Re: CF demonstrations COPY 2?
Mitchell Swartz wrote: Cold fusion systems use lattices such as palladium, nickel and titanium to produce nuclear products and heat. The (lattice) heat results from the HIGH ENERGY of the first excited state, such as the He4* state . . . So you are saying it should not be considered Low Energy (as in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions), but rather High Energy on a microscopic scale. 'LENR' is more amorphous, perhaps because it was in part an attempt to avoid the use of the words: 'cold fusion'. It probably was an attempt to avoid that term. It was a euphemism, in other words. Euphemisms never work for long. The taboo that gives rise to the euphemism quickly attaches to the new word. Anyway, it now also encompasses phenomena which have far less to zero credibility, of which a long list could be given from rotating water machines to putative biological transmutation. That seems a little unfair. What a word encompasses depends upon the speaker and his intentions. Most mainstream researchers, such as Peter Hagelstein, have in mind only metal lattice cold fusion when they say LENR. On the other hand many skeptics accuse cold fusion including kinds of other reported over-unity devices such as magnetic motors. As for the biological transmutations, I have no idea whether they are correct or not, but I do not see how they could be related to metal lattice CF, because there is no metal in living cells. The rotating machines at Hydrodynamics produce cavitation, so if anything they are related to the sonofusion effects described by Stringham or Putterman. Whether that, in turn, has any connection with CF I cannot judge, but I am pretty sure that the Hydrodynamics machine does sometimes produce excess energy. I am not aware that Swartz has demonstrated an error in the calorimetry used at Hydrodynamics. If he has not, this is mere empty opinion, no better than the average uninformed skeptical assertion about CF. People who do not believe a claim do not get a free pass. They have to prove their point as rigorously as those who believe a claim do. It does not make a difference how controversial or unlikely the claim may be, although it is usually easier to rigorously disprove a far-fetched claim, such as a magnetic motor. - Jed
Re: CF demonstrations COPY 2?
At 10:39 AM 5/6/2005, Jed Rothwell wrote: [I sent this before but it did not come back to me. This version has a few corrections] Mitchell Swartz wrote: There have been no LENR demos! Demos may not even be possible. Utter nonsense. JET Thermal Products gave an open demonstration of a robust cold fusion Phusor system at MIT for a week at ICCF10. Good point. I forgot about that one. I do not think it convinced many people, because the calorimetry is so exotic, Not true at all. In fact, the calorimetry was not exotic - it was simple with two cells in electrical series [the cold fusion device and the ohmic control]. It is only seen as 'exotic' by those who do not use controls and eschew their (logical and requisite) use. For this lower power demonstration system at MIT, http://world.std.com/~mica/jeticcf10demo.html which was in part encouraged by the late Dr. Eugene Mallove, the calorimetry was necessarily simple, and taken care of with full controls. Two identical volumes were compared, and they were wired in electrical series. One contained an ohmic control and the other contained the cold fusion Phusor device in heavy water. For approximately half the power to the cold fusion system, there resulted approximately twice the delta-T in the cold fusion Phusor device (and its surrounding water) compared to the ohmic control (and its surrounding water). BTW, the purpose of the low power demonstration system was to demonstrate in a single afternoon the optimal operating point of these systems. That was accomplished. More on this at: http://world.std.com/~mica/jet.html The publication on the demonstration itself is: Swartz. M., Can a Pd/D2O/Pt Device be Made Portable to Demonstrate the Optimal Operating Point?, ICCF-10 (Camb. MA), Proceedings of ICCF-10, (2003). The publications on theoptimal operating point of these systems include: Swartz. M., G. Verner, Excess Heat from Low Electrical Conductivity Heavy Water Spiral-Wound Pd/D2O/Pt and Pd/D2O-PdCl2/Pt Devices, ICCF-10 (Camb. MA), Proceedings of ICCF-10, (2003) Swartz. M., Photoinduced Excess Heat from Laser-Irradiated Electrically-Polarized Palladium Cathodes in D2O, ICCF-10 (Camb. MA), Proceedings of ICCF-10, (2003). Swartz. M., Generality of Optimal Operating Point Behavior in Low Energy Nuclear Systems, Journal of New Energy, 4, 2, 218-228 (1999) Swartz. M., G. Verner, A. Frank, H. Fox Importance of Non-dimensional Numbers and Optimal Operating Points in Cold Fusion, Journal of New Energy, 4, 2, 215-217 (1999) Swartz, M, Optimal Operating Point Characteristics of Nickel Light Water Experiments, Proceedings of ICCF-7 (1998) Swartz. M., Consistency of the Biphasic Nature of Excess Enthalpy in Solid State Anomalous Phenomena with the Quasi-1-Dimensional Model of Isotope Loading into a Material, Fusion Technology, 31, 63-74 (1997) Swartz. M., Biphasic Behavior in Thermal Electrolytic Generators Using Nickel Cathodes, IECEC 1997 Proceedings, paper #97009 (1997) with the background continuum electromechanics (applied to loading) here: Swartz, M., Isotopic Fuel Loading Coupled To Reactions At An Electrode, Fusion Technology, 26, 4T, 74-77 (1994) Swartz. M., Generalized Isotopic Fuel Loading Equations Cold Fusion Source Book, International Symposium On Cold Fusion And Advanced Energy Systems. Ed. Hal Fox, Minsk, Belarus (1994) Swartz, M., Quasi-One-Dimensional Model of Electrochemical Loading of Isotopic Fuel into a Metal, Fusion Technology, 22, 2, 296-300 (1992) === But then these demonstations were of overunity cold fusion systems. By contrast, the (misnamed) LENR probably cannot give a similar demonstation. ;-)X What is the difference between