Re: [Vo]:group seeks to discredit Rossi
On Feb 6, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Rich Murray wrote: I just posted this comment on 22passi.blogspot.com Join vort...@eskimo.com for posts on all sides of this and similar claims. I am Rich Murray, rmfor...@gmail.com , and have suggested Feb. 5 and 6 that the Rossi device may have internal leaks that cause the electric heater to short out to the output water, electrolyzing water into hydrogen and oxygen in the cell and messing up the heat measurements, while creating the hazards of severe electric shock and explosions. On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: Based on this google translation it seems the Italian Committee Against the Claims of the Paranormal is seeking to discredit Rossi et al. http://translate.google.ca/translate? js=nprev=_thl=enie=UTF-8layout=2eotf=1sl=ittl=enu=http%3A% 2F%2Fwww.net1news.org%2Fcorsa-alla-fusione-fredda-litalia-passa-il- testimone-alla-grecia.html http://tinyurl.com/6za8ler harry This kind of irrational debunking is laughable. The one thing done well in the experiment was measuring the input. You don't think a short would show up on a power meter, or even just a current meter, or even blow a fuse? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration
Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: If conducting paths start to open up within the cell from the heater electric power input, they will evolved and expand complexly. The H2 that Rossi thinks is being absorbed into the Ni nanopowder may in part be leaking into the coolant water output . . . That is completely out of the question. There are no leaks. There is no measurable change in H2 pressure. Even if all of hydrogen leaked out and burned it would contribute 14 kJ, and of course they would see it had leaked out. In my opinion, that is the kind of skeptical hypothesis that does not need to be addressed. - Jed
[Vo]:Focardi Rosssi-Off- Topic - What gets Funded/Cashed Out..very upsetting
Greetings Vortex, I still cannot believe that Clorox acquired Burts Bees Wax for 925 million. I tried to find some lower numbers, none were found. Will keep looking..it is so incredible. http://www.newser.com/article/d9l66eg00/clorox-2nd-quarter-earnings-fall-on-burts-bees-charge-revenue-declines-post-swine-flu.html At a time we need alt alt energy funding..cold fusion...etc. This is what the companies with the products that we buy are doing. Will Forcardi and Rossi ever get close to that number??? Ron The Huffington Post I think was just sold for 325 millionall at a time when milld east petroleum problems can destroy the world economy.
[Vo]:Comments by Duncan, Celani at ICCF16
Rob Duncan was supposed to give one of the keynote addresses. Unfortunately, the blizzard in the U.S. shut down Chicago and he was unable to come. He e-mailed his comments and they were read by Melich. They were excellent. I hope to get a copy soon. Anyway, one thing he said was that the heat in many of these experiments is definitely real. I think he also said it is definitely not chemical. Rossi's work was discussed by Celani and then Melich. Celani's description of the demo was more critical than his discussion with me, yesterday. He was quite upset that they did not let him make nuclear measurements, and I suspect that has colored his thinking. Rossi told him we can't let you take a gamma spectrum because that will tell you exactly what reactions are going on, and we cannot reveal that information until we can get a patent. That remark alone is revealing, isn't it! I am not good at taking notes while listening to a lecture, but here are some of my notes from Celani's talk. This was not a typical cold fusion experiment, especially in the choice of materials, which was nickel plus two other unnamed mystery elements. It is conceptually mistaken to call this Ni cold fusion. Celani believes these other elements are the active ingredient and the Ni assists the reaction in the other elements. [I have the opposite impression; that the other elements are dopants which enhance the Ni reaction that Piantelli and Focardi discovered years ago.] There were many problems with the demonstration. The device was working a lot better on January 13. Unfortunately, on the day the people assembled, the A/C heater failed catastrophically and then some other parts were acting flaky. The audience become restless and upset. When they finally got it going, they were only able to reduce control power down to 400 W, and it was not as steady as it had been in recent tests at U. Bologna. On Jan. 13 and in some previous tests they could bring it down closer to 100 W, which is more impressive, with a gain of 30 - 40. [I quibble with use of the term gain in this context.] Celani referred to the 100 W level as the self-sustaining level. In other words, almost heat after death. The hygrometric probe [RH meter] was not reliable and the readings were not continuous. There was the sound of steam but it was not loud. There was a lot of noise in the crowded room. The data acquisition system failed, as noted by Levi in his report, which is why they had to use a photo of the screen. Celani thinks there were questionable assumptions about the dry steam. He showed a graph of the estimates made here about 1% of the steam by volume reducing the enthalpy by a large margin. (Storms says that estimate is wrong -- the reduction is much too big.) Celani thinks the outlet temperature probe was too close to the body of the machine. Celani reiterated what he told me yesterday, that calorimetry by vaporization is problematic, and it would be better to increase the flow rate and use water below 90 deg C instead. Levi and Rossi are preparing a more detailed report about the recent set of tests. (The Levi report now uploaded is a rush job, as I think anyone can see.) After the talk, Celani mentioned that he held his hand over the exit pipe, which I think is rubber. Someone asked if he touched it. He said it was too hot. That would put it at about 50 deg C, as the person pointed out. That's very hot. Melich, Storms and I feel that some of this is nitpicking. Celani did not address the most important issue, which is that even if there was a only a tiny bit of steam, that means the water temperature was close to 100 deg C, so there must have been massive excess heat, on the order of 400 W in, 1,800 out. You can ignore the steam altogether. In most cold fusion experiments this much excess heat would be considered a definitive triumph. McKubre remarked that Rossi presence in the room during the test weakens the claim. I don't think anyone would argue with that. Melich followed with a shorter discussion, without viewgraphs. He was more circumspect because some of the work he based his discussion has not been published yet so he cannot reveal full details. He is confident that it will be published. He agreed that Rossi's results are still somewhat fuzzy but warned people not to judge a project by a one-off test on one day, especially a test with 50 impatient people in the room. That is bound to be somewhat chaotic. Levi remarked somewhere that he felt confident in the machine after the Dec. 16 test [Test 1] and also when he saw it run with no input, in heat after death. Levi's judgement does not rest entirely on the Jan. 14 demonstration [Test 2]. People such as Melich and Levi, who know the most about this machine, seem to have the highest confidence that it is real. That is a good sign. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:group seeks to discredit Rossi
Well, Horace, there were a series of spikes on the input electric power record in Test 1 on Dec. 16. And in Test 2 on Jan. 14, a catastrophic welding failure on a heating resister... In science, experimenters largely find only what they make an effort to find. Leaks and resulting shorts could be small and transient, and still unleash complex effects in H2 at 80 bar and 100's of degrees C. We need to know the exact voltages and currents used for heating, and also for any thermocouples and pressure transducers inside the cell, and the quality of the power production and measuring devices. Note that data recording failed for Test 2... And today, feedback that the output power may be only 1.6 kw, not over 10 kw... Rossi has mentioned explosions several times, without giving details, contributing to the risk run by independent experimenters who attempt replications. I want to be wrong, but all doubts have to be candidly explored in this very important scientific debate, in which Rossi at least could share critical details with some independent scientists of repute who can be trusted with secrets. I respect your urbane good sense and experience. Rich On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: . This kind of irrational debunking is laughable. The one thing done well in the experiment was measuring the input. You don't think a short would show up on a power meter, or even just a current meter, or even blow a fuse? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Comments by Duncan, Celani at ICCF16
Thanks to Jed for the update. There are lots of Monday morning quarterbacks around today, so hopefully a few serious ones, with expertise in a very narrow field have focused on saving-the-world from OPEC, instead of a hyped up game that only fan-boys will remember next week. (apologies to cheese-heads). Consider this detail: Rossi told [Celani] we can't let you take a gamma spectrum because that will tell you exactly what reactions are going on, and we cannot reveal that information until we can get a patent. That remark alone is revealing, isn't it! Comment: Revealing ?? well, not really or should I say yes and no. I hope that experts will weigh-in on this detail - of precisely what reactions could possibly have turned up as an obvious signature - one which is truly revealing. Assuming everything else reported by Levi is true - that the reactor was lead shielded and that a positron annihilation meter was allowed, any potential revelation poses a number of difficult questions. We can assume that positrons are out (did not register) and that low energy betas are out (would not get through lead anyway) that alphas are out - yet the signature that Rossi wants hidden is obvious enough on a handheld meter that even if was known, it would given something away in the patenting situation. This pretty much leaves by default the 2.45 MeV signature (for D-D fusion) as the most obvious one which he would not want to share. BUT DEUTERIUM WAS NOT USED. So yes, that one is strange enough to be revealing if it were seen, but the probability is near zero. Are there any others even close (besides 23.5 MeV) ? Problem with any know signature for fusion is that prior art in LENR going back to 1989 has most reactions so well covered that it is almost irrelevant to include it in a patent. And moreover - the known signatures for hydrogen fusion would already include the positron annihilation which did not register. The nickel-to-copper scenario has literally dozens of lesser spectra, none of which are revealing. On his blog, Rossi has already listed the nickel-copper spectra and finding one would help his credibility - not hurt. Bottom line: what signature, even if fully known, could be so revealing that it would really matter for a patent which is already filed? Jones From: Jed Rothwell Rob Duncan was supposed to give one of the keynote addresses. Unfortunately, the blizzard in the U.S. shut down Chicago and he was unable to come. He e-mailed his comments and they were read by Melich. They were excellent. I hope to get a copy soon. Anyway, one thing he said was that the heat in many of these experiments is definitely real. I think he also said it is definitely not chemical..
