry. Instead of using words like fission and fusion, we want to use a word like transmutation. It is transmutation of elements that provide energy. Transmutation is associated with alchemy, magic, and the conversion of lead into gold. So a name like Chemically Assisted Transmutation Reaction(CATR) is a tool to avoid the association with NUCLEAR, a very bad word indeed.Cheers: Axil . On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: This paragraph makes no sense to me: So, the LENR term is problematic due to such serious scientific reasons. But there is one more problematic effect from the use of such wrong definition: Certification of products based on such technologies when named “nuclear”, will result the involvement of lobbies dominating the present related Nuclear Authorities, that they will use any of their spades to delay any improvement out of their control or interest, when the area of interest and responsibility of such Authorities has nothing to do with the phenomena we are talking about! The phenomenon is what it is. It makes no difference what you call it: LENR, cold fusion or HENI-heat. It makes no difference what you claim the theoretical explanation is. The actual explanation will eventually emerge. It the effect is nuclear, then the present Nuclear Authorities must regulate it. They are obligated by law. If it is not nuclear, they will not regulate it. The opinions of the people at Defkalion -- and their theories, and what they choose to call it -- can play no role in the decision to regulate this, or not to regulate it. The decision is entirely out of their hands. As I said, the authorities are *obligated by law* to regulate a nuclear effect. Defkalion, or Rossi, cannot change regulations. The are not governments. They can lobby to have the law changed. They can appeal to the public to put pressure on governments. But they cannot magically change laws by using different terminology to describe their technology. The true nature of the technology will be established by having thousands of researchers examine the effects in laboratory tests worldwide. In my opinion, there is not the slightest chance this effect will be used in any end-user application until thousands of laboratories have replicated, confirmed that it is safe, determined whether it is nuclear or not, and developed a working model if not a complete theory to explain it. Society will not allow an unexplained, unknown source of energy that looks a lot like nuclear fusion to be used in thousands of houses, buildings and automobiles without regulation and without careful testing. Rossi -- and apparently Defkalion -- seem to be betting that they can slide in under the radar as it were, and start selling this profitably without first spending billions of dollars to ensure safety. I think that is preposterous. That is not how the world works in the 21st century. Some people think it is a shame that our society is heavily regulated. They prefer the 19th or early 20th century freedom to start selling things that have not been carefully vetted and approved. In the early 1900s, people sold water with lots of radium as a health drink. This killed the people who drank it. Many other dangerous products were allowed back then. We are never going to return to those freewheeling times. I agree that regulations slow down the pace of progress, and some regulations are absurd, but whether they are good or bad, I am sure they are not going away, and it is not possible for Defkalion to do an end-run around them by renaming the phenomenon. Some people hope that cold fusion will get its start in places like India, where regulators have little power. I doubt it.
Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: In the field of politics and public relations, the words that are used are tools to influence perceptions. Some words are good and some words are bad in forming impressions and connections in people’s minds. This will be 0.0001% as important as the fact that cold fusion cells often produce tritium, and with deuterium they always produce helium. When you deal with science and technology, facts matter more than perception. When it becomes generally known that the FP effect is real, the authorities will be obligated to investigate the claims and determine the nature of the reaction. You, or Defkalion, or someone is imagining a discussion along these lines: Congressman, addressing a panel of experts: You now agree that cold fusion is real. The next question is, what is it? Is it a nuclear effect that should be regulated by the NRC? Expert witness: Well Congressman, we are not sure yet. Some experts say yes, others say no. Here is what we are looking at: We have hundreds of studies showing that effect produces tritium. That's a nuclear product. We have dozens of studies showing that it produces helium and transmutations and other nuclear processes, and in some cases it definitely produces a burst of neutrons. So there's pretty good evidence that it is a nuclear effect. I would say there are roughly 600 distinguished experts worldwide who have told us it is a nuclear effect. On the other hand . . . The company that makes this gadget, Defkalion, says it is not a nuclear effect. And they don't call it nuclear fusion. They say it is something called . . . uh, let me check my notes . . . HENI-heat. Also, there's a guy named Steve Krivit who says it is not nuclear fusion. So anyway, based on what this company calls it, and what this guy Krivit says, we decided we should not regulate it. Congressman: We shouldn't worry about it? Expert: Right. We figure, this is Defkalion's product. They picked the name, they decide how it works and what the theory is. They should be the ones to decide whether it should be regulated or not, and who should regulate it. Congressman: That stands to reason! Okay the session is adjourned. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion
