Re: [Vo]:I told you it was cold
Thomas sez: According to a news report I just heard, Minnesota had a record low for March 12 this morning in Embarass. It's cold in Madison too. The following web site would seem to indicate that global temps have indeed cooled within the last twelve months: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/ But it's the long term trend that we ought to be concerned about, not an anomalous blip-dip in Embarass, MN. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ Haven't you also agreed with the assessment that there is a warming trend occurring? Isn't the argument about who or what is causing the prolonged warming trend? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:promoting CF
Edmund Storms wrote: I'm frustrated with this exchange as well. You seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that any of my comments have any merit at all. Oh come now. Of course I realize what you are saying! I know what the standards of science are supposed to be, and what has happened in the cold fusion arena. Heck, I could write a book about that subject; I am probably one of the leading authorities on the subject. Anyone can see there is a problem, and injustice, and that institutions are dysfunctional. The question is: What can we do about it? The normal methods of overcoming doubt and opposition have failed. Publishing papers in journals has failed. Taking part in prestigious conferences such as the ACS has failed. They have not failed completely, of course. I am not suggesting we should give up all traditional methods. I am suggesting that we should not repeat of these activities unchanged without supplementing them by unconventional methods. I'm not saying that all approaches will fail. I'm only saying that certain realities have to be considered. Experimental realities can be defined with confidence. The realities of human behavior and history -- and what will happen in the future -- are not clear. No one can say with any certainty that my plans will work, or that they will surely fail because they are unconventional. Otherwise, an effort will be a waste of time. We have wasted 20 years. We have made essentially no progress trying to convince the establishment. If alternative approaches fail and I waste a few more years, I will not mind. I was interested in exactly how YOU think the field should be promoted. I'm not interested in generalities or patronizing ideas like study history. It is not patronizing at all! It is a big mistake for you to think it is. You have missed my point. Furthermore, you know me too well to imagine that I patronize or make flippant or empty statements. I am a serious guy, engaged in a serious effort, and by golly I have paid my dues to prove that! I am suggesting that you should look carefully at how other people have overcome similar opposition, and borrow their tactics. That may seem like an obvious thing to do but people often fail to do it. People ignore history and repeat disastrous mistakes. They do this in business, politics, science, war, investing and other areas. Look at the Iraq war and the Wall Street bubble. There are examples everywhere you turn. Cold fusion researchers have failed to learn from history. Not with regard to the science itself but with regard to overcoming academic political opposition. To give an example that I have pointed out countless times, the Wright brothers failed disastrously for five years until they began paying attention to Hart Berg, who was a marketing expert. His business was selling big ticket high technology, such as battleships. If they had not heeded his advice they would not have been given credit for developing the airplane. They would have been forgotten. Cold fusion researchers are making mistakes so similar to the ones the Wrights made, it is uncanny. Not just tactical errors: the letters, assertions, attitudes and style of the brothers and of many researchers are so similar you might confuse the two. I guess it shows that smart people make similar misjudgments. If you have ideas, I suggest you implement them and stop complaining about what the rest of us are doing. I cannot implement them without the cooperation of the researchers. I think that it is clear, and this statement of yours was obtuse. All that I have accomplished in this field (for what it's worth) has been with the cooperation of researchers, you especially. You think you have all the information you need to make the effort. No, I do not. I require complete descriptions of experiments, and a commitment to help newcomers by supplying sample materials and training, and various other things that I have outlined. I call for the kind of effort ATT made to disseminate information about semiconductors a few months after they developed them. Twenty years after the development of cold fusion no one has provided the sort of information ATT provided. In that regard Charles Petit was correct: this field does resemble a hobby more than a serious technology. There are reasons why people have not been able to publish detailed descriptions, such as lack of money, patents, and intellectual property concerns. And there are some detailed descriptions but unfortunately they cannot be made public. EPRI and SRI published a detailed description of their experiments but I cannot get permission to upload the whole thing. The problem with cathode materials is even more difficult. It is expensive and time-consuming to make a good cathode, so people are understandably unwilling to distribute cathodes to other researchers, and new researchers. Many years ago Martin Fleischmann and I
Re: [Vo]:I told you it was cold
thomas malloy wrote: According to a news report I just heard, Minnesota had a record low for March 12 this morning in Embarass. You do realize, I hope, that this has no bearing whatever on the validity of global warming observations. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:promoting CF
Jed, If you understand what I'm saying, then make this clear and stop arguing every point. In any case. I don't have time to get into a nitpicking discussion. I asked a simple question. Exactly how would you promote the field? I'm not interested in general ideas such as do what Obama did. I'm interested in exploring a real, rational, and well focused plan. You say you need the cooperation of researchers. You have all the information known to the field. You would also have the cooperation of many researchers if the plan looks good. You need to realize that many of the researches do have valid points even if they differ with how you interpret the situation. We are not all ignorant of the situation and the need for better promotion. So, if you have a plan, let's hear it. By the way, if any other readers of this exchange have an idea, please feel free to jump in. Ed On Mar 13, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: I'm frustrated with this exchange as well. You seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that any of my comments have any merit at all. Oh come now. Of course I realize what you are saying! I know what the standards of science are supposed to be, and what has happened in the cold fusion arena. Heck, I could write a book about that subject; I am probably one of the leading authorities on the subject. Anyone can see there is a problem, and injustice, and that institutions are dysfunctional. The question is: What can we do about it? The normal methods of overcoming doubt and opposition have failed. Publishing papers in journals has failed. Taking part in prestigious conferences such as the ACS has failed. They have not failed completely, of course. I am not suggesting we should give up all traditional methods. I am suggesting that we should not repeat of these activities unchanged without supplementing them by unconventional methods. I'm not saying that all approaches will fail. I'm only saying that certain realities have to be considered. Experimental realities can be defined with confidence. The realities of human behavior and history -- and what will happen in the future -- are not clear. No one can say with any certainty that my plans will work, or that they will surely