Re: [Vo]:group seeks to discredit Rossi
At 08:28 PM 2/6/2011, Harry Veeder wrote: Based on this google translation it seems the Italian Committee Against the Claims of the Paranormal is seeking to discredit Rossi et al. http://translate.google.ca/translate?js=nprev=_thl=enie=UTF-8layout=2eotf=1sl=ittl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.net1news.org%2Fcorsa-alla-fusione-fredda-litalia-passa-il-testimone-alla-grecia.html http://tinyurl.com/6za8ler harry They keep repeating this violates the laws of physics crap. It is impossible to say that an unknown nuclear reaction violates the laws of physics, unless the reaction is specified adequately to apply the laws! With Pons-Fleischmann cold fusion, at least, there was an understandable if totally-stopid-in-hindsight assumption that the reaction was d-d fusion, but even there, the claim that d-d fusion under P-F conditions was impossible was not based on sound physics, because there was obviously, if this was real, something not understood. The same impossible claim could have been made about muon-catalyzed fusion, before it was theorized and verified. If MCF had been discovered first, experimentally, the same pronouncement of impossible would have been possible on the same basis (failure to consider a possible catalyst that overcomes the Coulomb barrier). My own operating assumption has become that the reaction is not d-d fusion, for all the obvious reasons. But fusion it is, we know by the fuel and the ash, deuterium and helium, and all the flapping about transmutation and neutrons is just fluff. Minor. Not part of the main show. Krivit's nonsense about neutron absorption, with the neutrons being made from deuterium, not being fusion is semantic quibbling. The reaction is one which *accomplishes* fusion, mechanism unknonw. Why is neutron activity not part of the main show? I can't actually say with complete certainty that it isn't. It's just extraordinarily unlikly, because of reaction rate considerations, multiple miracles required, and other expected effects from such that are not observed. The concept of gamma suppression by heavy electrons, an effect that has no known experimental support, with the suppression being *almost perfect,* would be, itself, a major discovery, of vast importance. Not seen, not observed, no confirmation at all. Widon-Larsen theory only matches a piece of the experimental evidence, and not the rest. If we have a black box into which deuterium flows and inside the box, deuterium is broken into protons and neutrons, and the neutrons proceed through some pathway to create helium, and helium flows out of the box, and 24 MeV of energy is released, we have a fusion box. It looks like a duck, it acts like a duck, and it smells like a duck. It's a duck! So the claim of Widom and Larsen, and of Krivit, that if W-L theory is correct, it's not fusion is just bogus polemic, intended to sanitize the image of cold fusion -- and, by the way, quite recognized as such by critics of cold fusion. It doesn't work except transiently with a few people. Instead, because we do know that P-F activity is turning deuterium into helium, because the signature energy is observed and the product is observed correlated with that energy, very strongly, it's time to simply call it cold fusion. LENR is a field that is broader, and which may encompass completely different reactions, some of which might not be fusion, i.e., might not be synthesizing higher-Z elements as ash. More likely, though, the possible other reactions being observed through unusual products, are from rare branches or secondary reactions; if fusion is taking place, energy is being released that can, under some conditions, do Other Stuff. The Hagelstein limit of 20 KeV for charged particle products from the P-F effect does not prohibit minor side-effects and branches, because, in fact, what Hagelstein notes as missing is not *entirely* missing, the observed levels are simply way too low for high-energy CP radiation to be a normal product of the main reaction. In the case of tritium, as the most prominent example, there is plenty of tritium found, it's not artifact, at least not all the time, but -- this was an early argument that tritium findings must be artifact -- the level of tritium is far, far too low to explain the excess heat through fusion to tritium. Tritium and excess heat, according to Storms, are not well-correlated. I'm amazed that Krivit is making all this fuss about Rossi, who may turn out to be fabulously wealthy, or who may end up broke and discredited, who may have originated some idea or may have stolen it, or may have simply figured out a way to generate a lot of heat for a short time from a black box, contents not disclosed, with or without some nuclear reaction, but, as far as I can tell, Krivit has not covered, at all, the Naturwissenschaften review, Status of cold fusion (2010), Storms (2010), a mainstream-published
Re: [Vo]:group seeks to discredit Rossi
At 09:27 PM 2/6/2011, Rich Murray wrote: I am Rich Murray, rmfor...@gmail.com , and have suggested Feb. 5 and 6 that the Rossi device may have internal leaks that cause the electric heater to short out to the output water, electrolyzing water into hydrogen and oxygen in the cell and messing up the heat measurements, while creating the hazards of severe electric shock and explosions. An internal leak would simply be another internal arrangement. It would be using input power to heat output water, and because energy would be lost, perhaps, as hydrogen gas, *less* temperature rise would be seen, not more. In other words, this possibility would be *completely irrelevant.* Right now, the Rossi device is a Black Box, with two apparent inputs: electrical power, as a supposedly measured level, and water, and an output: steam or, at least, very hot water, at the boiling point. The only other inputs would be hidden, if there is fraud, and one of them might be some form of chemical energy storage or potential energy realized during the experiment. As a thin possibility, Rossi might have accidentally discovered a new chemical mechanism. But this is inconsistent with his reports of more reliable and more extensive operation. Inventors sometimes exaggerate what they have done privately, because they are highly motivated to attract investors. So some shed of possibility of non-fraud combined with error exists. (The reports about prior work are legally irrelevant, they are puffery, and generally don't created any cause of action unless they are very, very specific, and clearly fraudulent as shown by evidence later. Simple exaggeration doesn't create fraud.) so the question is, Is the Rossi Black Box producing more power than is put into it? Once the excess power, if seen, moves beyond known chemical possibilities, by a huge margin, we don't need to know what's in the box to conclude that something very important is being shown. There is, at the very least, some new chemistry. Since we don't expect violation of the known conservation of mass/energy, if there is huge excess power, we come to a default hypothesis: a nuclear reaction of some kind, though if we are inclined to wilder speculations, there is always that generic idea: Zero Point Energy. I'm not putting any money on the ZPE slot on this roulette wheel. If I had a way to sell short, at this point, I might make a modest investment and I might not, but I wouldn't bet the farm, either way.
Re: [Vo]:group seeks to discredit Rossi
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Tritium and excess heat, according to Storms, are not well-correlated. I believe they are anti-correlated. Today, some people suggested that tritium may be the product of electrochemical cold fusion with a mixture of light and heavy water. That mixture will probably prevent heat generation, which would explain why they are anti-correlated. (If the plugged-in input power devices were independently supplied and monitored, then this theory can be tossed in the junkpile . . . They were. That's university equipment. Levi is no fool. . . . there would have to be some other power source, and it gets a bit more difficult, but still not impossible.) Impossible, I think. I wouldn't worry about stuff like that. Levi et al. are running the experiment now, and I do not think Rossi is there. He just told me he is not in Bologna. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:group seeks to discredit Rossi
Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: Based on this google translation it seems the Italian Committee Against the Claims of the Paranormal is seeking to discredit Rossi et al. That's hysterical. Rossi is a strange fellow but nothing about him strikes me as Paranormal. This is like hiring a baseball player to tune your piano. Talk about a Fallacious Appeal to Authority! - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Comments by Duncan, Celani at ICCF16
* Bottom line: what signature, even if fully known, could be so revealing that it would really matter for a patent which is already filed? OK - delayed flash of the old memory banks . . yes, there is one detail from the recent past that does come to mind, which might show up as revealing. Anyone who follows LENR would have known. But it is relative to the Rusi affair at Purdue (will not attempt to spell the last name, but you know what I am referring to). In that sonofusion experiment, the reactor was seeded with a small amount of radioactive isotope emitter. I think it was californium but it does not matter, but whether it was fully disclosed or not became the issue. The purpose of the 'seed' was as a trigger. My personal belief is that a small seed (tiny - micrograms) can alter the probability field for QM in such a massive way that gigantic effects will follow - but that was not exactly Rusi's claim. He merely found that it worked, and he may or may not have adequately disclosed it up front, depending on who's side you are on. No one doubts that the end effect on the sonofusion neutron emission was many orders of magnitude more than the seed could have accounted for ( 4 orders more, if memory serves). Anyway, moving on - could Rossi have seeded his reactor in the same way? Yes, that would be revealing ! Many medical tracer isotopes would have been available for this purpose. The probability field for QM is poorly understood. However, as a practical matter, why not include it in the patent to begin with? This reaffirms the belief of many of us who read the patent in the context of thousands of other patents over the past 50 years in energy - that Rossi's is among the poorest drafted patents of all time, and in the end, it will provide him zero protection anyway (at least in the USA). The irony is that adding a seed to a Focardi style experiment could be patentable in itself - so WHY NOT PATENT IT FROM THE START? After all, this could be his one and only big advance. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration
Rich Murray to little, vortex-l, michael, Rich, Sterling 8:12 AM (1 hour ago) Well, Horace, there were a series of spikes on the input electric power record in Test 1 on Dec. 16. And in Test 2 on Jan. 14, a catastrophic welding failure on a heating resister... In science, experimenters largely find only what they make an effort to find. Leaks and resulting shorts could be small and transient, and still unleash complex effects in H2 at 80 bar and 100's of degrees C. We need to know the exact voltages and currents used for heating, and also for any thermocouples and pressure transducers inside the cell, and the quality of the power production and measuring devices. Note that data recording failed for Test 2... And today, feedback that the output power may be only 1.6 kw, not over 10 kw... Rossi has mentioned explosions several times, without giving details, contributing to the risk run by independent experimenters who attempt replications. I want to be wrong, but all doubts have to be candidly explored in this very important scientific debate, in which Rossi at least could share critical details with some independent scientists of repute who can be trusted with secrets. I respect your urbane good sense and experience. Rich On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: . - Hide quoted text - This kind of irrational debunking is laughable. The one thing done well in the experiment was measuring the input. You don't think a short would show up on a power meter, or even just a current meter, or even blow a fuse? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: ... That is completely out of the question. There are no leaks. There is no measurable change in H2 pressure. Even if all of hydrogen leaked out and burned it would contribute 14 kJ, and of course they would see it had leaked out. In my opinion, that is the kind of skeptical hypothesis that does not need to be addressed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Comments by Duncan, Celani at ICCF16
I would SO love to get a spectrum to analyse - along with detector details, of course. I really think that would tell a better story. On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Ø Bottom line: what signature, even if fully known, could be so revealing that it would really matter for a patent which is already filed? OK – delayed flash of the old memory banks … … yes, there is one detail from the recent past that does come to mind, which might show up as “revealing”. Anyone who follows LENR would have known. But it is relative to the “Rusi affair” at Purdue (will not attempt to spell the last name, but you know what I am referring to). In that sonofusion experiment, the reactor was “seeded” with a small amount of radioactive isotope emitter. I think it was californium but it does not matter, but whether it was fully disclosed or not became the issue. The purpose of the ‘seed’ was as a trigger. My personal belief is that a small seed (tiny - micrograms) can alter the “probability field” for QM in such a massive way that gigantic effects will follow - but that was not exactly Rusi’s claim. He merely found that it worked, and he may or may not have adequately disclosed it up front, depending on who’s side you are on. No one doubts that the end effect on the sonofusion neutron emission was many orders of magnitude more than the seed could have accounted for ( 4 orders more, if memory serves). Anyway, moving on - could Rossi have seeded his reactor in the same way? Yes, that would be revealing ! Many medical tracer isotopes would have been available for this purpose. The probability field for QM is poorly understood. However, as a practical matter, why not include it in the patent to begin with? This reaffirms the belief of many of us who read the patent in the context of thousands of other patents over the past 50 years in energy - that Rossi’s is among the poorest drafted patents of all time, and in the end, it will provide him zero protection anyway (at least in the USA). The irony is that adding a “seed” to a Focardi style experiment could be patentable in itself – so WHY NOT PATENT IT FROM THE START? After all, this could be his one and only big advance. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Comments by Duncan, Celani at ICCF16
At 08:58 AM 2/7/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Celani's description of the demo was more critical than his discussion with me, yesterday. He was quite upset that they did not let him make nuclear measurements, and I suspect that has colored his thinking. Rossi told him we can't let you take a gamma spectrum because that will tell you exactly what reactions are going on, and we cannot reveal that information until we can get a patent. That remark alone is revealing, isn't it! I don't trust anything Rossi says; once the fraud possibility exists, as it does from many appearances, nothing can be taken at face value, everything must be independently verified. Rossi, if not a fraud, is acting very suspiciously, without a clear non-fraud reason for it. Obviously, if there were suspicious gamma, this would be a nuclear reaction of some kind (though possible, perhaps, a fake with some hot radioisotope inside. Not easy to do, and I don't have the knowledge to quickly come up with a possibility.) On the fraud theory, Rossi prohibited the gamma spectrum measurements to increase the appearance of a nuclear reaction! After all, if it produced no gammas, why not allow the measurements? And if it is producing gammas, then we have nuclear right at the tip of our tongues. If it's assumed that Rossi's purpose is publicity at this point -- and isn't it, rather openly? -- then this fits perfectly. And if the patent is denied? If Rossi applies for a patent, it's denied because he hasn't satisfied the requirements of patents, that is adequate disclosure for someone skilled in the art to produce a working device, he's not protected. Failure to disclose, here, could be destroying his patent rights, not protecting them. If the patent were granted, he'd be protected, from the time of filing, as to any subsequent work by others. So he's playing the game as if the patent will not be granted. He expects that it will not be granted, and, I suspect, he filed it only to gain publicity. Had he seriously desired a patent, he would have made adequate disclosure, from the beginning. Contrary to what you've said, Jed, this doesn't look good. All that it might mean is that Rossi faked a demonstration, well enough to cause some experts to make some noises. Experts will not -- and should not -- speculate on fraud, unless they clearly identify it. They would be expected to couch their comments with plenty of caveats -- assuming that input power was accurately measured, etc. What I've seen from the experts who have reviewed this is such as to make me think that, if there was no fraud, Rossi is working on something huge in import. But there is a big caveat, for two little letters: if.