I imagine a discussion along these lines: Chemically Assisted Transmutation Reaction (CATR) expert: Yes, certain chemical reactions are known to produce tritium. Those reactions should be regulated by the NRC or band. Those reactions use the hydrogen isotope deuterium. Chemical reactions that use ordinary hydrogen do not produce tritium and should not be regulated. These reactions are common in nature and are found in lightning and volcanism and the decay of most natural isotopes. CATR causes and acceleration of alpha particle decay which causes a transmutation of an element into another plus the production of helium4. This happens all the time in nature; in CATR, we just speed up the process a little. This Alpha decay results in the production of energy that we turn into heat. Our process does not produce radioactive wastes, in the same way that the natural process does not. Congressman: Well that sounds great, We don’t need to get involved with this acceleration of a natural process. On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: In the field of politics and public relations, the words that are used are tools to influence perceptions. Some words are good and some words are bad in forming impressions and connections in people’s minds. This will be 0.0001% as important as the fact that cold fusion cells often produce tritium, and with deuterium they always produce helium. When you deal with science and technology, facts matter more than perception. When it becomes generally known that the FP effect is real, the authorities will be obligated to investigate the claims and determine the nature of the reaction. You, or Defkalion, or someone is imagining a discussion along these lines: Congressman, addressing a panel of experts: You now agree that cold fusion is real. The next question is, what is it? Is it a nuclear effect that should be regulated by the NRC? Expert witness: Well Congressman, we are not sure yet. Some experts say yes, others say no. Here is what we are looking at: We have hundreds of studies showing that effect produces tritium. That's a nuclear product. We have dozens of studies showing that it produces helium and transmutations and other nuclear processes, and in some cases it definitely produces a burst of neutrons. So there's pretty good evidence that it is a nuclear effect. I would say there are roughly 600 distinguished experts worldwide who have told us it is a nuclear effect. On the other hand . . . The company that makes this gadget, Defkalion, says it is not a nuclear effect. And they don't call it nuclear fusion. They say it is something called . . . uh, let me check my notes . . . HENI-heat. Also, there's a guy named Steve Krivit who says it is not nuclear fusion. So anyway, based on what this company calls it, and what this guy Krivit says, we decided we should not regulate it. Congressman: We shouldn't worry about it? Expert: Right. We figure, this is Defkalion's product. They picked the name, they decide how it works and what the theory is. They should be the ones to decide whether it should be regulated or not, and who should regulate it. Congressman: That stands to reason! Okay the session is adjourned. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Chemically Assisted Transmutation Reaction (CATR) expert: Yes, certain chemical reactions are known to produce tritium. Those reactions should be regulated by the NRC or band. Those reactions use the hydrogen isotope deuterium. A chemical reaction cannot produce tritium. That is a transmutation; a change to the nucleus. The definition of chemistry is a reaction limited to the electrons. That is the present definition, anyway. Chemical transmutation is a contradiction of terms, like a living corpse or a solid gas. If cold fusion with deuterium can cause transmutations with products such as tritium, then it stands to reason that cold fusion with hydrogen might also cause transmutations. There is already experimental evidence that it can cause bursts of neutrons. There is no way -- absolutely, positively, no way on God's green earth -- that experts testifying before Congress any time in the next decade will claim that the theory is settled, and we know for sure this is a benign chemical effect that should not be under the purview of the NRC or other nuclear regulators. That question can only be settled after thousands of researchers replicate the effect and assess it in far greater detail than anyone has done until now. It cannot be settled until the theorists reach some sort of consensus about the nature of the reaction. They need a working model, if not a theory. We are far from that. Probably hundreds of millions of dollars away from that, if not billions. The physics establishment is not going to throw away the definitions of chemistry versus nuclear physics, and accept unconditionally that there is such a thing as chemical transmutation, and that we should not worry about the effects of that mysterious new phenomenon. It should not accept that! It would be the height of irresponsibility for physicists to accept this. We know practically nothing about cold fusion. The research has barely begun. As I said at ICCF17, in the whole history of the field, we have spent roughly as much money as people spend on semiconductor RD *in a single day*. I repeat: by the standards of industrial RD, cold fusion is one day old. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion
Chemical transmutation, is what is going on. The physics commumity must come to terms with this reality. Chemically Assisted Transmutation Reaction (CATR) reactions are produced through the action of electrons not neutrons. The NRC regulates the use of neutrons not electrons. If no neutrons are produced, there is no need for NRC regulation. High powered LASERs and electric arcs can produce transmutation of isotopes. These methods are not regulated, or from a practical standpoint, how could they be. The action of a catalyst directing the action of electrons cannot be regulated by the NRC. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Chemically Assisted Transmutation Reaction (CATR) expert: Yes, certain chemical reactions are known to produce tritium. Those reactions should be regulated by the NRC or band. Those reactions use the hydrogen isotope deuterium. A chemical reaction cannot produce tritium. That is a transmutation; a change to the nucleus. The definition of chemistry is a reaction limited to the electrons. That is the present definition, anyway. Chemical transmutation is a contradiction of terms, like a living corpse or a solid gas. If cold fusion with deuterium can cause transmutations with products such as tritium, then it stands to reason that cold fusion with hydrogen might also cause transmutations. There is already experimental evidence that it can cause bursts of neutrons. There is no way -- absolutely, positively, no way on God's green earth -- that experts testifying before Congress any time in the next decade will claim that the theory is settled, and we know for sure this is a benign chemical effect that should not be under the purview of the NRC or other nuclear regulators. That question can only be settled after thousands of researchers replicate the effect and assess it in far greater detail than anyone has done until now. It cannot be settled until the theorists reach some sort of consensus about the nature of the reaction. They need a working model, if not a theory. We are far from that. Probably hundreds of millions of dollars away from that, if not billions. The physics establishment is not going to throw away the definitions of chemistry versus nuclear physics, and accept unconditionally that there is such a thing as chemical transmutation, and that we should not worry about the effects of that mysterious new phenomenon. It should not accept that! It would be the height of irresponsibility for physicists to accept this. We know practically nothing about cold fusion. The research has barely begun. As I said at ICCF17, in the whole history of the field, we have spent roughly as much money as people spend on semiconductor RD *in a single day*. I repeat: by the standards of industrial RD, cold fusion is one day old. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission The NRC is the Federal agency responsible protecting the health and safety of the public and the environment by licensing and regulating the civilian uses of the following radioactive materials: - Source material http://www.nrc.gov/materials/srcmaterial.html(uranium and thorium) - Special nuclear materialhttp://www.nrc.gov/materials/sp-nucmaterials.html(enriched uranium and plutonium) - Byproduct material http://www.nrc.gov/materials/byproduct-mat.html(material that is made radioactive in a reactor, and residue from the milling of uranium and thorium) The NRC regulates the use of these radioactive materials through Title 10, Part 10, of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR Part 20http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/), Standards for Protection Against Radiation, which spells out the agency's requirements for the following aspects of radiation protection: - Dose limitshttp://www.nrc.gov/images/about-nrc/radiation/dose-limits.jpgfor radiation workers and members of the public - Exposure limits for individual radionuclides - Monitoring and labeling radioactive materials - Posting signs in and around radiation areas - Reporting the theft or loss of radioactive material - Penalties for not complying with NRC regulations Of more than 20,000 active source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials licenses in place in the United States, about a quarter are administered by the NRC, while the rest are administered by 35 Agreement Stateshttp://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/protects-you/reg-matls.html#states . On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Chemical transmutation, is what is going on. The physics commumity must come to terms with this reality. Chemically Assisted Transmutation Reaction (CATR) reactions are produced through the action of electrons not neutrons. The NRC regulates the use of neutrons not electrons. If no neutrons are produced, there is no need for NRC regulation. High powered LASERs and electric arcs can produce transmutation of isotopes. These methods are not regulated, or from a practical standpoint, how could they be. The action of a catalyst directing the action of electrons cannot be regulated by the NRC. