Jed,
(sorry for the late reply, finding it hard to keep up with the high
volume of postings lately, could power contributors make attempts at
conciseness please?)
2009/11/18 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com:
I forgot to mention a critical factor. Heat stimulation of cold fusion
reactions
On Nov 28, 2009, at 9:27 AM, Michel Jullian wrote:
This, plus the flickering hot spots observed on the (probably
desorbing) back of the Mylar backed SPAWAR cathode discussed the other
day (if they are indeed CF effects which I see Horace disputes)... Any
additional experimental evidence of the
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:00:55 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
Turn up electrolysis power for 3 minutes. The temperature starts to rise.
Turn the power back down again. Temperature stabilizes, starts to fall . . .
Wait for it . . . Wait for it . . . Minutes later the cell
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
Wait for it . . . Wait for it . . . Minutes later the cell starts to
self-heat, as positive feedback kicks in. It ramps up slowly, over several
minutes, and finally reaches the climax boil off (as Biberian calls it).
[snip]
Minutes are typical time intervals for
Taylor J. Smith wrote:
Try Bible-dipping and find By their works you shall know
them. Are they doing a terrible job? Do you think it is some
accident that there has been very little US government funding for
cold fusion research since the announcement by Pons and Fleischmann in 1989?
Of
On Nov 23, 2009, at 7:10 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Taylor J. Smith wrote:
Try Bible-dipping and find By their works you shall know them.
Are they doing a terrible job? Do you think it is some accident
that there has been very little US government funding for cold
fusion research since
Horace Heffner wrote:
The methods they use include things like:
Ridicule in the mass media.
Publishing books attacking the research. . . .
.
Let's not forget suppression of patents, at least in the US. That
kills off industrial development and research investment within the
US, at least
Steven V Johnson wrote:
I'm sure this was stated with tongue firmly implanted in cheek.;-)
Not really. I'd bet even money someone is diddling with the Google's
search engine. It would be pointless to speculate about who or why.
My apologies if the following speculation has already been
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:05:15 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
Speaking of real demos of CANR chain reactions ... in fact a very old demo
with a high death toll...
IOW, speaking of nuclear triggers in the historical sense ... which could
be exactly on point to this subject -
on Friday, November 20, 2009 2:41:11 AM Mark Iverson said
the discussion about chain reactions in LENR-type experiments...
Not sure if I got the below reference from vortex-l or not, but, in a general
sense, it seems that
it is saying that under certain conditions, normally incoherent
Some typos corrected below.
On Nov 18, 2009, at 5:02 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I wrote:
The reactions appear to be completely independent of one another. I
base that on the patterns of heat shown in IR cameras. Also the
damage and the autoradiographs. . . .
The point I meant to make is
At 10:08 AM 11/18/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
To my knowledge, there have been no cold fusion experiments at
cryogenic temperatures.
Muon-catalyzed fusion. Alvarez used a liquid hydrogen bubble chamber,
didn't he?
Does heat speed up the rate the muon does it's job freeing it up sooner? Of
course that goes against the cryogenic thing.
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
At 10:08 AM 11/18/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
To my knowledge, there have been no cold
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
To my knowledge, there have been no cold fusion experiments at cryogenic
temperatures.
Muon-catalyzed fusion. Alvarez used a liquid hydrogen bubble chamber,
didn't he?
I meant the metal lattice Fleischmann-Pons effect.
But as it happens, I was wrong. I forgot
RE: the discussion about chain reactions in LENR-type experiments...
Not sure if I got the below reference from vortex-l or not, but, in a general
sense, it seems that
it is saying that under certain conditions, normally incoherent behavior can
suddenly become
coherent... i.e., the behavior of
On Nov 17, 2009, at 7:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
. If someone can show a trigger that works very rapidly with a huge
amount of NEA, or what appears to be a very rapid chain reaction by
some mechanism I have not heard of, then I am wrong.
- Jed
In the above statement you mean that you
Horace Heffner wrote:
. If someone can show a trigger that works very rapidly with a huge
amount of NEA, or what appears to be a very rapid chain reaction by
some mechanism I have not heard of, then I am wrong.