Re: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration
At 08:00 AM 2/7/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Rich Murray mailto:rmfor...@gmail.comrmfor...@gmail.com wrote: If conducting paths start to open up within the cell from the heater electric power input, they will evolved and expand complexly. The H2 that Rossi thinks is being absorbed into the Ni nanopowder may in part be leaking into the coolant water output . . . That is completely out of the question. There are no leaks. There is no measurable change in H2 pressure. Even if all of hydrogen leaked out and burned it would contribute 14 kJ, and of course they would see it had leaked out. In my opinion, that is the kind of skeptical hypothesis that does not need to be addressed. Sure. I responded here out of concern for Murray. The explanation is preposterous because there is far too little hydrogen being introduced. Unless, of course, that's faked, i.e., a lot more hydrogen is introduced. There would have to be an oxygen input, but that could come from ambient air. And once we consider the possibility of fraud, as we must in this case, the refutation of that hypothesis is independent replication, and probably some multiplicity in this, depending on details. Fraud is not a specific hypothesis as to the mechanism of the fraud. For a convincing demonstration of a Black Box device, rigorous and independent monitoring of all possible inputs and outputs is necessary. I've never seen an inventor making claims like Rossi allow that, and then still have visible *major* excess power, beyond chemical storage possibility. I think these public demonstrations are a waste of time and effort, they will convince only those who are ready to be convinced, those inclined to trust someone based on? Appearances? By appearances, this thing sucks big time! Reputation? Whose reputation? Very bright people, experts, can be fooled, by something that they just didn't expect and check for. Happens all the time! And the experts who witnessed that demonstration are queasy about it, particularly Celani. What did Rossi hope to accomplish by the demonstration? My suspicion is, he got exactly what he wanted. Lots of publicity, and by attending the demonstration, all those experts facilitated that If I were an investor, I'd insist on full disclosure of adequate details for reproduction, to me, under a non-disclosure agreement, and I'd pay an expert of my choice to review those, and if the report were possible, even if unlikely were appended, I'd enter into a contract with Rossi that gave me an investment option, and I'd arrange for independent replication under my control. I'd allow Rossi to make all kinds of suggestions, but not to touch the device, nor would I allow anyone affiliated with Rossi to get anywhere near it. It's also possible that the first step,before that, would be an independent examination and operation of a device supplied by Rossi, and he'd be paid for that device. And if it turned out that Rossi had lied in the disclosures, I'd demand the payment back, and the lying would void the non-disclosure agreeement -- a non-disclosure agreement that allowed fraud would be contrary to public policy, I believe, doesn't matter what it says! I'd understand that I might not get my early investment back. Investors inclined to risky investments expect to lose money on most ideas, they are playing for the big one. Rossi claims, though, that only he knows the secrets of the device. Am I correct about that?
Re: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration
Rossi has posted that the secret is protected against loss or suppression... I haven't been focused only on large amounts of H2 being leaked, as a tiny leak could still wreck havok at 80 bar and 100s of degrees C, for hours, days, weeks, months... On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 08:00 AM 2/7/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Rich Murray mailto:rmfor...@gmail.comrmfor...@gmail.com wrote: If conducting paths start to open up within the cell from the heater electric power input, they will evolved and expand complexly. The H2 that Rossi thinks is being absorbed into the Ni nanopowder may in part be leaking into the coolant water output . . . That is completely out of the question. There are no leaks. There is no measurable change in H2 pressure. Even if all of hydrogen leaked out and burned it would contribute 14 kJ, and of course they would see it had leaked out. In my opinion, that is the kind of skeptical hypothesis that does not need to be addressed. Sure. I responded here out of concern for Murray. The explanation is preposterous because there is far too little hydrogen being introduced. Unless, of course, that's faked, i.e., a lot more hydrogen is introduced. There would have to be an oxygen input, but that could come from ambient air. And once we consider the possibility of fraud, as we must in this case, the refutation of that hypothesis is independent replication, and probably some multiplicity in this, depending on details. Fraud is not a specific hypothesis as to the mechanism of the fraud. For a convincing demonstration of a Black Box device, rigorous and independent monitoring of all possible inputs and outputs is necessary. I've never seen an inventor making claims like Rossi allow that, and then still have visible *major* excess power, beyond chemical storage possibility. I think these public demonstrations are a waste of time and effort, they will convince only those who are ready to be convinced, those inclined to trust someone based on? Appearances? By appearances, this thing sucks big time! Reputation? Whose reputation? Very bright people, experts, can be fooled, by something that they just didn't expect and check for. Happens all the time! And the experts who witnessed that demonstration are queasy about it, particularly Celani. What did Rossi hope to accomplish by the demonstration? My suspicion is, he got exactly what he wanted. Lots of publicity, and by attending the demonstration, all those experts facilitated that If I were an investor, I'd insist on full disclosure of adequate details for reproduction, to me, under a non-disclosure agreement, and I'd pay an expert of my choice to review those, and if the report were possible, even if unlikely were appended, I'd enter into a contract with Rossi that gave me an investment option, and I'd arrange for independent replication under my control. I'd allow Rossi to make all kinds of suggestions, but not to touch the device, nor would I allow anyone affiliated with Rossi to get anywhere near it. It's also possible that the first step,before that, would be an independent examination and operation of a device supplied by Rossi, and he'd be paid for that device. And if it turned out that Rossi had lied in the disclosures, I'd demand the payment back, and the lying would void the non-disclosure agreeement -- a non-disclosure agreement that allowed fraud would be contrary to public policy, I believe, doesn't matter what it says! I'd understand that I might not get my early investment back. Investors inclined to risky investments expect to lose money on most ideas, they are playing for the big one. Rossi claims, though, that only he knows the secrets of the device. Am I correct about that?
Re: [Vo]:Focardi Rosssi-Off- Topic - What gets Funded/Cashed Out..very upsetting
At 08:43 AM 2/7/2011, Ron Kita wrote: Greetings Vortex, I still cannot believe that Clorox acquired Burts Bees Wax for 925 million. I tried to find some lower numbers, none were found. Will keep looking..it is so incredible. http://www.newser.com/article/d9l66eg00/clorox-2nd-quarter-earnings-fall-on-burts-bees-charge-revenue-declines-post-swine-flu.htmlhttp://www.newser.com/article/d9l66eg00/clorox-2nd-quarter-earnings-fall-on-burts-bees-charge-revenue-declines-post-swine-flu.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/business/06bees.html says $913 million. Close enough for folk music. the story is pretty simple: From 2000 to 2007, Burt's Bees' annual revenue soared to $164 million from $23 million. They bought for less than six year's revenue, but also on an expectation that it would continue to grow. Apparently it has. This isn't big money in big business. For perspective, it's only a few dollars for everyone in the U.S., and even further short if we consider the worldwide market. Cold fusion money is waiting for a killer application. A lot of money has been spent trying to scale the effect up, without success, so far. Without a demonstrated theory that can be used to predict device behavior, engineering is very difficult, so the main task ahead of us is to reverse the general impression among theoretical physicists that CF is pure bogosity, because what's needed right now is far more intense theoretical work, leading to experimental predictions that are then tested. The biggest loss in 1989-1990 was the possibility of massive theoretical investigation. To be fair, there wasn't enough evidence ready at first, that the ash was helium was not known and was not expected from the lack of gammas. But that situation shifted, and the Storms review, Status of cold fusion (2010), is crucial as a wedge into the consciousness of physicists. That review follows and seals an obvious publishing decision by Sprinter-Verlag and Elsevier to being publishing work in the field, and they are the two largest scientific publishers in the world. From my point of view, the battle is over, but the enemy hasn't realized it yet. Shanahan is complaining that he can't get published any more. No negative reviews have been published in the last six years, only a single crank letter from Shanahan, that the Journal of Environmental Monitoring published, my guess, to bash the skeptics thoroughly and completely with the response that they copublished from the Most Notable Researchers in Cold Fusion, et al which was, for the editors, the End of the Question. Next case?