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Chemically Assisted Transmutation Reaction (CATR) expert: Yes, certain chemical reactions are known to produce tritium. Those reactions should be regulated by the NRC or band. Those reactions use the hydrogen isotope deuterium. A chemical reaction cannot produce tritium. That is a transmutation; a change to the nucleus. The definition of chemistry is a reaction limited to the electrons. That is the present definition, anyway. Chemical transmutation is a contradiction of terms, like a living corpse or a solid gas. If cold fusion with deuterium can cause transmutations with products such as tritium, then it stands to reason that cold fusion with hydrogen might also cause transmutations. There is already experimental evidence that it can cause bursts of neutrons. There is no way -- absolutely, positively, no way on God's green earth -- that experts testifying before Congress any time in the next decade will claim that the theory is settled, and we know for sure this is a benign chemical effect that should not be under the purview of the NRC or other nuclear regulators. That question can only be settled after thousands of researchers replicate the effect and assess it in far greater detail than anyone has done until now. It cannot be settled until the theorists reach some sort of consensus about the nature of the reaction. They need a working model, if not a theory. We are far from that. Probably hundreds of millions of dollars away from that, if not billions. The physics establishment is not going to throw away the definitions of chemistry versus nuclear physics, and accept unconditionally that there is such a thing as chemical transmutation, and that we should not worry about the effects of that mysterious new phenomenon. It should not accept that! It would be the height of irresponsibility for physicists to accept this. We know practically nothing about cold fusion. The research has barely begun. As I said at ICCF17, in the whole history of the field, we have spent roughly as much money as people spend on semiconductor RD *in a single day*. I repeat: by the standards of industrial RD, cold fusion is one day old. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Chemical transmutation, is what is going on. The physics commumity must come to terms with this reality. They all have to agree with you. Because . . . Why exactly? Chemically Assisted Transmutation Reaction (CATR) reactions are produced through the action of electrons not neutrons. The NRC regulates the use of neutrons not electrons. If no neutrons are produced, there is no need for NRC regulation. Two problems with this: 1. Celani did detect neutrons, so maybe they are produced. It will take a lot more research to settle this issue. 2. Do you seriously expect that everyone in the scientific establishment, every regulator, and every lawmaker will agree with you about this? Do you think there will be no debate? No funds allocated to determine whether you are right or wrong? Everyone will look at the present evidence, decide it is sufficient, and instantly dismiss a large chunk of conventional nuclear physics. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion
*They all have to agree with you. Because . . . Why exactly?* Because it is a truth of nature and the way the universe works. The NRC does regulate X-Ray machines but only to insure that the radiation produced is below the statutory limits. If the LENR reactor is well shielded, and produces no radioactive isotopes then the NRC regulation has limited impact on the commercialization of the LENR reactor. If the competitors of the DGT reactor want to question its theory of operation, they must fund the research that attempts to disprove that theory. *Everyone will look at the present evidence, decide it is sufficient, and instantly dismiss a large chunk of conventional nuclear physics.* This is a new chemical reaction that is not in the purview of current nuclear physics. Cheers:Axil On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Chemical transmutation, is what is going on. The physics commumity must come to terms with this reality. They all have to agree with you. Because . . . Why exactly? Chemically Assisted Transmutation Reaction (CATR) reactions are produced through the action of electrons not neutrons. The NRC regulates the use of neutrons not electrons. If no neutrons are produced, there is no need for NRC regulation. Two problems with this: 1. Celani did detect neutrons, so maybe they are produced. It will take a lot more research to settle this issue. 2. Do you seriously expect that everyone in the scientific establishment, every regulator, and every lawmaker will agree with you about this? Do you think there will be no debate? No funds allocated to determine whether you are right or wrong? Everyone will look at the present evidence, decide it is sufficient, and instantly dismiss a large chunk of conventional nuclear physics. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion
Byproduct material http://www.nrc.gov/materials/byproduct-mat.html (material
that is made radioactive in a reactor, and residue from the milling of
uranium and thorium)
I would think that any byproducts, even only unstable for seconds, would
trigger this.
I am just guessing
On Friday, August 31, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'janap...@gmail.com'); wrote:
Chemical transmutation, is what is going on. The physics commumity must
come to terms with this reality.
They all have to agree with you. Because . . . Why exactly?
Chemically Assisted Transmutation Reaction (CATR) reactions are produced
through the action of electrons not neutrons.
The NRC regulates the use of neutrons not electrons.
If no neutrons are produced, there is no need for NRC regulation.