overunity cold fusion systems and LENR? As far as I know the two mean exactly the same thing. Cold fusion systems use lattices such as palladium, nickel and titanium to produce nuclear products and heat. The (lattice) heat results from the HIGH ENERGY of the first excited state, such as the He4* state, that results before the HIGH ENERGY is redistributed to the lattice by the plethora of phonons and polarons. Cold fusion is high energy, involving nuclear states which then collapse as the lattice takes the energy, which appears as excess energy and heat. More on this at http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html More on cold fusion at the upcoming 2005 Cold Fusion Colloquium at MIT. http://world.std.com/~mica/colloq.html 'LENR' is more amorphous, perhaps because it was in part an attempt to avoid the use of the words: 'cold fusion'. Anyway, it now also encompasses phenomena which have far less to zero credibility, of which a long list could be given from rotating water machines to putative biological transmutation. Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dr. Mitchell Swartz JET Thermal
RE: CF demonstrations
Hi Mitchell, A few thoughts about what I can find on the site. You don't mention current, but presumably it's in the .1 to 10 ma range? With the high voltages you use, I also assume that you're not using a salt of any kind, this to explain the rather localized electrolysis you note on the cathode and high solution resistivity. In my experience such circuits tend to concentrate losses in the electrolyte, have you made half potential measurements to determine the cathode drop? It strikes me that a lot of power in this system is just being spent heating the electrolyte and not driving the CF reaction. By the way, when I wrote earlier: That's tenacity! Not very practical, but I salute you all the same... I just wanted to make clear that the not very practical referred to legal practicality of the design patent, not to the actual instrument being described. I look forward to seeing this circuit in operation. K. -Original Message- From: Mitchell Swartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 6:54 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: CF demonstrations At 10:39 AM 5/6/2005, Jed Rothwell wrote: There have been no LENR demos! Demos may not even be possible. Utter nonsense. JET Thermal Products gave an open demonstration of a robust cold fusion Phusor system at MIT for a week at ICCF10. Good point. I forgot about that one. I do not think it convinced many people, because the calorimetry is so exotic, Not true at all. In fact, the calorimetry was not exotic - it was simple with two cells in electrical series [the cold fusion device and the ohmic control]. It is only seen as 'exotic' by those who do not use controls and eschew their (logical and requisite) use. For this lower power demonstration system at MIT, http://world.std.com/~mica/jeticcf10demo.html which was in part encouraged by the late Dr. Eugene Mallove, the calorimetry was necessarily simple, and taken care of with full controls. Two identical volumes were compared, and they were wired in electrical series. One contained an ohmic control and the other contained the cold fusion Phusor device in heavy water. For approximately half the power to the cold fusion system, there resulted approximately twice the delta-T in the cold fusion Phusor device (and its surrounding water) compared to the ohmic control (and its surrounding water). BTW, the purpose of the low power demonstration system was to demonstrate in a single afternoon the optimal operating point of these systems. That was accomplished. More on this at: http://world.std.com/~mica/jet.html The publication on the demonstration itself is: Swartz. M., Can a Pd/D2O/Pt Device be Made Portable to Demonstrate the Optimal Operating Point?, ICCF-10 (Camb. MA), Proceedings of ICCF-10, (2003). The publications on theoptimal operating point of these systems include: Swartz. M., G. Verner, Excess Heat from Low Electrical Conductivity Heavy Water Spiral-Wound Pd/D2O/Pt and Pd/D2O-PdCl2/Pt Devices, ICCF-10 (Camb. MA), Proceedings of ICCF-10, (2003) Swartz. M., Photoinduced Excess Heat from Laser-Irradiated Electrically-Polarized Palladium Cathodes in D2O, ICCF-10 (Camb. MA), Proceedings of ICCF-10, (2003). Swartz. M., Generality of Optimal Operating Point Behavior in Low Energy Nuclear Systems, Journal of New Energy, 4, 2, 218-228 (1999) Swartz. M., G. Verner, A. Frank, H. Fox Importance of Non-dimensional Numbers and Optimal Operating Points in Cold Fusion, Journal of New Energy, 4, 2, 215-217 (1999) Swartz, M, Optimal Operating Point Characteristics of Nickel Light Water Experiments, Proceedings of ICCF-7 (1998) Swartz. M., Consistency of the Biphasic Nature of Excess Enthalpy in Solid State Anomalous Phenomena with the Quasi-1-Dimensional Model of Isotope Loading into a Material, Fusion Technology, 31, 63-74 (1997) Swartz. M., Biphasic Behavior in Thermal Electrolytic Generators Using Nickel Cathodes, IECEC 1997 Proceedings, paper #97009 (1997) with the background continuum electromechanics (applied to loading) here: Swartz, M., Isotopic Fuel Loading Coupled To Reactions At An Electrode, Fusion Technology, 26, 4T, 74-77 (1994) Swartz. M., Generalized Isotopic Fuel Loading Equations Cold Fusion Source Book, International Symposium On Cold Fusion And Advanced Energy Systems. Ed. Hal Fox, Minsk, Belarus (1994) Swartz, M., Quasi-One-Dimensional Model of Electrochemical Loading of Isotopic Fuel into a Metal, Fusion Technology, 22, 2, 296-300 (1992) === But then these demonstations were of overunity cold fusion systems. By contrast, the (misnamed) LENR probably cannot give a similar demonstation. ;-)X What is the difference between overunity cold fusion systems and LENR? As far as I know the two mean exactly the same thing. Cold fusion systems use lattices such as palladium, nickel and titanium to produce nuclear products