fail because they are unconventional. Otherwise, an effort will be a waste of time. We have wasted 20 years. We have made essentially no progress trying to convince the establishment. If alternative approaches fail and I waste a few more years, I will not mind. I was interested in exactly how YOU think the field should be promoted. I'm not interested in generalities or patronizing ideas like study history. It is not patronizing at all! It is a big mistake for you to think it is. You have missed my point. Furthermore, you know me too well to imagine that I patronize or make flippant or empty statements. I am a serious guy, engaged in a serious effort, and by golly I have paid my dues to prove that! I am suggesting that you should look carefully at how other people have overcome similar opposition, and borrow their tactics. That may seem like an obvious thing to do but people often fail to do it. People ignore history and repeat disastrous mistakes. They do this in business, politics, science, war, investing and other areas. Look at the Iraq war and the Wall Street bubble. There are examples everywhere you turn. Cold fusion researchers have failed to learn from history. Not with regard to the science itself but with regard to overcoming academic political opposition. To give an example that I have pointed out countless times, the Wright brothers failed disastrously for five years until they began paying attention to Hart Berg, who was a marketing expert. His business was selling big ticket high technology, such as battleships. If they had not heeded his advice they would not have been given credit for developing the airplane. They would have been forgotten. Cold fusion researchers are making mistakes so similar to the ones the Wrights made, it is uncanny. Not just tactical errors: the letters, assertions, attitudes and style of the brothers and of many researchers are so similar you might confuse the two. I guess it shows that smart people make similar misjudgments. If you have ideas, I suggest you implement them and stop complaining about what the rest of us are doing. I cannot implement them without the cooperation of the researchers. I think that it is clear, and this statement of yours was obtuse. All that I have accomplished in this field (for what it's worth) has been with the cooperation of researchers, you especially. You think you have all the information you need to make the effort. No, I do not. I require complete descriptions of experiments, and a commitment to help newcomers by supplying sample materials and training, and various
Re: [Vo]:promoting CF
Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: You think you have all the information you need to make the effort. No, I do not. I require complete descriptions of experiments, I believe Ed Storms published a complete description of his recent experiments with gas phase LENR and radiation generation, didn't he? Here's another one which might be worth publishing a full, detailed, painfully complete description of: http://oasys2.confex.com/acs/237nm/techprogram/P1217150.HTM Orani claims a hit rate of 20 out of 20 runs getting particles from electrolysis, with a hit rate of 0 out of 20 control experiments seeing the same effect. This *ought* to be something other labs could replicate, or so it might seem. Is there a complete description of Orani's experiment available anywhere, along with full data sets? Jumping ahead a bit, later on Jed said: Many years ago Martin Fleischmann and I tried to purchase 1 kg of Johnson-Matthey Type A palladium. We failed because we did not have enough money and also because other people did not express interest in doing this. I think it was a grave mistake that other researchers did not take part in this initiative. As Melvin Miles showed, this type of palladium works nearly all the time, usually at much higher power levels than other types. Does Johnson-Matthey Type A palladium still work? I.e., is it possible to put together a reproducible experiment around their cathode material? Backing up again, earlier in the note, Jed said: [I require complete descriptions of experiments,] and a commitment to help newcomers by supplying sample materials and training, and various other things that I have outlined. I call for the kind of effort ATT made to disseminate information about semiconductors a few months after they developed them. Twenty years after the development of cold fusion no one has provided the sort of information ATT provided. In that regard Charles Petit was correct: this field does resemble a hobby more than a serious technology. There are reasons why people have not been able to publish detailed descriptions, such as lack of money, patents, and intellectual property concerns. And there are some detailed descriptions but unfortunately they cannot be made public. EPRI and SRI published a detailed description of their experiments but I cannot get permission to upload the whole thing. The problem with cathode materials is even more difficult. It is expensive and time-consuming to make a good cathode, so people are understandably unwilling to distribute cathodes to other researchers, and new researchers. Mizuno was willing to send cathodes to people trying to replicate his results. See, in particular, the Earthtech website, and the complete description of Scott Little's attempts at repro'ing one of Mizuno's experiments. For some number of the runs he used cathode(s) which Mizuno sent him. **NOTE** : Little's description covers a number of web pages -- his initial rather sketchy efforts to repro Mizuno's results, which efforts by Little Jed has disparaged in the past, were followed by a series of experiments in which Little tried to exactly reproduce every step of Mizuno's experiment, including run times, transparency of the calorimeter to make visual monitoring of the arc feasible, cooling curves, the works. An early paper, which may be the one which raised Jed's ire, is here: http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/Inc-W/Mizuno.html **HOWEVER**, an additional, apparently more thorough, series of experiments are documented on this index page, which links to the detailed descriptions: http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/ Note particularly the first, second, and third attempts at replicating Mizuno, with runs 1-10 for first experiment, runs 1-9 of second experiment, and runs 1-6 of third experiment described on about two dozen separate pages. Of course, Little still got a null result and the reader is left scratching his head wondering why. But there's something buried in these descriptions which is highly apposite to the points Jed has been raising. The Earthtech work contains an example of an acute problem with the incompleteness of published descriptions: With everything set up as Little *thought* Mizuno had it, Little couldn't replicate Mizuno's *cooling curves*. Little's curves were shallower, showing slower cooling than Mizuno was getting, with nearly identical flasks. It was only by using a fan that Little could get a cooling curve which looked like Mizuno's; see in particular: http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/Inc-W/300volt/run3/run3.html http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/Inc-W/300volt/run3/cool.html http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/Inc-W/300volt/run4/run4.html http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/Inc-W/300volt/run5/run5.html Little says (somewhere) that he *did* *not* *know* if Mizuno used a fan, but he *guessed* that he did. And so, on this little detail which was not covered in Mizuno's
Re: [Vo]:I told you it was cold
Jed Rothwell wrote: thomas malloy wrote: According to a news report I just heard, Minnesota had a record low for March 12 this morning in Embarass. You do realize, I hope, that this has no bearing whatever on the validity of global warming observations. You do realize, I hope, that this has been an ongoing pattern this year. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:I told you it was cold