Two problems with this:
1. Celani did detect neutrons, so maybe they are produced. It will take a
lot more research to settle this issue.
2. Do you seriously expect that everyone in the scientific establishment,
every regulator, and every lawmaker will agree with you about this? Do you
think there will be no debate? No funds allocated to determine whether you
are right or wrong? Everyone will look at the present evidence, decide it
is sufficient, and instantly dismiss a large chunk of conventional nuclear
physics.
- Jed
Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion
If those byproducts decay and stabilize either while the reactor is in operation, while the reactor is cooling down, or otherwise when those byproducts are inaccessible to the operator then those byproducts will have been considered stable upon radiological analysis and not subjest to regulation. Cheers:Axil On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:47 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Byproduct material http://www.nrc.gov/materials/byproduct-mat.html (material that is made radioactive in a reactor, and residue from the milling of uranium and thorium) I would think that any byproducts, even only unstable for seconds, would trigger this. I am just guessing On Friday, August 31, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Chemical transmutation, is what is going on. The physics commumity must come to terms with this reality. They all have to agree with you. Because . . . Why exactly? Chemically Assisted Transmutation Reaction (CATR) reactions are produced through the action of electrons not neutrons. The NRC regulates the use of neutrons not electrons. If no neutrons are produced, there is no need for NRC regulation. Two problems with this: 1. Celani did detect neutrons, so maybe they are produced. It will take a lot more research to settle this issue. 2. Do you seriously expect that everyone in the scientific establishment, every regulator, and every lawmaker will agree with you about this? Do you think there will be no debate? No funds allocated to determine whether you are right or wrong? Everyone will look at the present evidence, decide it is sufficient, and instantly dismiss a large chunk of conventional nuclear physics. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion
terms are important for public perception, and today politician behavoir is more related to poling than to experts... of course LENR should be checked as not explosive, not radioactive. it seems so, and with the unknown we could add radiation detectors to shutdown in case of black swan... job done. about public perception I have already discussed of my position http://lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=19t=503http://lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=19t=503 Some people, like me initially wanted a precise, scientific, less connoted term like LENR. Today here is my position. Some corporate serial innovator said me that Cold Fusion is the best name. Today it is satanic because of mainstream denial, but soon people won’t care… but unlike LENr, CANR, LANR, HENI… it is not NUCLEAR [image: :o] … it is COLD, thus safe, not dangerous [image: :)] it is FUSION, so it is sexy, inclusive [image: :D] the only good name might be the Quantum Reactor… it is a bit geek … not for my mum. [image: :mrgreen:] For me like for many geek, quantum is sexy [image: :shock:] , and reactor is macho [image: :shock:] … but for mum, it is doubtful and dangerous black magic [image: :twisted:] … so really COLD FUSION is the best name… the brand is established, the 2 words have good connotation (safe, sexy, inclusive [image: 8-)] ), and bad reputation will disappear with a feeling of revenge on the men in power [image: :twisted:] … like raising the finger in from of the government. a safe sexy rebel reactor [image: :D] [image: 8-)] [image: :twisted:] … COOL! [image: :mrgreen:] 2012/8/31 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com Chemical transmutation, is what is going on. The physics commumity must come to terms with this reality. Chemically Assisted Transmutation Reaction (CATR) reactions are produced through the action of electrons not neutrons. The NRC regulates the use of neutrons not electrons. If no neutrons are produced, there is no need for NRC regulation. High powered LASERs and electric arcs can produce transmutation of isotopes. These methods are not regulated, or from a practical standpoint, how could they be. The action of a catalyst directing the action of electrons cannot be regulated by the NRC. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Chemically Assisted Transmutation Reaction (CATR) expert: Yes, certain chemical reactions are known to produce tritium. Those reactions should be regulated by the NRC or band. Those reactions use the hydrogen isotope deuterium. A chemical reaction cannot produce tritium. That is a transmutation; a change to the nucleus. The definition of chemistry is a reaction limited to the electrons. That is the present definition, anyway. Chemical transmutation is a contradiction of terms, like a living corpse or a solid gas. If cold fusion with deuterium can cause transmutations with products such as tritium, then it stands to reason that cold fusion with hydrogen might also cause transmutations. There is already experimental evidence that it can cause bursts of neutrons. There is no way -- absolutely, positively, no way on God's green earth -- that experts testifying before Congress any time in the next decade will claim that