[Vo]:QED Induced Cold Fusion in Italy by Thomas Prevenslik
From http://www.prlog.org/11277508-qed-induced-cold-fusion-in-italy.html QED Induced Cold Fusion in Italy Recent cold fusion experiments at the University of Bologna suggesting cold fusion is produced from electrically heated nickel powder under pressurized hydrogen gas is consistent with QED induced radiation in nanoparticles. PRLog (Press Release) – Feb 07, 2011 – [ Background On 14 January 2011, Italian scientists Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi at the University of Bologna disclosed ongoing development of a cold fusion device producing 12,400 W of heat with an input of just 400 W. See http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-italian-scientists-c Details are sketchy. However, the patent application discloses fusion occurs by electrically heating Ni powder under hydrogen gas. The powder is comprised of Ni particles including submicron nanoparticles (NPs). In operation, the device starts with about 1,000 W of electricity, which is reduced to 400 W after a few minutes. Patent Office Disclosure and Publication Rossi and Focardi admit they do not know the mechanism by which cold fusion is triggered, and instead simply claim the prototype supplied with 400 W of electrical heat produces 12,400 W. Nuclear fusion and not chemical reactions are claimed, i.e., “the presence of copper and the release of energy are witnesses.” Steven Krivit, publisher of the New Energy Times, noted that Rossi and Focardi’s reactor seems similar to a nickel-hydrogen low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) device originally developed by Piantelli Rossi claims a LENR fusion rate of about 7x10^16/s. See http://www.22passi.it/downloads/LENRMain.pdf However, Rossi and Focardi’s patent for the device has been rejected and publication of a supporting paper refused by peer-reviewed journals Ibid. QED Induced Radiation The Cold Fusion observed in Rossi and Focardi’s device is not caused by LENRs or some magical fusion catalyst, but rather by the QED radiation produced from the NPs in the nickel powder. QED stands for quantum electrodynamics. The QED radiation is a consequence of QM that requires the specific heat of NPs to vanish, and therefore absorbed EM energy from heating cannot be conserved by an increase in temperature. QM stands for quantum mechanics and EM for electromagnetic. Instead, absorbed EM energy is conserved by creating QED photons inside the NPs by frequency-up conversion to their TIR resonance. TIR stands for total internal reflection. Since the NPs are submicron, the frequency of the QED photons is typically beyond the UV even up to SXRs. UV stands for ultraviolet and SXR for soft x-rays. QED induced radiation has explained many heretofore unresolved problems in physics, e.g. see http://www.nanoqed.org, 2009-2011. Cold Fusion Application In Rossi and Focardi’s reactor, EM energy in the form of electrical heat is converted to QED photons inside the NPs. Similar to creating photons of wavelength L by supplying EM energy to a QM box having sides separated by L/2, the QED photons spontaneously form under the TIR confinement of the NP. Since NPs having high surface to volume ratio, the absorbed EM energy is deposited almost entirely in the TIR mode tangential to the NP surface, and therefore the EM confinement although momentary is self-sustaining. As long as EM energy is supplied to the NP there is no limit to the number of QED photons that may be accumulate in the NP, and therefore the EM energy inside the NPs continues to increase to the 2.6 MeV/ atom level to transmute 6.15MeV - 62Ni to 8.7MeV- 63Cu. But QED radiation beyond the UV is only produced in NPs 100 nm. The temperature of Rossi and Focardi’s reactor increases because QM allows the larger particles to conserve the absorbed electrical heat by an increase in temperature. Provided the thermal insulation is sufficient to preclude any heat loss to the surroundings, the QED photon energy may be equated to the supplied electrical heat. When the accumalated QED photon energy/atom reaches 2.6MeV, the Ni atoms fuse. Hydrogen gas molecules under pressure of about 80 bars in contact with the NP surface fuse along with the Ni atoms. QED photons are created in the NP with Planck energy E = hc/2nD, where h is Planck’s constant, c the speed of light, and n and D are the NP refractive index and diameter. Although the distribution of NP size is required, only 5 nm Ni NPs are considered in the following. Since nickel has n = 1.08, the created QED photons have energy E = 115 eV. The total number of Ni atoms in the reactor is NpNa, where Np is the number of NPs and Na the number of atoms/NP. The Ni lattice spacing of 0.352 nm gives Na = pi (5/0.352)^3/6 = 1500 atoms/NP. But the number Np of NPs is not given, and is estimated from the amount of input heat Qin necessary to raise all Ni atoms to the 2.6 MeV necessary for fusion. Hence, Np = Qin/ (Na (2.6MeV/1.6x10^-6)). For Qin = 400 and 1000 W, Np = 6.4x10^11 and
RE: [Vo]:Comments by Duncan, Celani at ICCF16
From: albedo5 I would SO love to get a spectrum to analyse - along with detector details, of course. I really think that would tell a better story. One thing which might be helpful for future analysis, or in any experiment to confirm Rossi, even without his assistance - is to compile a short list of commonly available medical tracers or other candidate isotopes which could have been used. Criteria: must have decent half life, must be commercially available, must show up through thin lead shielding. Here are a few (with signatures): 1)Californium 252 (used by Rusi) 6.22 MeV 2)Americium 242 (used in smoke detectors etc) 5.6 MeV 3)Radium 226 (watch dials) 4.8 MeV Americium is a prime candidate so far. It is essentially cheap if you go to garage sales where smoke detectors can be found for a buck each. Now I see a bunch of (probably expensive) candidates on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiopharmaceutical I think the enhanced probability - which would be triggered by seeding with micrograms of Americium would be applicable to Fran's posting just now on QED, but it may also apply to other M.O.. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration
At 12:09 PM 2/7/2011, Rich Murray wrote: I want to be wrong, but all doubts have to be candidly explored in this very important scientific debate, in which Rossi at least could share critical details with some independent scientists of repute who can be trusted with secrets. There is no scientific debate yet. There is a staged demonstration, under the control of Rossi, with experimental details concealed, purporting to show substantial energy generation, enough that the only likely explanations, from the observers, become fraud and Wow! Rossi clearly wants to pursue the path of secret development. That's his privilege. He's been otherwise advised, by people who should know, such as Rothwell. Discussing this at this point, as if there were a serious scientific debate, is like discussing if a magician really can pull a rabbit out of a hat. Well, yes, he can. Or make it appear so. Some people may want to debate if there might be a possible real effect involved, i.e., *any LENR.* From the whole cold fusion debacle, we should know that just because something seems theoretically impossible, experimental evidence can't be discarded on that basis. Rather, if reputable researchers report an effect, the norm is to accept that their report is honest, and then, if the implications are great, to look for -- and perform, if possible, according to the individual choices of researchers or research groups -- independent replications before jumping the shark over it. There are a million ways that there could be artifact, with any experiment. Without an experimental protocol to replicate, we can't even begin to assess them. Bottom line, Rich, simmer down. Many of us have suggested how Rossi could open this up. He either is a fraud, or he doesn't trust anyone, and just because you are paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you. Barring some unexpected event, we'll just have to wait, love don't come easy, it's a game of give and take.
[Vo]:Another Indian article: Call for inter-disciplinary studies in ‘cold fusion'
From: The Hindu - Science and Technology section Call for inter-disciplinary studies in ‘cold fusion' See: http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/article1165494.ece Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:RE: QED Induced Cold Fusion in Italy by Thomas Prevenslik
The first conclusion in Prevenslik’s press release refers to COE of absorbed EM energy by “up conversion” of QED photons inside nano structures instead of temperature increase. I think this supports my relativistic interpretation of Casimir effect. These QED photons that he refers to as being up converted are what I refer to as vacuum fluctuations or virtual particles and up conversion is accomplished by modifying the inertial frame of the zone inside the nano structure. This is an equivalent acceleration accumulated by the nano structure and geometry so any gas atoms that wander into the inertial frame are translated but through no real effort on their own part. [snip] Conclusions 1. The Italian Cold Fusion experiment is yet another application of QED induced radiation in physics over the past century. Contrary to classical physics, QM forbids nanostructures to conserve absorbed EM energy by an increase in temperature. Instead, conservation proceeds by the creation of QED photons inside the nanostructure having a frequency at its TIR resonance, typically beyond the UV. [/snip]
[Vo]:Am-243 - the Rossi smoking gun? (smoking boot)?
Correction of prior information: Americium is THE prime candidate so far, if it should turn out that the Rossi reactor has been 'seeded' with an isotope emitter which serves to stimulate a cascade of QED enhanced nuclear reactions which then effectively convert nickel to copper. Here is the corrected detail for the best isotope that has turned up so far. Consider the Am-243 isotope with a 5.44 MeV decay energy, used in NMR and smoke detectors. Thomas Prevenslik notes (in Fran's posting) the 2.6 MeV threshold level for transmutation of nickel to copper via proton capture (you may or may not want to label that as fusion). .which . you guessed it - is about half the expected mass energy of the Am-243 decay. The idea being that *hydrogen in a QED cavity* (Casimir cavity) might be expected to be resonant for coupling to a photon of the threshold value, when there is an enhanced probability field at a harmonic of that value. Coincidental? Admittedly not a great fit, as catalysts go - but is it close enough for government contracting ? Maybe you do not want a 'great fit' - since it comes with the risk of a chain reaction? Jones
RE: [Vo]:group seeks to discredit Rossi
Abd: You stated: Right now, the Rossi device is a Black Box, with two apparent inputs: electrical power, as a supposedly measured level, and water, Did you forget the hydrogen? At least I would consider it an input since it is not entirely contained within the reactor. I.e., there is an external tank and connection to the reactor... I suppose one could go as far as considering the H tank as an extension to the reactor... -Mark -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 8:40 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com; Rich Murray; Rich Murray; michael barron; Sterling D. Allen Subject: Re: [Vo]:group seeks to discredit Rossi ... In other words, this possibility would be *completely irrelevant.* Right now, the Rossi device is a Black Box, with two apparent inputs: electrical power, as a supposedly measured level, and water, and an output: steam or, at least, very hot water, at the boiling point. ...
