I mean anomalous particles. Anmoulous particles are even stranger! ;-) Harry
----- Original Message ----- From: Harry Veeder <hvee...@ncf.ca> Date: Monday, September 7, 2009 11:05 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier > > > I think one kit should focus on anmoulous particle production > rather than excess heat. > > See Richard Oriani research on Ludwik Kowalski's page: > > http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/368project.html > > Harry > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> > Date: Monday, September 7, 2009 5:01 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier > > > At 02:40 PM 9/7/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > >Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > > > > >>My goal is that each test cell be cheap, very cheap, well > under, > > >>say, the cost of a Galileo Project replication . . . > > > > > >I do not understand this goal. The cost of materials has never > > been > > >a barrier to replicating cold fusion, except perhaps when I > could > > >not afford to buy 1 kg of Johnson-Matthey Pd. > > > > You are not usual, Jed. What you are showing is part of the > > thinking > > that kept Cold fusion down. I don't blame you, and I certainly > > respect your experience. But you have also come up with some real > > nonsense. > > >The material cost is trivial -- immaterial if you will -- > compared > > >to the cost of the instruments and effort. I have never seen a > > >credible cold fusion experiment that costs less than ~$100,000 > and > > >probably a lot more if you take into account the cost of > people's > > time. > > I don't think this is true. Galileo project. You know the > situation > > with Mizuno, how hard it was for him because of the costs. > > > > Perhaps the key word is "credible." There is a "lost > performative" > > here. "Credible" isn't an absolute characteristic of some > > phenomenon > > or, in this case, experimental result. It refers to a reaction by > > people. The reaction by people will depend on many factors that > > aren't part of the experimental report! > > > > Many cold fusion researchers were convinced by some happening > that > > they could not use to convince others. They saw it. Now, suppose > we > > could create a few hundred young people and a few hundred > > scientists > > who have all see the same phenomenon? > > > > In a certain sense, I don't need to focus on the ultimate effect > of > > a > > cheap cold fusion demonstration kit. I only need to look at the > > practicality: can it be done? If it can be done, enough money, I > > believe, can be made with it to justify the activity and the > > investment. The only worrisome possibility is that it can't be > > done. > > I just spend a long time on the phone with Dr. Storms. He's > > encouraging, but, at the same time, quite as negative as you > about > > the possibility of doing such a kit. However, we did examine in > > some > > detail his objections, and the objections were coming largely > from > > assumptions about what a kit would be like. > > > > In short, it won't be what most researchers in the field expect. > It > > won't necessarily produce bulletproof evidence, unimpeachable. It > > will produce a body of *experience* that is shared. > > > > It's not necessary to convince a lot of people to support this. A > > few > > who are willing to work on it or help it can do it. If people are > > interested, they can join the project. If not, that's fine, > > everyone > > decides where to put their effort. > > > > > Whether the materials cost $20 or $200, or even $2,000 does > not > > > make the slightest difference and has not stopped anyone from > > > trying the experiment, as far as I know. I have never heard > from > > > someone who said "I would love to try this but I can't afford > the > > > palladium." I have heard from people who said they can't find > the > > > palladium; or they don't feel competent to test it per Storms' > > > instructions; or -- most often -- they don't have the time or > the > > > instruments they need. > > > > Codeposition, Jed. Not "palladium," but "palladium chloride." > Now, > > Storms say that he's been unable to reproduce the codeposition > > results of the SPAWAR group. That's worrisome, Jed. On the other > > hand, there were some positive results from the Galileo Project. > > I'm > > going to need to ask Mr. Krivit more about that.... > > > > >The only thing you should look for in materials is something > that > > >works. Whether it costs $20 or $2000 should not be a consideration. > > > > Wrong. If the kit is expensive, it causes two problems. It can't > be > > purchased by kids or their parents on a limited budget. An > > experimenter can't decide to test *many* cells instead of one or > a > > very few. You are thinking of ordinary scientific replication. > I'm > > not. I'm thinking of bypassing the entire existing system and > > creating something that could be studied by others, later, the > > scientists who will publish, if they care to. Standard baseline > > experiment, cheap. Some variations may be expensive. > > > > Equipment, you call it "instruments," for simple demonstrations, > > fairly cheap and it will be rented to customers. Programmable > power > > supply. Temp sensors, possibly some other sensors, say, pressure > > and > > acoustic or light or even radiation, though radiation may mostly > be > > with CR-39, which is pretty expensive, but small pieces. Computer > > interface, standard USB. > > > > Storms assumed that individual experimenters would be etching > their > > own CR-39, and, indeed, some may do this, but I expect the > company > > will offer that service along with other analysis. Process lots > of > > chips at once. Done by people who know what they are doing. > Storms > > assumed a lot of things that would make kit usage much more > subject > > to individual variations. Perhaps "kit" is a misnomer. The "full > > kit" > > would be a demonstration operated in the base mode, designed for > > maximum reliability, whatever that turns out to be. But then > > customers could try variations. > > > > > In my opinion, the Arata material is more promising, so I > think > > > you should find someone to fabricate it, or ask Santoku Corp. > for > > > some. They have been providing it for free to researchers in > > Japan, > > > and they were kind enough to send some to U.S. researchers as > > well. > > > I believe the supply is limited and the price has not been set > as > > I > > > said, so price is not an issue. Availability is the problem. > The > > > biggest issue in my mind is that no one has done truly > convincing > > > calorimetry to prove the stuff works in the first place. Doing > > > credible calorimetry will cost you $5,000 to $10,000 if you buy > a > > > calorimeter off the shelf, or you can spend several months > > learning > > > how to make Seebeck calorimeters of the kind Storms made. If > your > > > time is worth anything that will cost more than $10,000. > > > > You are stating exactly why we might avoid excess heat as a > > necessary > > measurement. Some temperature measurements, perhaps, some rough > > calorimetry, but not precise calorimetry. It's not actually > > necessary, if one can show correlation with other phenomena. Is, > > for > > example, increased temperature, under otherwise similar operating > > conditions, correlated with helium? But Storms indicated that the > > SPAWAR type cells don't produce enough helium. Is that true? > > > > The goal of the kits is to reproduce, reliably, at least one LENR > > phenomenon, but preferably two that can be correlated. Helium, > Jed. > > It's possible to drastically lower, I believe, the cost of helium > > testing. Or there are ways to split the cost between amalgamated > > experiments, I won't go into it. Gotta put the kids to bed.... > > > > Came back later, I called Storms and modified the above a little > as > > a > > result. Maybe helium won't be possible with small co-dep cells, > > unless they can be cycled and run for a long time. I'm going to > > need > > to get a little more electrochemistry going.... what happens if > you > > reverse the polarity of a co-dep cell, will the plated palladium > > dissolve and be deposited on the other electrode? If so.... > > > > I need to start discussing this on the coldfusionproject > list...., > > not so much here. > > > > > >