the theory is settled, and we know for sure this is a benign chemical effect that should not be under the purview of the NRC or other nuclear regulators. That question can only be settled after thousands of researchers replicate the effect and assess it in far greater detail than anyone has done until now. It cannot be settled until the theorists reach some sort of consensus about the nature of the reaction. They need a working model, if not a theory. We are far from that. Probably hundreds of millions of dollars away from that, if not billions. The physics establishment is not going to throw away the definitions of chemistry versus nuclear physics, and accept unconditionally that there is such a thing as chemical transmutation, and that we should not worry about the effects of that mysterious new phenomenon. It should not accept that! It would be the height of irresponsibility for physicists to accept this. We know practically nothing about cold fusion. The research has barely begun. As I said at ICCF17, in the whole history of the field, we have spent roughly as much money as people spend on semiconductor RD *in a single day*. I repeat: by the standards of industrial RD, cold fusion is one day old. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion
At 02:49 PM 8/31/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: The physics establishment is not going to throw away the definitions of chemistry versus nuclear physics, and accept unconditionally that there is such a thing as chemical transmutation, and that we should not worry about the effects of that mysterious new phenomenon. It should not accept that! It would be the height of irresponsibility for physicists to accept this. We know practically nothing about cold fusion. The research has barely begun. As I said at ICCF17, in the whole history of the field, we have spent roughly as much money as people spend on semiconductor RD in a single day. I repeat: by the standards of industrial RD, cold fusion is one day old. Brilliant comment, Jed.
Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: As I said at ICCF17, in the whole history of the field, we have spent roughly as much money as people spend on semiconductor RD in a single day. I repeat: by the standards of industrial RD, cold fusion is one day old. Brilliant comment, Jed. Thanks. That is one of the reasons I am optimistic. I do not suppose that money has magical powers to create breakthroughs, but I know there are many promising unexplored avenues. Any cold fusion researcher can think of fruitful ways to spend millions of dollars. They all have dozens of great ideas they cannot try for lack of funding. If we let thousands of researchers do what they think is best, someone will succeed. Even if Storms and McKubre and the others now at work fail, others will enter the field. Someone will hit it. Most will fail, but that does not matter. There is no doubt that cold fusion can be scaled up. It *has been* scaled up, by FP in France and in a few other places. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion
Keep Your Eye on the Doughnut, not on the Hole! Any time or money spent on Pd/D2O system is a waste and counterproductive, yet most of the old guard cold fusion workers persist in their opinions about Pd/D2O. It produces tritium, neutrons and is energy poor. Relative to cool fusion, a minuscule amount of money and effort has been spent on the H/Ni system as compared to the Pd/D2O system. Let us direct our focus to the proper path toward the commercial realization of LENR. There is no need to dump good money after bad. There will be general resistance to this way of thinking from the old timers in the cold fusion community. Any money that they receive will go down the Pd/D2O rat hole. As our great resident philosopher here at vortex as famously stated: When a scientist becomes an expert in his field, he has his entire life invested in the paradigm. It becomes a thing of faith mistaken for knowledge. It would take an epiphany tantamount to a blind man suddenly gaining sight to change. It's a great individual that can admit his entire life's work was flawed. It rarely happens. Cheers:Axil On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: As I said at ICCF17, in the whole history of the field, we have spent roughly as much money as people spend on semiconductor RD in a single day. I repeat: by the standards of industrial RD, cold fusion is one day old. Brilliant comment, Jed. Thanks. That is one of the reasons I am optimistic. I do not suppose that money has magical powers to create breakthroughs, but I know there are many promising unexplored avenues. Any cold fusion researcher can think of fruitful ways to spend millions of dollars. They all have dozens of great ideas they cannot try for lack of funding. If we let thousands of researchers do what they think is best, someone will succeed. Even if Storms and McKubre and the others now at work fail, others will enter the field. Someone will hit it. Most will fail, but that does not matter. There is no doubt that cold fusion can be scaled up. It *has been* scaled up, by FP in France and in a few other places. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion
blush Don't forget the crater in the floor in Salt Lake City and the explosion in Tadahiko Mizuno's experiment. Key on explosion in the LENR-CANR.org search window. We think we know what is going on. Do we? One must remain open. T
Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: One must remain open. When I say open, I mean that we are here assuming a single process is in play. It is indeed possible that we see multiple quantum reactions now that we can operate in the nano world. It is almost likely that this realm is not one dimensional; but, has opened a window to many new possibilities. The Pd/D reaction could be unrelated to what we are exploring with Ni/H. It would be something wonderful. T
Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion
I tend to agree with you Terry. We are seeing many new miracles now that the proper instrumentation is available. How many times has NASA placed a new better measuring device into space which has not opened a floodgate of new discoveries? Very few can anticipate what these new wonders will be, but most of us can imagine there will be many. One day soon, we may be kicking our behinds wondering how we missed all the activity that was before our eyes. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 31, 2012 8:19 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: One must remain open. When I say open, I mean that we are here assuming a single process is in play. It is indeed possible that we see multiple quantum reactions now that we can operate in the nano world. It is almost likely that this realm is not one dimensional; but, has opened a window to many new possibilities. The Pd/D reaction could be unrelated to what we are exploring with Ni/H. It would be something wonderful. T
Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion
Of course we do not know what is going on. That will remain the operational mode until the theories can predict future performance of the devices and allow us to design ones that do not take out the neighborhood. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 31, 2012 8:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion blush Don't forget the crater in the floor in Salt Lake City and the explosion in Tadahiko Mizuno's experiment. Key on explosion in the LENR-CANR.org search window. We think we know what is going on. Do we? One must remain open. T
Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion
*We think we know what is going on. Do we?* * * * * * * *One must remain open*. I agree, being open minded is important. It's important to not permit the SCAMS of yesterday to effect the LENR systems of tomorrow. The noble gas reaction that underpins the Papp engine is the most likely reaction that works and the most promising. It must receive priority in future LENR RD funding. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: blush Don't forget the crater in the floor in Salt Lake City and the explosion in Tadahiko Mizuno's experiment. Key on explosion in the LENR-CANR.org search window. We think we know what is going on. Do we? One must remain open. T
Re: [Vo]:a new interview with Defkalion
It's a question with many nuances. I generally agree with Jed about the realities and the regulatory issues. Yet at the same time, we have an example: the terminology change from NMR to MRI. It was significant from perspective of consumer acceptance, and therefore it was economically significant. If we believe LENR will be incorporated in consumer products, then words probably do matter. Jeff On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 7:28 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I tend to agree with Axil, i think the nanopowder is a distraction if you want to generate power. Powder may be mainly good for transmutations and maybe heat transfer. I think both a Papp type engine and possibly the Terrawatt Research magnetic drive are an impulse/shock type drive with charge, compression and magnetic alignment all repeated at high frequencies. The Papp motor runs at about 47 Hz and the Terrawatt unit shows data up to 20 Hz with a steep power curve from there. The Papp unit uses noble gasses and the terrawatt magnetic oscillator just has an air gap between rotating magnetics. There must be an issue though (besides fraud which i do not believe). Since the UL data for TWR was from 2008 it should not take that long for the Terrawatt drive to make it to market. The think issue is either safety or reliability or both. This may be that the system will generate an UNGODLY amount of power at 100 or 150 Hz destroying itself and those around it. I also wonder what type of EMR spectrum of emissions is generated during operation and whether that is healthy. Papp at some point seemed to give up either after the explosion and somebody was killed or after he became ill with cancer. Patterson also seemed to give up on launching a product after his grandson died that was helping him. This all seems very strange to me. All of these systems seemed to have the potential to transform the world and yet their development appears delayed or halted. Maybe I am making too much of it. Jed might know some of the history better. Stewart On Friday, August 31, 2012, Axil Axil wrote: *We think we know what is going on. Do we?* * * * * * * *One must remain open*. I agree, being open minded is important. It's important to not permit the SCAMS of yesterday to effect the LENR systems of tomorrow. The noble gas reaction that underpins the Papp engine is the most likely reaction that works and the most promising. It must receive priority in future LENR RD funding. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.comwrote: blush Don't forget the crater in the floor in Salt Lake City and the explosion in Tadahiko Mizuno's experiment. Key on explosion in the LENR-CANR.org search window. We think we know what is going on. Do we? One must remain open. T