Re: [Vo]:group seeks to discredit Rossi
SUBJECT: Group seeks to discredit Rossi From Abd: ... But I will note a generic way to fake Rossi's work, others have proposed other possibilities, and, if it's fake, the truth might even be a hybrid. I have no doubt but that it could be done, that even more convincing demonstrations could be done. But not independent replications, and that is why we all want to see such, not simply inventor-managed demonstrations. Independent replication can be done under non-disclosure agreements that would protect Rossi's commercial rights. But Rossi is not going that way, which is his privilege. It is also our privilege to ignore his work until we see something more solid. I find myself in sympathy with many of the intertwiningly complex issues for which Abd has brought forth here. However, I think it is also appropriate that we do not lose sight of the fact that while there is indeed a time when independent replication must begin, there still exists a time... a crucial time period prior to when independent testing replication ought to commence. That prior time period must be allowed to gestate at its own pace. Complicating matters, I suspect there comes a critical time when that gestation period must make an uneasy transition over to the next period when independent replication must ensure. If these two distinct crucial time periods get overly mixed up spectacular disasters can and do occur. Recall the tragic PR mess that transpired when scientists (most of them physicists) in their initial curiosity attempted to independently replicate a chemistry experiment, for which most had little experience in executing, the Pons Fleischmann 1989 cold fusion experiment. As we all know, the vast majority of those preliminary independent replications failed. The result was a tragic history lesson on how NOT to conduct independent replication, a lesson that has taken decades to turgidly work its constipated way through the alimentary canal of pseudo science accusations. Looking back on those events we can see that to a very large extent that independent replication was premature. It was premature because the necessary protocols were not yet sufficiently understood by PF. If they didn't know all the crucial details, could they accurately tell others what they must do? Exacerbating matters, physicists were attempting to perform delicate experiments within a field (chemistry) for which they were not trained in. JEE! WHAT COULD GO WRONG There were too many unknowns and variables that tended to mess things up. The uncertainties PF secretly harbored quickly came back to haunt them. Due to a collection of unique political circumstances of that time period PF felt they had no choice but to come out of the closet, so to speak, and (prematurely) reveal what they suspected was probably occurring. IOW, they speculated. Due to their own lack of adequate knowledge pertaining of certain experimental factors some of their speculations turned out to be premature, as well as I gather inaccurate. Some of these unfounded speculations ended up skewering them in the light of the scientific community. They could see the rusty blade coming at them, skewering them in slow motion - and there wasn't a damned thing they could do about the ensuing circus. Timing is everything. Historically speaking, I wonder what might have happened if the Wright Brothers had prematurely revealed blueprints to their prototype, prior to them having figured out how to get their unwieldy contraption off the ground without killing too many pilots. Through tedious trial and error, combined with countless wind tunnel experiments, the Wright brothers finally managed to accumulate a practical knowledge base as to the actual physics involved, particularly the complex aerodynamics that needed to be addressed in order to get their flying machine up into the air in a controlled fashion. It seems to me that it would have been highly, HIGHLY unlikely that had other individuals, having not acquired the same knowledge base that the Wrights had painstakingly accumulated, they would not have been able to successfully replicate the Wright Brother' blue prints to the degree necessary to achieve a reasonable probability of success. Most likely, they would not have understood countless subtle little details, details not necessarily obvious as described in the blue prints. More likely, many replicators, in their impatient enthusiasm to get something up in the air, would have ended up killing themselves resulting in lots of bad PR. The Wright Brothers would have been branded dangerous crack pots quacks. Stay clear of them, and their dangerous machine designs! How much longer would it have taken the world to accept a brand new audacious paradigm that powered flight was feasible? Possibly decades later. ... If Rossi is real, he is comprehensively shooting himself in the foot. Obviously, Abd's expressed concerns have already been articulated by many within the Vort
[Vo]:How New Energy Times has become a crank web site.
I posted a comment wondering why Krivit hasn't mentioned the Storms review, published in Naturwissenschaften last October, Status of cold fusion (2010), and hasn't listed the paper on his Recent papers page, in spite of it being, arguably, the most significant paper published in the field in recent years, as to demonstrating the progress of the field, and its present status among experts, specifically, peer reviewers at mainstream publications. This was, in fact, only the latest in a series of reviews, I've counted about nineteen in mainstream peer-reviewed publications, per the Britz database, published since 2005. No negative reviews, beyond the Shanahan crank letter published in Journal of Environmental Monitoring, apparently so that the knee-jerk skeptical position could be demolished. Well, here is his explanation: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/02/07/missing-cold-fusion-from-new-energy-times/ He's not covering cold fusion any more. If it's called cold fusion, it's to be excluded from NET. He's only covering LENR, specifically, things that might be explained by Widom-Larsen theory. Krivit writes: In the last few years, we have figured out that there really is http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/SR35902coldfusionisneither.shtmlno evidence for cold fusion and that the best so-called evidence for it was http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/SR35903tangledtale.shtmlfabricated. In the course of our investigations, however, the evidence for low-energy nuclear reactions, http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheory.shtmlperhaps understood, perhaps not, has been clear and consistent. If it's science you want, you'll find it here. But cold fusion? You'll only find that in our history section. I've been following Krivit since before his shift became obvious. He wrote, in explaining his history, that be believed in cold fusion because experts told him it was real. PhDs. Krivit is not a scientist, but a reporter, and has clearly shown that he often doesn't understand experimental reports, much less complex theories like Widom-Larsen theory. He now believes W-L theory because PhDs told him so. How does Krivit pick which PhDs to believe? I think it's obvious. He is constitutionally disposed to fight for the underdog, the minority, the rejected. Not understanding the evidence, when he saw that W-L theory wasn't being given what he thought was due attention, he began to investigate the basis for the common fusion theory. The fact is that there is no common fusion theory except as to what is very simple, deuterium in, helium out, with commensurate energy. That's not a mechanism, and it matters not if the mechanism resembles W-L theory or something else, the laws of thermodynamics predict the 24 MeV figure no matter what the mechanism is. Krivit has never understood this. Krivit, his suspicions now aroused, began to investigate the details of the research underlying the helium ash theory, and found some details that he did not understand. He is now clearly presenting these details as fabrications. I've looked at his charges. I've seen no evidence at all for fabrication, but plenty of evidence that Krivit isn't capable of sound scientific analysis. At one point, he charged an Italian researcher with scientific misconduct for changing his results without explanation, when what the researcher had done was to move a decimal point in a figure, and change the exponent, the power of ten, commensurately. I.e., no change. Krivit also misunderstood and misrepresented what the paper of that researcher was saying and claiming. They were *using* 24 MeV as a method of plotting helium and excess energy on the same chart, readily comparing results with that correlation value, which is useful; the work was not intended to prove 24 MeV, the data was too thin. (It supported 24 MeV and the correlation between heat and helium, though, reasonably, as has *all work* that has measured heat and helium, *including the original negative replications*). Similarly, a change that McKubre made in a calculation, many years ago, in a direction that *weakened* his helium correlation at the deuterium fusion value, was reported as if it were fraud, and claims of misconduct were made. Nobody has confirmed Krivit on this, he's an isolated crank. With a web site. And able to get real reporters to interview him, with his comments being reported as if he were an expert. Krivit is presenting, as if it were proven fact, a position totally at variance with what is being published in mainstream journals, more totally at variance than ever was cold fusion itself, which always had a significant level of positive publication, with the positive, after the first two years, greatly outweighing the negative. Krivit, initially, was reporting on and supporting, and being supported by, a large field of researchers, outnumbered only by knee-jerk skeptics in the scientific
RE: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration
Abd... I think you haven't been following this as closely as the active contributors... Perhaps your time is limited and you have not been able to read all the postings... What did Rossi hope to accomplish by the demonstration? My suspicion is, he got exactly what he wanted. Lots of publicity, and by attending the demonstration, all those experts facilitated that Rossi has stated that he did NOT want to do the demo; that was Focardi's idea. If he wanted publicity, he would have been much more active at public venues such as scientific/engineering/energy conferences. Compared to most others with novel ideas/research, he has been keeping a pretty low profile until this demo. By appearances, this thing sucks big time! My impression to date is that most of the contributors on vortex think that the Jan demo was the most important (can't quite say 'convincing') demo ***SO FAR*** for any kind of LENR/Mills process. Yes, the concensus is also that it could have been done better (i.e., easily made 'irrefutable'). However, the apparent energy gain has been far greater, for a demonstrable time, and more or less on demand, than any previous LENR/Mills reported results. And the non-public test in Dec had even more interesting results when input power was shut off completely... So your statement that it 'sucks big time' means that all other LENR results suck even bigger... Yet, you are convinced that those results prove that something is going on! You also seem to be unaware of the statement from Rossi himself, that he has funded this out of his own pocket. So doing the demo to attract investors is quite unlikely... In fact, that's why he was very RELUCTANT to even do a demo. He knew that it was still somewhat 'tempermental', and a botched demo could cause serious delays in getting the 1MW plant online -- which is his ONLY focus right now. He is an engineer first, and in his mind, the best way to PROVE this works is to get an operating plant online; to win in the marketplace. That is the only thing that he can use as a 'trump card' against the skeptical scientists that, all too easily, fall back on (hot fusion) theory to refute his claims... He wants to boil some water to make Garwin some tea! -Mark -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 9:04 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration At 08:00 AM 2/7/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Rich Murray mailto:rmfor...@gmail.comrmfor...@gmail.com wrote: If conducting paths start to open up within the cell from the heater electric power input, they will evolved and expand complexly. The H2 that Rossi thinks is being absorbed into the Ni nanopowder may in part be leaking into the coolant water output . . . That is completely out of the question. There are no leaks. There is no measurable change in H2 pressure. Even if all of hydrogen leaked out and burned it would contribute 14 kJ, and of course they would see it had leaked out. In my opinion, that is the kind of skeptical hypothesis that does not need to be addressed. Sure. I responded here out of concern for Murray. The explanation is preposterous because there is far too little hydrogen being introduced. Unless, of course, that's faked, i.e., a lot more hydrogen is introduced. There would have to be an oxygen input, but that could come from ambient air. And once we consider the possibility of fraud, as we must in this case, the refutation of that hypothesis is independent replication, and probably some multiplicity in this, depending on details. Fraud is not a specific hypothesis as to the mechanism of the fraud. For a convincing demonstration of a Black Box device, rigorous and independent monitoring of all possible inputs and outputs is necessary. I've never seen an inventor making claims like Rossi allow that, and then still have visible *major* excess power, beyond chemical storage possibility. I think these public demonstrations are a waste of time and effort, they will convince only those who are ready to be convinced, those inclined to trust someone based on? Appearances? By appearances, this thing sucks big time! Reputation? Whose reputation? Very bright people, experts, can be fooled, by something that they just didn't expect and check for. Happens all the time! And the experts who witnessed that demonstration are queasy about it, particularly Celani. What did Rossi hope to accomplish by the demonstration? My suspicion is, he got exactly what he wanted. Lots of publicity, and by attending the demonstration, all those experts facilitated that If I were an investor, I'd insist on full disclosure of adequate details for reproduction, to me, under a non-disclosure agreement, and I'd pay an expert of my choice to review those, and if the report were possible, even if unlikely were appended, I'd enter into a contract with Rossi
Re: [Vo]:How New Energy Times has become a crank web site.
On 02/07/2011 02:24 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I'm not sure how he took my criticism, since I have nothing invested in any particular theory As far as I can tell he didn't have the patience to understand your criticism. You used too many words, so Krivit dismissed what you had to say. Frankly, I don't think he's the brightest bulb in the string. He seems to have a hard time following arguments which are longer than a sound bite. And, BTW, criticism directed at him, personally, seems to be dismissed out of hand, which makes it difficult for him to see any flaws in his approach. If you point them out, that's a priori a personal attack, and consequently dismissed.