thomas malloy wrote: You do realize, I hope, that this has no bearing whatever on the validity of global warming observations. You do realize, I hope, that this has been an ongoing pattern this year. An ongoing pattern where? In your state? In North America? This is not the worldwide trend. Temperatures in Japan and Europe, for example, remain at record highs this year. Also, trends that last only one year do not count. You have to look for broader, longer trends. There have been several cold years in the last few decades, but there have been many more hot years and the average is higher than previous norms. Finally, I believe global warming is thought to produce temperature extremes including colder than normal temperatures in winter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:promoting CF
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: No, I do not. I require complete descriptions of experiments, I believe Ed Storms published a complete description of his recent experiments with gas phase LENR and radiation generation, didn't he? I think we need an even more comprehensive description of some successful experiments, with more photographs and other information. Ed's papers are excellent in this regard, and Celani's latest paper has more details (partly at my recommendation). We need more like this. Papers should not be limited to 5 or 10 pages; we could use one that is 100 pages long. So far, only Fleischmann has produced anything like that and unfortunately it is not in electronic format and I cannot easily upload it. We should display some of the complete data sets using the techniques used at the Energy Information Administration which are presented in Microsoft Excel format and in graphs linked to tables with the underlying data. Incidentally, they have an interesting revision of their Primary Energy Consumption diagram showing more clearly the dominance of petroleum and the percent of each sector each fuel source contributes to: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pecss_diagram.html We also need descriptions along the lines of the document published by EPRI, as I mentioned. See: McKubre, M.C.H., et al., Development of Advanced Concepts for Nuclear Processes in Deuterated Metals. 1994, EPRI. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHdevelopmen.pdf Does Johnson-Matthey Type A palladium still work? Fleischmann and I do not know. The manufacturing method was changed sometime after 1989 to reduce toxicity during manufacturing. The newer formulation probably works. Note that Type A is Fleischmann's designation for the palladium alloy made by Johnson Matthey for use in hydrogen filters. It was developed in the 1930s. When Fleischmann Pons began experimental work on cold fusion, Fleischmann called Johnson Matthey, explain what he wanted to do and ask them to recommend what type of palladium to use. They recommended this type, for obvious reasons. You can see the performance of this type of palladium compared to other types in Table 10, p. 44 of this document: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf What Fleischmann calls Type A is referred to here as M (F/P) Pd, and I think P/F) Pd. Researchers at BARC used an actual hydrogen filter machine with the palladium in place to successfully replicate cold fusion in 1989. I.e., is it possible to put together a reproducible experiment around their cathode material? I do not know. I was not able to purchase any. They wanted $50,000 for a minimum order. I could not find any researchers who wanted to share the expense and commit to using some of the material. I myself have no use for $50,000 worth of palladium. Johnson Matthey also want to know how we wanted the stuff prepared; i.e. in rods, foils of various thicknesses or some combination. Unless the researchers tell me in advance what shape of and size of palladium samples they want to test I cannot purchase it, even if I have $50,000 burning a hole in my pocket -- which I do not! **NOTE** : Little's description covers a number of web pages -- his initial rather sketchy efforts to repro Mizuno's results, which efforts by Little Jed has disparaged in the past, were followed by a series of experiments in which Little tried to exactly reproduce every step of Mizuno's experiment, including run times, transparency of the calorimeter to make visual monitoring of the arc feasible, cooling curves, the works. I disparaged it mainly because he made too few attempts in my opinion and in Mizuno's opinion. After Mizuno heard about this experiment from Ohmori, and observed Ohmori perform it several times, Mizuno set about doing it himself. He continued without success for about six months as I recall. He tried it hundreds of times before learning the technique. So I strongly recommend that anyone who wants to do this should first observe someone during the experiment and then be prepared to spend a year or two trying to replicate. This experiment is more of an art than a science. It resembles Japanese metallurgical crafts such as making sword blades. If there is any trick to it I would say it is that you have to reduce power to below the threshold level that it takes to initiate a plasma in the first place. I hope I made that fact clear to Little. I certainly told him enough times. This experiment is also dangerous. Mizuno was not able to do it after the explosion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:I told you it was cold
Jed Rothwell wrote: thomas malloy wrote: You do realize, I hope, that this has no bearing whatever on the validity of global warming observations. You do realize, I hope, that this has been an ongoing pattern this year. An ongoing pattern where? In your state? In North America? This is not the worldwide trend. Temperatures in Japan and Europe, for example, remain at record highs this year. Also, trends that last only one year do not count. You have to look for broader, longer trends. There have been several cold years in the last few decades, but there have been many more hot years and the average is higher than previous norms. People without technical training often find it very difficult to grasp the difference between a single data point and a trend. Since the difference is fuzzy -- like the difference between a few grains of sand and a heap of sand -- this should not surprise us. Attempting to discuss such notions as fitting a least-squares trend line to the plot of the average global temperatures for the last 20 years is not going to get you very far with someone who thinks mathematics is the same a arithmetic. And, of course, when you're dealing with someone who uses faith based reasoning, attempting to prove *anything* by logic or by careful, detailed explanation is going to be an uphill battle. Finally, I believe global warming is thought to produce temperature extremes including colder than normal temperatures in winter. Right -- in crude terms, major storms and unstable weather get an awful lot of their energy from evaporating sea water, and warming sea temperatures consequently provide more energy to drive them. So, you get more storms, and less stability, and the reduced stability results in more extreme temperatures of all sorts. In equally crude terms, warming the oceans changes the wind patterns, which results in redistributing the world's heat, and while that makes some places hotter, it also makes other places colder. Hurricanes (and typhoons and their other cousins from around the world) have been bad in the last few years and are expected to get worse in the future for the same reason: They're powered by warm seawater, and when the seawater's warmer, they have more power. Of course a chunk of this information comes to you from LLNL, where they mostly work on stuff that goes bang and where the thought police watch all the employees to make sure they're all loyal war mongers; none the less Thomas may feel the folks at LLNL are in cahoots with the left-wing socialist cabal which runs the mainstream media and so can't be trusted. Conspiracy theories all have one interesting feature in common: They cannot be disproved. Like creationism, they're intrinsically not falsifiable. This, alone, doesn't prove such theories wrong, of course. (Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're *not* out to get you!)