In the above statement you mean that you then will admit you are
wrong. If you
: Jed Rothwell Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion bombs
Horace Heffner wrote:
. If someone can show a trigger that works very rapidly with a huge
amount of NEA, or what appears to be a very rapid chain reaction by
some mechanism I have not heard of, then I am wrong.
In the above statement you mean
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:16:45 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
And it will melt
locally long before you get multiple generations
of reactions from a large fraction of the total
population of deuterons, because heat conducts
very slowly compared to the timescale of a
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
. . . heat conducts very slowly compared to the timescale of a
nuclear reaction. It conducts at the speed of sound.
The speed of sound in metals is on the order of thousands of meters
/ second. If
heat conducted at that speed you would burn your fingers the
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
. . . heat conducts very slowly compared to the timescale of a nuclear
reaction. It conducts at the speed of sound.
The speed of sound in metals is on the order of thousands of meters /
second. If
heat conducted at that speed you would burn
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Any vibration -- including the vibration of atoms which is heat -- is
presumably going to travel at mach 1.
However, that's sort of like saying the EM wave when you hook up a
battery goes through the wire at C (in the wire). It does, but that
doesn't mean a
well, if your cathode were also a superconducter, you'd be gold to go boom.
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a perennial subject. I suppose that cold fusion bombs are probably
not possible, for the reasons given below, but I do not think suppose
On Nov 18, 2009, at 6:08 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
You have published a theory that postulates something might happen
at cryogenic temperatures.
Where did you get that idea??
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
On Nov 18, 2009, at 1:41 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Anyway, my point is that a nuclear chain reaction goes faster than
heat conduction which is why a critical mass holds together long
enough to make a really big bang. But if heat is the only means
that one cold fusion reaction triggers
Horace Heffner wrote:
Why would you think heat conduction would be involved in a chain reaction??
Technically it is not a chain reaction, but rather positive feedback.
As I said before, as far as I know, the only way one spot on a cathode can
trigger a reaction elsewhere on the same cathode is
I wrote:
The reactions appear to be completely independent of one another. I base
that on the patterns of heat shown in IR cameras. Also the damage and the
autoradiographs. . . .
The point I meant to make is that with a chain reaction from one area on the
cathode to other areas, caused by
I wrote:
I know for a fact that our military bureaucracy is not that smart
when it comes to cold fusion. This is an observation, not
speculation. . . . This is also true of the Japanese bureaucracy
under the previous two Prime Ministers.
I meant Cabinets. Although I am pretty sure the
I understand your objections to the idea of a CF bomb. However, I must cite
the history of the laser:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_inversion
The issue is timing. This is an issue from comedy to fission to fusion.
Once the process is well understood, creating a synchronous reaction
The interesting implication of the Arata-Zhang experiment for this subject,
is the extraordinary claimed loading ratio of over 3:1 (deuterons to metal
atoms).
But the CFB concept might work as well or better with protium. Compelling
evidence has been found for the occurrence of superfluidity in
On Nov 17, 2009, at 1:16 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
This is a perennial subject. I suppose that cold fusion bombs are
probably not possible, for the reasons given below, but I do not
think suppose can roll them out definitively.
First, the reasons why they may be possible:
1. Several cold
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Of course, one might opine that Catch-22 you cannot get to that degree of
loading when you are near absolute zero, since the fusion will have already
started!
And if you suddenly allow the temperature to increase, the
Special delivery. A bomb.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCape0yPrus
harry
__
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot
with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch
Land shark!
Terry
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:
Special delivery. A bomb.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCape0yPrus
harry
__
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is
Terry Blanton wrote:
I understand your objections to the idea of a CF bomb. However, I must cite
the history of the laser:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_inversion
The issue is timing. This is an issue from comedy to fission to fusion.
Once the process is well understood,
I forgot to mention a critical factor. Heat stimulation of cold fusion
reactions seems to occur remarkably slowly. Fleischmann and Biberian both
told me they used a heat pulse to trigger the boil off reaction. It worked
something like this:
Turn up electrolysis power for 3 minutes. The
36 matches
Mail list logo