RE: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration
Abd: You really need to be more careful with your choice of words... There is a staged demonstration, under the control of Rossi, with experimental details concealed... No, there were at least two tests done with the same seasoned university scientists present. No, it was not a 'staged' demo... And Rossi had very limited control. From everything that I've read, which is considerable, Rossi brought in the reactor but it was the Univ of Bologna scientists that set it up and brought in THEIR OWN instruments and hooked them up THEMSELVES. Also, as mentioned several times so far, those same scientists looked for all possible ways to bring in other power sources, and the reactor was even ELEVATED off the surface of the table so one could see ALL connections to the reactor. Maybe that's what you call a 'staged' demo, but I think that's clearly an exaggeration. No, all experimental details were NOT concealed... There were a few, yes, but only those that were of a proprietary nature, and then, according to Rossi, only until patents are granted. -Mark -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 10:41 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration At 12:09 PM 2/7/2011, Rich Murray wrote: I want to be wrong, but all doubts have to be candidly explored in this very important scientific debate, in which Rossi at least could share critical details with some independent scientists of repute who can be trusted with secrets. There is no scientific debate yet. There is a staged demonstration, under the control of Rossi, with experimental details concealed, purporting to show substantial energy generation, enough that the only likely explanations, from the observers, become fraud and Wow! Rossi clearly wants to pursue the path of secret development. That's his privilege. He's been otherwise advised, by people who should know, such as Rothwell. Discussing this at this point, as if there were a serious scientific debate, is like discussing if a magician really can pull a rabbit out of a hat. Well, yes, he can. Or make it appear so. Some people may want to debate if there might be a possible real effect involved, i.e., *any LENR.* From the whole cold fusion debacle, we should know that just because something seems theoretically impossible, experimental evidence can't be discarded on that basis. Rather, if reputable researchers report an effect, the norm is to accept that their report is honest, and then, if the implications are great, to look for -- and perform, if possible, according to the individual choices of researchers or research groups -- independent replications before jumping the shark over it. There are a million ways that there could be artifact, with any experiment. Without an experimental protocol to replicate, we can't even begin to assess them. Bottom line, Rich, simmer down. Many of us have suggested how Rossi could open this up. He either is a fraud, or he doesn't trust anyone, and just because you are paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you. Barring some unexpected event, we'll just have to wait, love don't come easy, it's a game of give and take.
[Vo]:Robert E. Godes claims theory and device for .1 MHz AC to drive H2O electrolysis next to Ni or Pd [ wires?], so protons become 4 neutron particles and then He with heat, no local lattice damage
Robert E. Godes claims theory and device for .1 MHz AC to drive H2O electrolysis next to Ni or Pd [ wires?], so protons become 4 neutron particles and then He with heat, no local lattice damage, no radiation, no radioactives, 200 C, 129 atm pressure: Rich Murray 2011.02.07 Michael McKubre is on his board -- his site claims their unit is now being tested by SRI. He offers theory and a device to apply ~100,000 Hz high amperage AC to drive H2O into electrolysis next to Ni or Pd, causing protons to capture electrons to form four-neutron particles that are stable enough for just long enough to convert into Helium 4, releasing oodles of energy in the surface of the metal as heat without any radiation or radioactive nucei, and no damage to the lattice reaction sites -- but recent tests show excess power of +23.5% to usually 14-15% to as low as -1%, with electric energy inputs of 100-200 W range, 200 degrees C and up to 1900 psi steam pressure [ 129 atmospheres ], durations of hours to days. Recombination prevents accumulation or venting of the H2 and O2 inside the device. Far better than Rossi ? fromRobert Godes h...@brillouinenergy.com to Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com, h-ni_fus...@yahoogroups.com, dateSun, Feb 6, 2011 at 5:54 PM subject Re: [H-Ni_Fusion] Re: failures of H-Ni cold fusion tests with water cooling -- possible heat and O2 and H2 release via electrolysis by up to 220 V AC from shorts and deposited metals with danger of shocks and explosions: Rich Murray 2011.02.05 5:54 PM (18 hours ago) You can see some Early Phase 2 Data on the website. We are improving the system and expect to have something industrially useful down the line. Our technology begins producing heat when you turn it on but like all boilers the system must heat up before you can extract useful energy. I suspect we have greater control over the heat production than Rossi Co. do and ours is intrinsically safe. If you loose coolant the Brillouin Energy system is limited in how hot it gets before it stops loading. Worst case requires replacing a rupture disk and some electrolyte. If you loose power the reaction just stops when you stop driving it. If you are interested in what drives the reaction there is a paper / Hypothesis that has been reviewed by multidisciplinary groups at MIT labs, Amherst, kilpatrick townsend and several other Ph.D's. LISTEN to the power point at http://www.brillouinenergy.com/BE25Tec.PPS at least once before reading http://www.brillouinenergy.com/GodesIE82.pdf [ 9 pages ] [ see also 13 pages, Initial and Preliminary Findings Brillouin Phase II Data December 24, 2010 brillouinenergy.com/Brillouin_Second_Round_Data.pdf ] Best regards, Robert E. Godes President and Chief Technology Officer Brillouin Energy Corp. V (510) 821-1432 F (510) 280-3137 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure by applicable law or court order. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, please do not use, disseminate, distribute, or copy this communication. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail at the above address. Please also delete all copies of this message from your computer system. We appreciate your consideration.
RE: [Vo]:Robert E. Godes claims theory and device for .1 MHz AC to drive H2O electrolysis next to Ni or Pd [ wires?], so protons become 4 neutron particles and then He with heat, no local lattice da
-Original Message- From: Rich Murray LISTEN to the power point at http://www.brillouinenergy.com/BE25Tec.PPS Whoa! Brilliant Or should I say brillouient :)
RE: [Vo]:Robert E. Godes claims theory and device for .1 MHz AC to drive H2O electrolysis next to Ni or Pd [ wires?], so protons become 4 neutron particles and then He with heat, no local lattice da
Jones: I just read the following from the linked pdf, and I think it ties in nicely with your comments about using a beta emitter... When working with protium, an explicit source of electrons must be supplied as the reaction starts with four protons and no neutron but ends with two of each resulting in a net absorption of two electrons for each 4He created. Man, things are really beginning to converge... Its like several groups are nearing successful results at the same time. Or, the Rossi demo has caused these other groups feel like its time to make their presence known. -Mark -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 1:36 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Robert E. Godes claims theory and device for .1 MHz AC to drive H2O electrolysis next to Ni or Pd [ wires?], so protons become 4 neutron particles and then He with heat, no local lattice damage, no radiation, no radioactives, 200 C, 129 atm pr -Original Message- From: Rich Murray LISTEN to the power point at http://www.brillouinenergy.com/BE25Tec.PPS Whoa! Brilliant Or should I say brillouient :)
Re: [Vo]:Robert E. Godes claims theory and device for .1 MHz AC to drive H2O electrolysis next to Ni or Pd [ wires?], so protons become 4 neutron particles and then He with heat, no local lattice dama
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Or, the Rossi demo has caused these other groups feel like its time to make their presence known. Which is what got FP into a premature news conference. T
RE: [Vo]:How New Energy Times has become a crank web site.
From Abd: Regarding the following psychological analysis: ... How does Krivit pick which PhDs to believe? I think it's obvious. He is constitutionally disposed to fight for the underdog, the minority, the rejected. It's been my experience that analyzing the psychological predilections of others in a public form such as here is a dubious profession. Granted, I suppose you could say that I'm guilty of having done something similar when last year I critiqued a radio show where Krivit was interviewed - and I guess one could surmise that my vortex-l critique of that interview may have contributed to the suggestion that it would be best all-around if I resign as a member of Krivit's BoD. The two of us didn't always see eye-to-eye on various topics. Eventually, I resigned. We both moved on. Abd, what do you really know about Mr. Krivit psychological predilections other than the speculation you have laid down here? Having conducted countless phone conversations with Mr. Krivit in the past, including one full day of face-to-face discussions conducted in a conference room with other BoD members, I have to tell you point blank that your psychological profile of the star witness is exceedingly shallow to say the least. It's one dimensional. I wish had the power to lock the two of you in the same room and throw the key away until the both of you could at least openly acknowledge to each other's face where the other person's perceptions are coming from. From where I stand, neither one of you have very much of a clue as to the other person's modus operandi. I find much of your scientific analysis relevant and worth pondering. OTOH, I'd recommend you lay off the psychobabble analysis. It accomplishes nothing other than generating more unfounded hyperbole and juicy drama. Stick to the scientific analysis. In the end that's your strong suit. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Robert E. Godes claims theory and device for .1 MHz AC to drive H2O electrolysis next to Ni or Pd [ wires?], so protons become 4 neutron particles and then He with heat, no local lattice dama
Hi Terry, Yes, but I'm not sure what, if anything, you are implying! The difference is that several of these groups are NOT doing this as part of the academic, peer-reviewed community, so if your implying that this is bad or improper, then I'd have to disagree. Some are coming at it more as engineers who are trying to optimize the effect w/o really having a theoretical understanding... I suppose some groups may have some kind of physical model, a working hypothesis, but not necessarily. Others may not... They just perform tests in a methodical manner and determine which parameters work and which don't, or what range of parameters work... I've had to do this myself. -Mark -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 2:45 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Robert E. Godes claims theory and device for .1 MHz AC to drive H2O electrolysis next to Ni or Pd [ wires?], so protons become 4 neutron particles and then He with heat, no local lattice damage, no radiation, no radioactives, 200 C, 129 atm On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Or, the Rossi demo has caused these other groups feel like its time to make their presence known. Which is what got FP into a premature news conference. T
Re: [Vo]:Robert E. Godes claims theory and device for .1 MHz AC to drive H2O electrolysis next to Ni or Pd [ wires?], so protons become 4 neutron particles and then He with heat, no local lattice dama
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Hi Terry, Yes, but I'm not sure what, if anything, you are implying! I'm just saying, they should come forth when they are ready. From what I am reading on this site lately, no one, including Mills, is going to get patent protection. T
RE: [Vo]:Robert E. Godes claims theory and device for .1 MHz AC to drive H2O electrolysis next to Ni or Pd [ wires?], so protons become 4 neutron particles and then He with heat, no local lattice da
-Original Message- From: Rich Murray but recent tests show excess power of +23.5% to usually 14-15% to as low as -1%, with electric energy inputs of 100-200 W range, So the excess is only a few tens of watts - instead of Rossi's 10 kW. This is really nothing - Far better than Rossi ? Not even close. not even on the same planet.