Re: [Vo]:promoting CF
I think an estimate of the cost of doing an experiment like Oriani's would be persuasive too. ;-) Harry - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Date: Friday, March 13, 2009 11:00 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:promoting CF Jed, If you understand what I'm saying, then make this clear and stop arguing every point. In any case. I don't have time to get into a nitpicking discussion. I asked a simple question. Exactly how would you promote the field? I'm not interested in general ideas such as do what Obama did. I'm interested in exploring a real, rational, and well focused plan. You say you need the cooperation of researchers. You have all the information known to the field. You would also have the cooperation of many researchers if the plan looks good. You need to realize that many of the researches do have valid points even if they differ with how you interpret the situation. We are not all ignorant of the situation and the need for better promotion. So, if you have a plan, let's hear it. By the way, if any other readers of this exchange have an idea, please feel free to jump in. Ed On Mar 13, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: I'm frustrated with this exchange as well. You seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that any of my comments have any merit at all. Oh come now. Of course I realize what you are saying! I know what the standards of science are supposed to be, and what has happened in the cold fusion arena. Heck, I could write a book about that subject; I am probably one of the leading authorities on the subject. Anyone can see there is a problem, and injustice, and that institutions are dysfunctional. The question is: What can we do about it? The normal methods of overcoming doubt and opposition have failed. Publishing papers in journals has failed. Taking part in prestigious conferences such as the ACS has failed. They have not failed completely, of course. I am not suggesting we should give up all traditional methods. I am suggesting that we should not repeat of these activities unchanged without supplementing them by unconventional methods. I'm not saying that all approaches will fail. I'm only saying that certain realities have to be considered. Experimental realities can be defined with confidence. The realities of human behavior and history -- and what will happen in the future -- are not clear. No one can say with any certainty that my plans will work, or that they will surely fail because they are unconventional. Otherwise, an effort will be a waste of time. We have wasted 20 years. We have made essentially no progress trying to convince the establishment. If alternative approaches fail and I waste a few more years, I will not mind. I was interested in exactly how YOU think the field should be promoted. I'm not interested in generalities or patronizing ideas like study history. It is not patronizing at all! It is a big mistake for you to think it is. You have missed my point. Furthermore, you know me too well to imagine that I patronize or make flippant or empty statements. I am a serious guy, engaged in a serious effort, and by golly I have paid my dues to prove that! I am suggesting that you should look carefully at how other people have overcome similar opposition, and borrow their tactics. That may seem like an obvious thing to do but people often fail to do it. People ignore history and repeat disastrous mistakes. They do this in business, politics, science, war, investing and other areas. Look at the Iraq war and the Wall Street bubble. There are examples everywhere you turn. Cold fusion researchers have failed to learn from history. Not with regard to the science itself but with regard to overcoming academic political opposition. To give an example that I have pointed out countless times, the Wright brothers failed disastrously for five years until they began paying attention to Hart Berg, who was a marketing expert. His business was selling big ticket high technology, such as battleships. If they had not heeded his advice they would not have been given credit for developing the airplane. They would have been forgotten. Cold fusion researchers are making mistakes so similar to the ones the Wrights made, it is uncanny. Not just tactical errors: the letters, assertions, attitudes and style of the brothers and of many researchers are so similar you might confuse the two. I guess it shows that smart people make similar misjudgments. If you have ideas, I suggest you implement them and stop complaining about what the rest of us are doing. I cannot implement them without the
Re: [Vo]:promoting CF
Edmund Storms wrote: I asked a simple question. Exactly how would you promote the field? I do not have a simple answer. I have a whole series of ideas that I have proposed at various times to different researchers. They include things such as enhanced Internet presentations, outreach programs to encourage more participation in the field, and the kind of cooperative experiments that Steve Krivit put together in the Galileo project. Researchers have gone along with these ideas of mine, often cheerfully. Some cooperated even though they did see the benefit. Many contributed papers to LENR-CANR.org even though they did not think it would be an effective way to reach the scientific community. However, they have ignored many of these ideas. Perhaps the ideas have no merit but I get the impression that the researchers do not understand what I am trying to accomplish or why I am trying to do it. I'm not interested in general ideas such as do what Obama did. You should be interested in what Obama did. Anyone who wishes to harness public opinion for any purpose should study Obama's methods. He ran the most effective political campaign in modern history. He made the best use of the Internet and community organizing techniques. Whether he will be an effective president or not remains to be seen, but he is a master at promoting ideas and rallying support for a cause. Anyone who wishes to promote a cause, whether it be political, scientific, Wall Street reform, or anything else, should study Obama's campaign carefully. No doubt many books will soon be published about this campaign, but as it happens I know about it already because I participated and I know several other people who did. I'm interested in exploring a real, rational, and well focused plan. I do not have such a plan, because researchers have expressed no interest in it. Everything I do is rational and well focused. I am a programmer. You say you need the cooperation of researchers. You have all the information known to the field. No one has all of the information. That is the problem. Many people even now do not realize that different sources of palladium produce radically different results. The most comprehensive description of the field is your book, but I know a great many details about individual experiments that are not described in this book. This book is nowhere near as detailed as ATT's Transistor Technology. (I have not seen the whole book but I have seen sections of it.) We need specific, detailed information such as that presented recently by Castagna et al., Metallurgical characterization of Pd electrodes employed in calorimetric experiments under electrochemical deuterium loading: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CastagnaEmetallurgi.pdf Only instead of 7 pages it has to be 70, or 700, with as much detail as they can muster about every aspect of the metallurgy. This is only a summary of what they know. We need detailed, step by step methods from the NRL describing how they make their palladium-boron cathodes. It would be nice if the ENEA and the NRL would agree to hand out samples of these cathodes to 10 or 20 qualified researchers new to the field. Detailed information has not even been published for various reasons such as because the researchers have not got around to it, or they are waiting to publish a paper in a major journal, or they do not wish to share the information. You would also have the cooperation of many researchers if the plan looks good. I do not think so. So far they have expressed no interest in preliminary plans and trial balloons of this nature. You need to realize that many of the researches do have valid points even if they differ with how you interpret the situation. I realize that. As I said, there are intellectual property limitations. There are bureaucratic rules about who ENEA can cooperate with. However I think that people who are lukewarm to political efforts fail to realize how dire the situation is, or how likely it is that they and their work will be forgotten. I am not talking about science here, but politics, and some of these researchers fail to grasp the political aspects of this situation. Also -- let's face it -- some researchers are comfortably ensconced in academic jobs and have no motivation to help others compete with them. That's what some of them have told me. We are not all ignorant of the situation and the need for better promotion. No one is completely ignorant of that. Many of these people are far more experienced in academic politics and I am, needless to say. But I do not think that many people in this field know as much about promotion and public opinion as I do. It happens that I do know about these subjects because I have examined a wide variety of case studies, such as: Obama's campaign techniques; Cringley's books about the rise of personal computer business; How Amazon.com captured a
Re: [Vo]:promoting CF
Jed Rothwell wrote: Everything I do is rational and well focused. I am a programmer. Bzzzt! So am I. And so are lots of folks I know. Believe me, one does *not* follow from the other! Rational and well focused ... well, I've known one or two programmers like that, I guess... a couple of data points, but I don't think it was enough to form a trend. :-)
Re: [Vo]:I told you it was cold
More importantly, winters are getting colder, from more open water and less ice, causing more reflection back, and summers hotter, melting the ice, repeating the cycle. look at summer data, and winter data. hotter in summer, colder in winter, than previous. This is why its called global climate change. its not JUST warming... On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: thomas malloy wrote: You do realize, I hope, that this has no bearing whatever on the validity of global warming observations. You do realize, I hope, that this has been an ongoing pattern this year. An ongoing pattern where? In your state? In North America? This is not the worldwide trend. Temperatures in Japan and Europe, for example, remain at record highs this year. Also, trends that last only one year do not count. You have to look for broader, longer trends. There have been several cold years in the last few decades, but there have been many more hot years and the average is higher than previous norms. Finally, I believe global warming is thought to produce temperature extremes including colder than normal temperatures in winter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:I told you it was cold
leaking pen wrote: More importantly, winters are getting colder, from more open water and less ice, causing more reflection back, More reflection? Doesn't sound right. Do you mean, rather, more radiation? As in, lower albedo means radiative cooling proceeds faster, not just radiative warming. and summers hotter, melting the ice, repeating the cycle. look at summer data, and winter data. hotter in summer, colder in winter, than previous. This is why its called global climate change. its not JUST warming... On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: thomas malloy wrote: You do realize, I hope, that this has no bearing whatever on the validity of global warming observations. You do realize, I hope, that this has been an ongoing pattern this year. An ongoing pattern where? In your state? In North America? This is not the worldwide trend. Temperatures in Japan and Europe, for example, remain at record highs this year. Also, trends that last only one year do not count. You have to look for broader, longer trends. There have been several cold years in the last few decades, but there have been many more hot years and the average is higher than previous norms. Finally, I believe global warming is thought to produce temperature extremes including colder than normal temperatures in winter. - Jed
[Vo]:Poor Petit put upon
The aficionados continue to pile onto Charles Petit. I begin to feel sorry for the man. I added a comment just now to belay the suspicion that he did not study the field before publishing his article. I wouldn't want people to get the wrong impression. See: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/41220 - Jed
Re: [Vo]:promoting CF
On Mar 13, 2009, at 11:37 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Does Johnson-Matthey Type A palladium still work? Fleischmann and I do not know. The manufacturing method was changed sometime after 1989 to reduce toxicity during manufacturing. The newer formulation probably works. Note that Type A is Fleischmann's designation for the palladium alloy made by Johnson Matthey for use in hydrogen filters. It was developed in the 1930s. When Fleischmann Pons began experimental work on cold fusion, Fleischmann called Johnson Matthey, explain what he wanted to do and ask them to recommend what type of palladium to use. They recommended this type, for obvious reasons. You can see the performance of this type of palladium compared to other types in Table 10, p. 44 of this document: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf What Fleischmann calls Type A is referred to here as M (F/P) Pd, and I think P/F) Pd. Researchers at BARC used an actual hydrogen filter machine with the palladium in place to successfully replicate cold fusion in 1989. A problem exists with respect to Type A Pd, which is claimed to be used for gas purification. However, only the Pd075Ag25 alloy is used for this purpose because this alloy, unlike pure Pd, does not crack upon reacting with H2. Nevertheless, Fleischmann claimed the Type A is pure Pd. The Pd in the hydrogen generator used by BARC was the Pd-Ag alloy. Fleischman also used cathodes identified as being the Pd-Ag alloy and claimed good success. The confusion lies in what Type A Pd is really made of. Ed
[Vo]:Notes on Type A palladium
Edmund Storms wrote: A problem exists with respect to Type A Pd, which is claimed to be used for gas purification. However, only the Pd075Ag25 alloy is used for this purpose because this alloy, unlike pure Pd, does not crack upon reacting with H2. Nevertheless, Fleischmann claimed the Type A is pure Pd. I do not recall him saying it was pure palladium. He mentioned pure palladium in another context, quoted below. As far as I remember he told me Type A is a palladium-silver alloy. Perhaps I am mistaken. Anyway, here are some notes I made on this subject in 2000: For many years Martin Fleischman has been recommending a particular type of palladium made by Johnson Matthey for cold fusion experiments. . . . He handed out several of these ideal cathodes to experienced researchers, and as far as he knows in every case the samples produced excess heat. The material was designated Type A palladium by Fleischmann and Pons. It was developed decades ago for use in hydrogen diffusion tubes: filters that allow hydrogen to pass while holding back other gasses. This alloy was designed to have great structural integrity under high loading. It lasts for years, withstanding cracking and deformation that would quickly destroy other alloys and allow other gasses to seep through the filters. This robustness happens to be the quality we need for cold fusion. The main reason cold fusion is difficult to reproduce is because when bulk palladium loads with deuterium, it cracks, bends, distorts and it will not load above a certain level . . . Fleischmann wrote: . . . We note that whereas blank experiments are always entirely normal (e.g. See Figs 1-5) it is frequently impossible to find any measurement cycle for the Pd-D2O system which shows such normal behaviour. Of course, in the absence of adequate blank experiments such abnormalities have been attributed to malfunctions of the calorimetry, e.g. see (10). [Ikegami et al.] However, the correct functioning of blank experiments shows that the abnormalities must be due to fluctuating sources of excess enthalpy. The statements made in this paragraph are naturally subject to the restriction that a satisfactory electrode material be used i.e. a material intrinsically capable of producing excess enthalpy generation and which maintains its structural integrity throughout the experiment. Most of our own investigations have been carried out with a material which we have described as Johnson Matthey Material Type A. This material is prepared by melting under a blanket gas of cracked ammonia (or else its synthetic equivalent) the concentrations of five key classes of impurities being controlled. Electrodes are then produced by a succession of steps of square rolling, round rolling and, finally, drawing with appropriate annealing steps in the production cycle. [M. Fleischmann, Proc. ICCF-7, p. 121] Fleischman recently gave me some additional information. The ammonia atmosphere leaves hydrogen in the palladium which controls recrystallization. Unfortunately, this material is very difficult to acquire and there is practically none left in the world, because Johnson Matthey stopped making it several years ago. Palladium for diffusion tubes is now made using a different process in which the palladium is melted under argon. Material made with the newer technique might also work satisfactorily