RE: [Vo]:Robert E. Godes claims theory and device for .1 MHz AC to drive H2O electrolysis next to Ni or Pd [ wires?], so protons become 4 neutron particles and then He with heat, no local lattice dama
-Original Message- From: Terry Blanton From what I am reading on this site lately, no one, including Mills, is going to get patent protection. ... despite the Rossi showing in Italy, this (meaning the big enchilada) is still Mills' game to lose. He has been funded better than anyone, and it shows. OTH - If Rossi can get the MW unit out in six months, then that's what they call a major momentum shift (the kind that didn't happen yesterday for Steeler fans)
Re: [Vo]:Robert E. Godes claims theory and device for .1 MHz AC to drive H2O electrolysis next to Ni or Pd [ wires?], so protons become 4 neutron particles and then He with heat, no local lattice dama
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ... despite the Rossi showing in Italy, this (meaning the big enchilada) is still Mills' game to lose. He has been funded better than anyone, and it shows. Yes, but he has a murder of crows to consume. OTH - If Rossi can get the MW unit out in six months, then that's what they call a major momentum shift (the kind that didn't happen yesterday for Steeler fans) I agree that it is he that is first to the market who is likely to profit. Produce a million 10 kW Ecats and damn the patents! Take the $$ and and unleash the lawyers! T
Re: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: I'd allow Rossi to make all kinds of suggestions, but not to touch the device, nor would I allow anyone affiliated with Rossi to get anywhere near it. Such tests have been done, and they are underway now. Rossi is another city. Rossi claims, though, that only he knows the secrets of the device. Am I correct about that? Incorrect. Other people know the secrets. Rossi is a strange fellow but he is better than you think, and his claims are more solid than they appear. It would be a grave mistake to judge his work based on his personal credibility. Someone here remarked that Focardi forced Rossi to do the demo. That's incorrect. Rossi wanted to delay but he is very fond of Focardi, and Focardi asked him to go ahead in January, so he did as a favor. It would have been a better demo if they had rehearsed a few more weeks, but it wasn't all that bad. As I said, it is difficult to do a demo of this nature with so many people in attendance, and with an unpredictable prototype. The fact that the thing did not work and then worked marginally and not as well as it did the day before tells me that it is probably real. This is how cold fusion devices behave. A fake machine would work perfectly. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Robert E. Godes claims theory and device for .1 MHz AC to drive H2O electrolysis next to Ni or Pd [ wires?], so protons become 4 neutron particles and then He with heat, no local lattice dama
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Take the $$ and and unleash the lawyers! Money talks. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1054588/ You win and still lose. Take the money, enjoy the life and let the lawyers fight it out. You'll die happy on your yacht and make a lot of juris doctors happy in the process. T
RE: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration
At 02:34 PM 2/7/2011, Mark Iverson wrote: Abd... I think you haven't been following this as closely as the active contributors... Perhaps your time is limited and you have not been able to read all the postings... What did Rossi hope to accomplish by the demonstration? My suspicion is, he got exactly what he wanted. Lots of publicity, and by attending the demonstration, all those experts facilitated that Rossi has stated that he did NOT want to do the demo; that was Focardi's idea. Given one of the two major operating hypotheses, I don't accept any statements about this as definitive. If he wanted publicity, he would have been much more active at public venues such as scientific/engineering/energy conferences. Compared to most others with novel ideas/research, he has been keeping a pretty low profile until this demo. Perhaps. It's certainly not a low profile now. He's trying to scale up to production. That takes a lot of money. By appearances, this thing sucks big time! My impression to date is that most of the contributors on vortex think that the Jan demo was the most important (can't quite say 'convincing') demo ***SO FAR*** for any kind of LENR/Mills process. Assuming no fraud, I have no difficulty believing that. By the way, I *have* been following the discussions and reports. Yes, the concensus is also that it could have been done better (i.e., easily made 'irrefutable'). Easily. But an inventor-controlled demonstration, while it could be made more *convincing*, for sure, than the Jan demo, simply cannot take the place of an independent replication, or, short of that, a semi-independent demonstration where full external investigation is possible, and operation beyond a certain time period can be accomplished. However, the apparent energy gain has been far greater, for a demonstrable time, and more or less on demand, than any previous LENR/Mills reported results. Key word: apparent energy gain. Yes. That is why the normal possibility of error or artifact is largely ruled out. This is not marginal. And the non-public test in Dec had even more interesting results when input power was shut off completely... So your statement that it 'sucks big time' means that all other LENR results suck even bigger... Yet, you are convinced that those results prove that something is going on! No. You quoted me out of context, Mark. What I actually wrote was: By appearances, this thing sucks big time! Appearances refers to many details of the demonstration and the associated facts, the secrecy, the little detail with the gamma ray spectrum, the lack of independent confirmation, and a disinterest in arranging the same, and more. I am simply pointing out the obvious. Appearances can be deceiving. That Fleischmann screwed up and reported neutron radiation from his cells was a mistake, and it sucked, as did various other aspects of the situation, the announcement by press conference, the lack of detail, even in the hurried paper that was published, all of which practically guaranteed replication failure (plus a lot that can't be at all blamed on PF, they simply didn't know all of the required conditions). But cold fusion is established by the work of hundreds of independent research groups, and there is a single experiment, replicated widely enough, that proves (as well as proof can be expected for anything like this) that deuterium fusion to helium is taking place, *mechanism unknown.* Within a couple of years, it moved from a postion where extreme skepticism was reasonable, to one where it was not. Very different. Rossi is in the first stage, and without the very substantial reputation of Professors Pons and Fleischmann. Who, by the way, still deserve the Nobel Prize. Freedom from all error or misjudgment is not a requirement. Or shouldn't be! What they did was huge, paving the way for all the rest of LENR research. You also seem to be unaware of the statement from Rossi himself, that he has funded this out of his own pocket. No, I was aware that he has asserted that. Mark, you seem to accept what Rossi says as if it were confirmed fact. That is ordinarily a reasonable assumption. It is not, here. That's unfortunate, perhaps, but this is what happens when one allows the appearances that have been described to arise. This is *not* a claim that Rossi is lying, I have seen no proof of any lies, at all, so far. If Rossi is funding this out of his own pocket, that is, probably, his own foolishness. He's been complaining that he's short of the money he needs, that he's short of time, he's working so hard. To relieve that burden, it would only take ... money. But he's chosen a path that doesn't seek to share this, he apparently wants to own it, though it looks to me like this strategy could radically fail, he's taking huge risks. So doing the demo to attract investors is quite unlikely... In fact, that's why he was
RE: [Vo]:group seeks to discredit Rossi
At 02:08 PM 2/7/2011, Mark Iverson wrote: Abd: You stated: Right now, the Rossi device is a Black Box, with two apparent inputs: electrical power, as a supposedly measured level, and water, Did you forget the hydrogen? At least I would consider it an input since it is not entirely contained within the reactor. I.e., there is an external tank and connection to the reactor... I suppose one could go as far as considering the H tank as an extension to the reactor... Yes, I did forget the hydrogen for that moment. Thanks.
Re: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration
On 02/07/2011 10:04 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I think of Steorn, which is still operating, apparently. One might ask why and how, and I don't think it's rocket science. Steorn has products -- I mean, /real/ products, that you can buy, and which actually do something useful -- which they sell, for real money. They run a scam as a sideline, of course, but none the less there's some actual income there which may help to keep the company going. See, for example: http://www.steorn.com/steornlab/hall-probe/ BLP also has a real product which they sell, which is their molecular modeling software. I have no idea how well it works or who's bought it, but it surely can't hurt to have an actual salable product in the stable when the primary horse still won't run. (And Randy sells his book, of course, but if it sells like just about any other QM book you care to name, I'm quite sure the income from it is insignificant.)
Re: [Vo]:group seeks to discredit Rossi
At 02:22 PM 2/7/2011, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: Recall the tragic PR mess that transpired when scientists (most of them physicists) in their initial curiosity attempted to independently replicate a chemistry experiment, for which most had little experience in executing, the Pons Fleischmann 1989 cold fusion experiment. As we all know, the vast majority of those preliminary independent replications failed. The result was a tragic history lesson on how NOT to conduct independent replication, a lesson that has taken decades to turgidly work its constipated way through the alimentary canal of pseudo science accusations. Yes, quite precisely. However, those negative replications actually were useful, if properly understood. Especially those that measured helium! The rush to replicate was, indeed, extraordinarily foolish, mostly a waste of time. On the one hand, the would-be replicators seemed to assume that, if it worked, it would be simple; that was partly the result of the experiment having been presented as being simple, when it was far from simple, and Pons and Fleischmann knew it. It was more complex than even they knew, as they found out when they ran out of their original batch of palladium and they couldn't get cells to perform for a while. (Huizenga notes this with Miles, with some apparent glee, not realizing that this actually was evidence for the reality of the effect, explaining the difficulty of replication. Aha! sensitive to unexpected details!) Looking back on those events we can see that to a very large extent that independent replication was premature. That's right. The first step is internal replication, where the originator runs the experiment multiple times, developing a protocol, and publishing it. It's common that the protocol is not entirely complete, and communication with the originator is necessary. Especially when replications fail to come up with the same results. It was a total error to jump to the conclusion that Pons and Fleischmann's work was bogus based on replication failure. There is a far more common reason: inadequate specification of or adherence to the protocol. Properly, massive effort should have been put into identifying the actual artifact in the P-F work, instead of coming up with some vague generalities. Suppose, for example, the problem was some error in measuring input power, as the skeptical Barry Kort has proposed. An exact replication would, with this, come up with the same error, which would then, in fact, rather easily be identified. Same with Kort's other proposed artifact: misting, loss of electrolyte from open cells as mist, rather than as vapor, with a consequential incorrect adjustment for vapor, leading to a calculation showing excess heat. That would have, as well, been easy to replicate and then identfiy. Hey, Ralph! What's this white stuff appearing around the cell vent? Did you forget to dust this thing off? It was premature because the necessary protocols were not yet sufficiently understood by PF. If they didn't know all the crucial details, could they accurately tell others what they must do? Of course not. But the fact is that replication did start coming in, reasonably quickly. Miles started getting results before the ERAB panel had completed their report. It was simply more difficult than the gung-ho physicists were expecting. Hubris, perhaps. Exacerbating matters, physicists were attempting to perform delicate experiments within a field (chemistry) for which they were not trained in. JEE! WHAT COULD GO WRONG Obviously, just as much as could go wrong with Fleischmann making neutron measurements, similarly. There were too many unknowns and variables that tended to mess things up. The uncertainties PF secretly harbored quickly came back to haunt them. Due to a collection of unique political circumstances of that time period PF felt they had no choice but to come out of the closet, so to speak, and (prematurely) reveal what they suspected was probably occurring. IOW, they speculated. Due to their own lack of adequate knowledge pertaining of certain experimental factors some of their speculations turned out to be premature, as well as I gather inaccurate. Well, they did make some errors, but the paper published actually did say unknown nuclear reaction rather than fusion. Even though, it turns out, it was fusion, just a different kind of fusion than everyone was expecting. I find it weird: they expected that fusion was impossible, but if it was to be possible, it would have to be what they were used to seeing. It's as if some massive brain fault rained down in 1989, some sort of collective delusion. Some of these unfounded speculations ended up skewering them in the light of the scientific community. They could see the rusty blade coming at them, skewering them in slow motion - and there wasn't a damned thing they could do about the ensuing circus. Timing is
Re: [Vo]:How New Energy Times has become a crank web site.