in cold fusion experiments, but Fleischman never had an opportunity to test it so he does not know. There should be plenty of the new material available, so perhaps someone should buy a sample and try it. Johnson Matthey has offered to make more of the older style Type A for use in cold fusion experiments. They will charge ~$20,000 per ingot, which is a reasonable price. [As I noted here earlier, the price later went up because the price of palladium rose. I think it was $50,000.] Fortunately, the precise methodology for making the older material is well-documented and an expert who helped fabricate previous batches has offered to supervise production. So, if anyone out there has deep pockets and once a batch of the ideal material to perform bulk palladium cold fusion experiments, we can arrange it. I do not know any cold fusion research scientists or institutions who can afford $20,000 worth of material, but perhaps several people could get together and pool their resources. . . . When Ed Storms read this description, he immediately thought of a number of important questions about fabrication techniques: What is the crucible made of in which it is melted? Pick-up of crucible material can not be avoided. How is oxygen removed? Is calcium boride used, which is the usual method? What is the boron content? Unfortunately, such details are trade secrets which Johnson Matthey will not reveal. Fleischman does not know the answers. Anyone who has a sample can quickly find out what elements are present in the alloy, in what
Re: [Vo]:I told you it was cold
Thomas sez: According to a news report I just heard, Minnesota had a record low for March 12 this morning in Embarass. Not to change the subject... well, actually I am going to change the subject... Back around Feb. 24, within the subject thread [OT - The Rapture] you once ranted: If a fundamentalist Christian pastor had beheaded his wife, the media would have have gone into a full feeding frenzy about it. However when the Islamist activist beheaded his wife in their T V studio, it didn't rate a mention, except for talk radio. This is a blatantly inaccurate statement. Have you not been listening to the news? The latest from CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/13/new.york.beheading/index.html This is obviously a sad, sad story where everyone looses. But it's not being swept under the rug, only to be discussed in in the wee hours of the morning on talk radio. You give me the impression that you are not only very selective but also extremely creative in both your perceptions and your personal interpretations of what you perceive. But, alas, we can all be found guilty of that charge on occasion. ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:I told you it was cold
OrionWorks wrote: This is obviously a sad, sad story where everyone looses. loses He looses his fateful sword, and she loses her head. (Sorry to make a joke a dreadful situation but it is a good mnemonic device which we sure need with English spelling.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Type A palladium
Thanks for this detail Jed, but no where do I see mentioned that this material is a Pd-Ag alloy. The emphasis is on the production method, a method that is normally applied to pure Pd. Consequently, the confusion remains. Ed On Mar 13, 2009, at 3:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: A problem exists with respect to Type A Pd, which is claimed to be used for gas purification. However, only the Pd075Ag25 alloy is used for this purpose because this alloy, unlike pure Pd, does not crack upon reacting with H2. Nevertheless, Fleischmann claimed the Type A is pure Pd. I do not recall him saying it was pure palladium. He mentioned pure palladium in another context, quoted below. As far as I remember he told me Type A is a palladium-silver alloy. Perhaps I am mistaken. Anyway, here are some notes I made on this subject in 2000: For many years Martin Fleischman has been recommending a particular type of palladium made by Johnson Matthey for cold fusion experiments. . . . He handed out several of these ideal cathodes to experienced researchers, and as far as he knows in every case the samples produced excess heat. The material was designated Type A palladium by Fleischmann and Pons. It was developed decades ago for use in hydrogen diffusion tubes: filters that allow hydrogen to pass while holding back other gasses. This alloy was designed to have great structural integrity under high loading. It lasts for years, withstanding cracking and deformation that would quickly destroy other alloys and allow other gasses to seep through the filters. This robustness happens to be the quality we need for cold fusion. The main reason cold fusion is difficult to reproduce is because when bulk palladium loads with deuterium, it cracks, bends, distorts and it will not load above a certain level . . . Fleischmann wrote: . . . We note that whereas blank experiments are always entirely normal (e.g. See Figs 1-5) it is frequently impossible to find any measurement cycle for the Pd-D2O system which shows such normal behaviour. Of course, in the absence of adequate blank experiments such abnormalities have been attributed to malfunctions of the calorimetry, e.g. see (10). [Ikegami et al.] However, the correct functioning of blank experiments shows that the abnormalities must be due to fluctuating sources of excess enthalpy. The statements made in this paragraph are naturally subject to the restriction that a satisfactory electrode material be used i.e. a material intrinsically capable of producing excess enthalpy generation and which maintains its structural integrity throughout the experiment. Most of our own investigations have been carried out with a material which we have described as Johnson Matthey Material Type A. This material is prepared by melting under a blanket gas of cracked ammonia (or else its synthetic equivalent) the concentrations of five key classes of impurities being controlled. Electrodes are then produced by a succession of steps of square rolling, round rolling and, finally, drawing with appropriate annealing steps in the production cycle. [M. Fleischmann, Proc. ICCF-7, p. 121] Fleischman recently gave me some additional information. The ammonia atmosphere leaves hydrogen in the palladium which controls recrystallization. Unfortunately, this material is very difficult to acquire and there is practically none left in the world, because Johnson Matthey stopped making it several years ago. Palladium for diffusion tubes is now made using a different process in which the palladium is melted under argon. Material made with the newer technique might also work satisfactorily in cold fusion experiments, but Fleischman never had an opportunity to test it so he does not know. There should be plenty of the new material available, so perhaps someone should buy a sample and try it. Johnson Matthey has offered to make more of the older style Type A for use in cold fusion experiments. They will charge ~$20,000 per ingot, which is a reasonable price. [As I noted here earlier, the price later went up because the price of palladium rose. I think it was $50,000.] Fortunately, the precise methodology for making the older material is well-documented and an expert who helped fabricate previous batches has offered to supervise production. So, if anyone out there has deep pockets and once a batch of the ideal material to perform bulk palladium cold fusion experiments, we can arrange it. I do not know any cold fusion research scientists or institutions who can afford $20,000 worth of material, but perhaps several people could get together and pool their resources. . . . When Ed Storms read this description, he immediately thought of a number of important questions about fabrication techniques: What is the crucible made of in which it is melted? Pick-up of crucible material
Re: [Vo]:I told you it was cold
Jed sez: OrionWorks wrote: This is obviously a sad, sad story where everyone looses. loses He looses his fateful sword, and she loses her head. (Sorry to make a joke a dreadful situation but it is a good mnemonic device which we sure need with English spelling.) - Jed Once again, caught red-handed falling on the swerd of my spiel checker. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:I told you it was cold