At 02:37 PM 2/7/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 02/07/2011 02:24 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I'm not sure how he took my criticism, since I have nothing invested in any particular theory As far as I can tell he didn't have the patience to understand your criticism. You used too many words, so Krivit dismissed what you had to say. Probably most of the papers he should be reading also use too many words. Isn't a reporter supposed to be able to digest complex information? Anyway, mea culpa. I do use a lot of words, sometimes. Frankly, I don't think he's the brightest bulb in the string. He seems to have a hard time following arguments which are longer than a sound bite. And, BTW, criticism directed at him, personally, seems to be dismissed out of hand, which makes it difficult for him to see any flaws in his approach. If you point them out, that's a priori a personal attack, and consequently dismissed. Yes. I first noticed how Krivit had published his private correspondence with many people, stuff that was pretty much senseless argument, personal mishegas. He readily became embroiled in debate. Not good for a reporter
RE: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration
At 02:52 PM 2/7/2011, Mark Iverson wrote: Abd: You really need to be more careful with your choice of words... There is a staged demonstration, under the control of Rossi, with experimental details concealed... No, there were at least two tests done with the same seasoned university scientists present. Really? They knew what was inside that device? No, it was not a 'staged' demo... And Rossi had very limited control. From everything that I've read, which is considerable, Rossi brought in the reactor but it was the Univ of Bologna scientists that set it up and brought in THEIR OWN instruments and hooked them up THEMSELVES. I believe I mentioned that my comments weren't accurate if that happened. Also, as mentioned several times so far, those same scientists looked for all possible ways to bring in other power sources, and the reactor was even ELEVATED off the surface of the table so one could see ALL connections to the reactor. Maybe that's what you call a 'staged' demo, but I think that's clearly an exaggeration. To the extent this was true, then my comments were off. There remains the possibility of internal tricks. How about this: why is the device insulated? Could it be that it already contains some very hot material? Geez, that seems like it would be simple! There is no end to possible frauds, which is why, with something of this magnitude, most scientists won't be satisifed until there are independent replications -- and, by the way, 1 MW reactors for sale certainly allows a kind of independent replication No, all experimental details were NOT concealed... There were a few, yes, but only those that were of a proprietary nature, and then, according to Rossi, only until patents are granted. Patents won't be granted, my prediction. Inadequate disclosure. And that, then, gives Rossi the excuse to put off making the 1 MW reactors available I'd love to be wrong. Cheap energy would be wonderful.
Re: [Vo]:Am-243 - the Rossi smoking gun? (smoking boot)?
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 7 Feb 2011 11:05:21 -0800: Hi, [snip] Admittedly not a great fit, as catalysts go - but is it close enough for government contracting ? [snip] One problem is that each alpha particle would at most produce two photons, and each photon at most 1 fusion reaction, so your power output is limited to at most two fusion reactions per alpha particle. That means that since a fusion reaction and an alpha particle each represent about 5 MeV, that about 1/3 of your output power has to be supplied by alpha particles, and that's assuming the best possible conditions, which in itself is extremely unlikely. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration
Jed you are a good historian too...in which extent was the airplane patented? The aspects that had been not patented belong to KNOW what, HOW, why. The same situation can be apllied to this new energy source. Interesting developments. On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: I'd allow Rossi to make all kinds of suggestions, but not to touch the device, nor would I allow anyone affiliated with Rossi to get anywhere near it. Such tests have been done, and they are underway now. Rossi is another city. Rossi claims, though, that only he knows the secrets of the device. Am I correct about that? Incorrect. Other people know the secrets. Rossi is a strange fellow but he is better than you think, and his claims are more solid than they appear. It would be a grave mistake to judge his work based on his personal credibility. Someone here remarked that Focardi forced Rossi to do the demo. That's incorrect. Rossi wanted to delay but he is very fond of Focardi, and Focardi asked him to go ahead in January, so he did as a favor. It would have been a better demo if they had rehearsed a few more weeks, but it wasn't all that bad. As I said, it is difficult to do a demo of this nature with so many people in attendance, and with an unpredictable prototype. The fact that the thing did not work and then worked marginally and not as well as it did the day before tells me that it is probably real. This is how cold fusion devices behave. A fake machine would work perfectly. - Jed
[Vo]:Rossi responds to some of his critics
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360#comments February 7th, 2011 at 6:06 PM A LOT OF BLOGS ARE SAYING, AMONG INSULTS TO ME, THAT THERE ARE IN THE WORLD SOME LOTS OF “COLD FUSION” PROCESSES WHICH WORK PERFECTLY AND WHICH ARE FAR BETTER THAN THE ONE THAT, MODESTLY, I MADE. GOOD. SOME SAY THAT HIS PROCESS IS THE SAME OF MINE, BUT THAT HE MADE IT MANY YEARS AGO. GOOD. I APPRECIATE THIS. WHAT I WANT TO SAY TO ALL THOSE GUYS IS: PLEASE, INSTEAD OF CHATTERING , MAKE A REAL REACTOR, PUT IT IN OPERATION, PRODUCE kWhS, AS WE ARE DOING. AND DO ALL THIS, AS I DID, WITH YOUR MONEY, WITHOUT ASKING FOR FINANCING. IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE IN YOUR WORK YOU DO NOT NEED MONEY, YOU HAVE JUST TO WORK, WORK, WORK. WHEN YOU WILL HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PUT IN THE MARKET REAL AND OPERATIONAL REACTORS,ONLY AT THAT POINT YOU WILL QUALIFY TO BE COMPETITORS. FOR NOW YOU ARE JUST GTFMS (GOOD TALKERS FREE MONEY SEEKERS). ALL I DID I DID WITH MY MONEY, NO HELP FROM ANYWHERE. THIS MUST BE CLEAR. TO MAKE WHAT I MADE I HAD TO SELL ALL I HAD. THIS HAS TO BE VERY CLEAR TO THE IMBECILES WHO ARE INSULTING MY WORK. IN OCTOBER I WILL PUT IN OPERATION A 1 MW PLANT. DO NOT CHATTER, IF YOU WANT TO COMPETE, GO TO STUDY AND WORK, AS I DO, AND DO THE SAME. ANDREA ROSSI Harry
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to some of his critics
This, and other words and actions of Rossi show that he is NOT an idealist. On the contrary. Idealist has three opposites: materialist, realist and pragmatist- and Rossi tries to be these all, it seems. On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360#comments February 7th, 2011 at 6:06 PM A LOT OF BLOGS ARE SAYING, AMONG INSULTS TO ME, THAT THERE ARE IN THE WORLD SOME LOTS OF “COLD FUSION” PROCESSES WHICH WORK PERFECTLY AND WHICH ARE FAR BETTER THAN THE ONE THAT, MODESTLY, I MADE. GOOD. SOME SAY THAT HIS PROCESS IS THE SAME OF MINE, BUT THAT HE MADE IT MANY YEARS AGO. GOOD. I APPRECIATE THIS. WHAT I WANT TO SAY TO ALL THOSE GUYS IS: PLEASE, INSTEAD OF CHATTERING , MAKE A REAL REACTOR, PUT IT IN OPERATION, PRODUCE kWhS, AS WE ARE DOING. AND DO ALL THIS, AS I DID, WITH YOUR MONEY, WITHOUT ASKING FOR FINANCING. IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE IN YOUR WORK YOU DO NOT NEED MONEY, YOU HAVE JUST TO WORK, WORK, WORK. WHEN YOU WILL HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PUT IN THE MARKET REAL AND OPERATIONAL REACTORS,ONLY AT THAT POINT YOU WILL QUALIFY TO BE COMPETITORS. FOR NOW YOU ARE JUST GTFMS (GOOD TALKERS FREE MONEY SEEKERS). ALL I DID I DID WITH MY MONEY, NO HELP FROM ANYWHERE. THIS MUST BE CLEAR. TO MAKE WHAT I MADE I HAD TO SELL ALL I HAD. THIS HAS TO BE VERY CLEAR TO THE IMBECILES WHO ARE INSULTING MY WORK. IN OCTOBER I WILL PUT IN OPERATION A 1 MW PLANT. DO NOT CHATTER, IF YOU WANT TO COMPETE, GO TO STUDY AND WORK, AS I DO, AND DO THE SAME. ANDREA ROSSI Harry
[Vo]:Gerald Celente: Cold fusion greatest investment opportunity of the 21st Cent.
Gerald Celentes Top Trends for 2011 Trends Journal lists Cold fusion to be the greatest investment opportunity of the 21st Century. http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/2011/01/26/gerald-celente-cold-fusion-to-be-the-greatest-investment-opportunity-of-the-21rst-century/ More links and much more info also at: http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html ] Gerald Celente: Cold fusion to be the greatest investment opportunity of the 21st Century. Gerald Celente, lauded prognosticator of Trends Research Institute, recently put new energy and cold fusion as #6 on his Top Trends for 2011 in the Trends Research Journal. An interview conducted by Chris Waltzek of Goldseek Radio has Mr. Celente mentioning the recent demonstration of Dr. Rossis Ecat boiler at the University of Bologna. He also Saturdays January 29 broadcast. Also: Gerald Celente puts new energy as a top trend for 2011. Gerald Celente of Trends Institute has put new energy as a top trend for 2011. He made the statement on Eric Kings King World News interview for Wednesday, December 29, 2010Funding LENR research will start a whole new economic paradigm, employing skilled workers, developing a path for young scientists, and jumpstart a new manufacturing sector based on a new energy technology. He correctly mentions the trouble with getting patents with anything related to cold fusion.
[Vo]:Robert Ducan Interviewed
Robert Duncan interview on Cash-Flow: “Public investment means public ownership.” https://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/2011/02/06/robert-duncan-interview-on-cash-flow-public-investment-means-public-ownership/ http://tinyurl.com/4hwlbns “It’s interesting that when this was reviewed in 2004 by the National Academy of Sciences, the NAS came back and recommended that well-controlled experiments in cold fusion be funded by public money just to avoid the the problem you’re mentioning and what surprises me is not only did that never happen, when you go and look at Wikipedia and other sources they’ll say that when this was reviewed by the government in 2004, they came to essentially the same conclusions as 1989. Well that’s not true. In 1989, there was alot more angst and people were ready to pronounce it completely a debunked area of research.” “But in 2004, that committee came back and said where well-controlled experiments can be defined, they should be funded. But none have, to my knowledge, on public money. And that’s unfortunate, because just as you say, if the public invests in it, then the public owns it, whereas if its privately invested in, then you have to find some means like a patent to respect the private equity of those that have put either their money or other people’s money on the line.” Harry
Re: [Vo]:A few comments by Celani about the demonstration
I meant to say that Rossi is now in a different city. Not that he is a city. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Rossi has stated that he did NOT want to do the demo; that was Focardi's idea. Given one of the two major operating hypotheses, I don't accept any statements about this as definitive. That is definite. As I said, Rossi wanted to delay the demo some more but Focardi asked him to go ahead, and he did, as a favor. I do not know what other motivations he had to do it, whether it was to get publicity, but I know that it was partly as a favor to Focardi. - Jed