I have a spelling chequer. It came with my PC. It plane lee marks four my revue Miss steaks aye can knot sea. Eye ran this poem threw it, Your sure reel glad two no. Its vary polished inn it's weigh. My checker tolled me sew. A checker is a bless sing, It freeze yew lodes of thyme. It helps me right awl stiles two reed, And aides me when aye rime. Each frays come posed up on my screen Eye trussed too bee a joule. The checker pours o'er every word To cheque sum spelling rule. Bee fore a veiling checkers Hour spelling mite decline, And if we're lacks oar have a laps, We wood bee maid too wine. Butt now bee cause my spelling Is checked with such grate flare, Their are know faults with in my cite, Of nun eye am a wear. Now spelling does knot phase me, It does knot bring a tier. My pay purrs awl due glad den With wrapped words fare as hear. To rite with care is quite a feet Of witch won should bee proud, And wee mussed dew the best wee can, Sew flaws are knot aloud. Sow ewe can sea why aye dew prays Such soft wear four pea seas, And why eye brake in two averse Buy righting want too pleas On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 3:14 PM, OrionWorks svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Jed sez: OrionWorks wrote: This is obviously a sad, sad story where everyone looses. loses He looses his fateful sword, and she loses her head. (Sorry to make a joke a dreadful situation but it is a good mnemonic device which we sure need with English spelling.) - Jed Once again, caught red-handed falling on the swerd of my spiel checker. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:I told you it was cold
thomas malloy wrote: Finally, I believe global warming is thought to produce temperature extremes including colder than normal temperatures in winter. That's why they call it Climate Change, it covers them either way. It only covers them if the climate is, in fact, changing. It has to change in either direction, or in both directions in different seasons. If the average for winter is no colder than it was 50 or 100 years ago, and summer is no warmer, that means they are wrong. The test they face is just as rigorous and easy to verify as it would be if the change is only in one direction, so they are not covered in any sense. According to Christopher Horner, the AGW advocates have doctored the data to support the warning hypothesis, you OTOH, contend that the warming effect is real . . . Naturally I am assuming that they did not doctor the data. If they did, then the effect is not real. However, as I said before, I think it is extremely unlikely that they doctored the data and yet none of the conspirators has revealed that fact. Tens of thousands of people would have to be in on the conspiracy and I think it is impossible for so many people to keep a secret. From what I know of human nature I suppose the likelihood of this is zero to 8 or 10 decimal places. I am surprised that you or anyone else takes this hypothesis seriously. If there were only a few dozen people involved in the conspiracy, then it would be plausible that the data has been diddled with. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:I told you it was cold
Jed Rothwell wrote: thomas malloy wrote: Finally, I believe global warming is thought to produce temperature extremes including colder than normal temperatures in winter. That's why they call it Climate Change, it covers them either way. It only covers them if the climate is, in fact, changing. It has to change in either direction, or in both directions in different seasons. If the average for winter is no colder than it was 50 or 100 years ago, and summer is no warmer, that means they are wrong. The test they face is just as rigorous and easy to verify as it would be if the change is only in one direction, so they are not covered in any sense. That was brilliant Jed. I laughed more at it, than I did at Steven's silly poem. According to Christopher Horner, the AGW advocates have doctored the data to support the warning hypothesis, you OTOH, contend that the warming effect is real . . . Naturally I am assuming that they did not doctor the data. If they did, then the effect is not real. How open minded of you Jed. I may just have to procure a copy of Horner's book just to ascertain the veracity of his claims. However, as I said before, I think it is extremely unlikely that they doctored the data and yet none of the conspirators has revealed that fact. But it has been revealed, Horner's book is but one,of several which make the aforementioned claim. Tens of thousands of people would have to be in on the conspiracy and I think it is impossible for so many people to keep a secret. If the Horner, et al, are correct, there are a few well placed people beating the drum, and a lot of other people cowered into silence. From what I know of human nature I suppose the likelihood of this is zero to 8 or 10 decimal places. I am surprised that you or anyone else takes this hypothesis seriously. IMHO, the truth is right in front of you. If there were only a few dozen people involved in the conspiracy, then it would be plausible that the data has been diddled with. Unless we're right of course, and it's a conspiracy of tens of thousands, done in plain sight. See my next post --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
[Vo]:come April 8!
It will come as no surprise to people who have experienced winter here in the great frozen north, that the Mississippi River is frozen over at the Port of St. Paul. It has just been announced that the shipping season will begin later than normal. The latest that shipping has ever begun is April 7. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:I told you it was cold
Thomas sez: ... But it has been revealed, ... Granted, I'm probably taking the phrase out of context. Priceless, nevertheless. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:I told you it was cold
Umm, my name isnt steven On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 5:30 PM, thomas malloy temall...@usfamily.net wrote: Jed Rothwell wrote: thomas malloy wrote: Finally, I believe global warming is thought to produce temperature extremes including colder than normal temperatures in winter. That's why they call it Climate Change, it covers them either way. It only covers them if the climate is, in fact, changing. It has to change in either direction, or in both directions in different seasons. If the average for winter is no colder than it was 50 or 100 years ago, and summer is no warmer, that means they are wrong. The test they face is just as rigorous and easy to verify as it would be if the change is only in one direction, so they are not covered in any sense. That was brilliant Jed. I laughed more at it, than I did at Steven's silly poem. According to Christopher Horner, the AGW advocates have doctored the data to support the warning hypothesis, you OTOH, contend that the warming effect is real . . . Naturally I am assuming that they did not doctor the data. If they did, then the effect is not real. How open minded of you Jed. I may just have to procure a copy of Horner's book just to ascertain the veracity of his claims. However, as I said before, I think it is extremely unlikely that they doctored the data and yet none of the conspirators has revealed that fact. But it has been revealed, Horner's book is but one,of several which make the aforementioned claim. Tens of thousands of people would have to be in on the conspiracy and I think it is impossible for so many people to keep a secret. If the Horner, et al, are correct, there are a few well placed people beating the drum, and a lot of other people cowered into silence. From what I know of human nature I suppose the likelihood of this is zero to 8 or 10 decimal places. I am surprised that you or anyone else takes this hypothesis seriously. IMHO, the truth is right in front of you. If there were only a few dozen people involved in the conspiracy, then it would be plausible that the data has been diddled with. Unless we're right of course, and it's a conspiracy of tens of thousands, done in plain sight. See my next post --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:promoting CF
Gentlemen, I have no solution to offer. I cannot fault Jed, who has invested a couple decades of his time and treasure in promoting CF with every means at his disposal, including constructively nagging every investigator in the field. Nor can I fault Ed for his open-minded scholarship an exemplary research. You neglected Steve Krivit, who organized the The Galileo Project to get several labs to do the SPARWARS experiments. The upcoming ACS meeting in Salt Lake City will have many LENR speakers, and if Steve Krivit is successful, there will be media coverage. There should be a 60 Minutes story from ICCF-14; a TV crew was there covering the first day. There has been goverment support from the Navy and DARPA. After twenty years, the PF Effect is real, but it is still an Effect and not very effective, pardon the pun. Until it can be controllably scaled up serious investment will not flow. Mills has repeatedly demonstrated a reaction yielding 50 kW and 1 megajoule from a few grams of reactant, confirmed by Rowan University, and is moving toward commercialization. Significant problems remain but there is momentum and private funding. LENR needs substantial funding to get beyond the Effect stage. Mike Carrell.
Re: [Vo]:I told you it was cold
leaking pen wrote: Umm, my name isnt steven Ahh, there are so many stevens, stephens, steves, and whatnot in this group that nobody can keep them straight anymore, and I'm not surprised that thomas gets confused and thinks everything's coming from some steph/ven or other I even sometimes find myself paging back to the top of a post from some Stephen or other to check the from: field and find out whether or not I'm the one who wrote it. BTW I appreciated the collection of homonymal errors; tx. And the info on organic pesticides, ditto (tho for different reasons -- it wasn't exactly amusing). I've gotta do a little more research on that one; we eat a lot of green organic stuff here, so if some of the green on the leaves is from, say, Paris, we really want to know.
[Vo]:CBC Radio show:Science and Common Sense
When Copernicus showed that the earth revolves around the sun, Galileo said that he had made "reason conquer sense." But without confidence in our senses, Sajay Samuel says, we have no basis on which to question science. He argues for a revival of common sense. http://www.mediafly.com/Podcasts/Episodes/Sajay_Samuel
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Type A palladium
ARRGH! How can everything in this field be so *vague* !? If I read the messages from Jed and Dr. Storms correctly, it's not known at this time whether PF used pure palladium, or used a Pd/Ag alloy. That doesn't seem like a trivial difference! It's as though Dr. Jekyll not only couldn't get a working batch of the reagent that would change him back from being Hyde, but he'd forgotten what the compound was that he ordered the one time he got a batch that did work. It does seem like Jed's right -- the level of public documentation here is lacking. It *ought* to be possible to just pull paper number 12321-PF from the Lenr-Canr archives and see for sure what was used. But, apparently it's not that easy. Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: Thanks for this detail Jed, but no where do I see mentioned that this material is a Pd-Ag alloy. That is my recollection of what he told me. This document says Fleischmann reported success with pure palladium, as well as silver and cerium alloys. As I recall he said Type A is the silver alloy used in filters. We could ask J-M if they ever used pure Pd in filters. I doubt they did. My guess is that the modern reformulated filter palladium would work just as well as the old stuff. My guess is that the reason it works is prosaic: it loads to high levels easily and it does not crack. Those are well known necessary characteristics to achieve cold fusion. Why they are necessary I do not know, but they are. I see that I managed to misspell his name in this document. Good grief! - Jed
[Vo]:Energetics Technology website
See: http://superwavefusion.com/
Re: [Vo]: Boswell windless turbine...
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:52:31 -0400: Hi, [snip] None the less the voltage they were insulating against is the thing we're interested in here. I also recall seeing claims that it was the earth gradient at fault but I didn't think that was considered conclusive -- and, in fact, I thought the expected value of the earth gradient was swamped by computed values for the dynamo effect. But I could be all wet. Maybe they shorted the lower Van Allen belt to the upper atmosphere? (I have no idea how long the tether was). [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Notes on Type A palladium
On Mar 13, 2009, at 8:36 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: ARRGH! How can everything in this field be so *vague* !? If I read the messages from Jed and Dr. Storms correctly, it's not known at this time whether PF used pure palladium, or used a Pd/Ag alloy. That doesn't seem like a trivial difference! The fact is that F-P used both pure Pd and the Pd-Ag alloy. However,they did not say and frequently did not know how the Pd they used was made. They made a deal with Johnson and Matthey to supply the Pd for free and J-M decided what to send for testing. Apparently, J-M knows what kind of Pd works best, but attempts to get this information made public have failed. Later workers used Pd from various sources and found that some batches worked better than others, but did not have the resources to test all of the properties that might be relevant. Later still, the role of cracking and the role of surface deposits became known. Until recently, no one had the resources to make tests that could identify the critical parameters. Therefore, the information simply is not known. We know now that the Pd needs have a characteristic that allows a high D/Pd ratio. This is not easy to accomplish although Italian workers have now mastered the trick. The Pd-Ag alloy cannot achieve such a high ratio and, therefore, should not work. To further complicate the problem, Pd electroplated on various substrates is also found to work sometimes for no apparat reason. The problem is not public documentation but simple ignorance about what characteristics are required. People are not hiding this information, they just do not know what is required. Ed It's as though Dr. Jekyll not only couldn't get a working batch of the reagent that would change him back from being Hyde, but he'd forgotten what the compound was that he ordered the one time he got a batch that did work. It does seem like Jed's right -- the level of public documentation here is lacking. It *ought* to be possible to just pull paper number 12321-PF from the Lenr-Canr archives and see for sure what was used. But, apparently it's not that easy. Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: Thanks for this detail Jed, but no where do I see mentioned that this material is a Pd-Ag alloy. That is my recollection of what he told me. This document says Fleischmann reported success with pure palladium, as well as silver and cerium alloys. As I recall he said Type A is the silver alloy used in filters. We could ask J-M if they ever used pure Pd in filters. I doubt they did. My guess is that the modern reformulated filter palladium would work just as well as the old stuff. My guess is that the reason it works is prosaic: it loads to high levels easily and it does not crack. Those are well known necessary characteristics to achieve cold fusion. Why they are necessary I do not know, but they are. I see that I managed to misspell his name in this document. Good grief! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:I told you it was cold
Absolutely. I find it best to shop local produce, and theres a big difference between green farms and organic ones sometimes. There are a lot of alternative labeling systems in place, hopefully a few with a methodology that makes more sense than the organic label become more mainstream. On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: leaking pen wrote: Umm, my name isnt steven Ahh, there are so many stevens, stephens, steves, and whatnot in this group that nobody can keep them straight anymore, and I'm not surprised that thomas gets confused and thinks everything's coming from some steph/ven or other I even sometimes find myself paging back to the top of a post from some Stephen or other to check the from: field and find out whether or not I'm the one who wrote it. BTW I appreciated the collection of homonymal errors; tx. And the info on organic pesticides, ditto (tho for different reasons -- it wasn't exactly amusing). I've gotta do a little more research on that one; we eat a lot of green organic stuff here, so if some of the green on the leaves is from, say, Paris, we really want to know.
