Re: CF and Orientation .

[Harry Veeder]

on 12/2/04 5:36 PM, Horace Heffner at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> At 4:02 PM 12/2/4, Harry Veeder wrote:
> 
>> I misunderstood the focus of your 'gravi-chem' research.
>> I thought your focus was D+D fusion.
>> Is it fair to say the primary focus of your research is the critique of the
>> conservation laws by physical means?
> 
> Actually, if you look at the vortex archives at
> 
> 
> 
> around June or July 2003, you will see that the gravi-chem stuff was merely
> comments I posted here on vortex as a result of what I considered some bad
> math written by folks who apparently had no concept of bouyancy.  It did
> seem to take a life of its own though because it is so general in nature
> and so unexplored.  The immediate energy application is probably in the
> mundane field of hydrogen generation I would guess.  If there is indeed
> free energy to be had from the theory (I doubt it) then it is likely to be
> had in chemical form.  The only clear relation of gravi-chem to CF is the
> fact that electrolysis is one mode of CF and a more efficient electrolysis
> merely results in a better COP (coefficient of power) for a CF device.
> 
> However, extremely high g forces change the location of the nucleus to a
> point away from the center of charge of the electron cloud.  The electron
> cloud can thus be compressed, and electron shielding can potentially be
> increased.  The distance between deuterons in D2, D2O, and D3O+ molecules
> can be decreased under extreme pressure, thereby increasing the potential
> for fusion.  As evidenced by neutron stars, *some* degree of gravitational
> force or compressive force will ultimately cause nuclear reactions.  The
> problem is how best to make use of such a force in a practically achievable
> domain.
> 
> My main focus, if I have such, being a rank amateur and irreverant member
> of the free energy lunatic finge, is collaboration in search of a solution
> to the energy problem.  There is also the joy of seeing various anomalies
> and puzzles posted here on occasion.  When you subscribe to vortex you
> never know for sure when you wake up exactly what you might possess your
> thinking by evening. 8^)

After reading some more, it seems to me a more accurate name for this field
is non-inertial-chemistry. Gravi-chemistry is misleading unless you are
endorsing the general theory of relativity which assumes that an
accelerating or non-inertial frame of reference and a gravitational field
are indistinguishable.

Harry

Harry 

Sweed want to promote cold fusion in Sweeden

[FZNIDARSIC]

 
--- Begin Message ---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/2/2004 4:08:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Can you support me in suggesting a similar process in Sweden? I am
member in a political party and I have thought about suggesting cold
fusion. Could you give me an idea on how? Actually I sent an email to
the Swedish government in 1994 regarding this and I got a polite answer
back that they could not participate.

I don't know how to do this.  I could send your request on to the 
vortex list.
Perhaps someone there has an idea.

Yes, do. I am off that list since 2002 when they erased my email 
account. And the traffic is too high on that list.

Sweden and USA has different attitudes towards nuclear proliferation. 
Actually what we need is a change in the law since it prohibits us from 
doing applied research and development on nuclear technology. Good 
argument. I will probably write the suggestion in English so we might 
get an EU suggestion instead.

Is vortex-l publicly archived?
Do you have any famous people on vortex-l nowadays?
David
--- End Message ---

Re: Astounding statement in upcoming paper by Cirillo and Iorio

[Horace Heffner]

At 1:24 PM 12/3/4, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
>
>The thing that bothers me most about this is that if hydrinos are
>producing nuclear reactions, then I would expect to see at least the
>occasional gamma ray.
>(Though there may be possible particle reactions that are far more
>probable than gamma ray production).

Maybe we can expect no gammas, at least when it comes to D + D reactions.
Consider the ordinary branching ratios:

D + D -> T (1.01 MeV) + p (3.02 MeV) (50%)
  -> He3 (0.82 MeV) + n (2.45 MeV) (50%)  <- most abundant fuel
  -> He4 + about 20 MeV of gamma rays (about 0.0001%; depends
   somewhat on temperature.)


One argument against the possiblity of CF is "We know what the branching
ratios of He* is, so CF can't be real because" there is no signature
radiation.  This argument is bous.  In electron catalysed fusion, or
hydrino fusion, there is an electron present in the reaction which does not
necessarily gain any momentum from the fusion which it catalyses.  The CF
reaction is thus:

   D + D + e -> ? + e


That catalysing electron does not "fall into the Coulomb well" and thus the
resulting excited fused nucleus is not the conventional He* at all.  There
is much less excitement!  How much less depends on four things:  (1) the
size of the electron wavefunction at the moment of fusion, (2) the amount
of energy supplied to the catalytic electron from the ZPE sea to expand its
wavefuntion out of the nucleus, (3) the amount of energy the electron
radiates while captured by the nucleus and (4) whether or not an electron
capture occurs.

I feel it might be argued that at the moment of fusion the wavefunction of
the electron, or the entire fused body for that matter, exists at a point.
The energy of the combined wavefunctions is momentarily returned to the
vacuum.  The quantum wavefuntions of the participating bodies collapse into
a single point.  The ensuing wavefunction inflation depends upon energy
exchanged with the vacuum.  There is no convenient formulation to determine
exactly what signature energy will be available!  The potential energy U of
an electron and nucleus pair depends upon the separation of that pair.  If
that separation is momentarily zero, then, by definition, a singularity
exists.  It is entirely possible the electron could require the entire 20
MeV to escape.  It is further even likely that the branching ratios for D +
D + e differ entirely from those for D + D.  It makes sense that the most
likely branch might look like:

   D + D + e + energy -> He + e - 13.59844 eV

In other words, as I posted in "THE ATOMIC EXPANSION HYPOTHESIS" thread
here some years ago, the catalysing electron may only be able to dig itself
out of the hole by borrowing (back) from the vacuum enough energy to reach
equilibrium, i.e. to become a ground state orbital electron.  To that
extent, this concept is  compatible with Puthoff's theory that orbital
stability, i.e. the failure of the orbit to collapse, depends on the
orbital electron reaching equilibriumn with the zero point field.  If the
electron radiates during its catalysis, or the expanding orbital radiates
during its expansion, or dislocates neighboring orbitals that radiate or
produce phonons, then that accounts for the modicum of free energy
observed.  Increasing the free energy then amounts to additional
confinement of the expanding orbitals.

Regards,

Horace Heffner  

Re: Astounding statement in upcoming paper by Cirillo and Iorio

[Robin van Spaandonk]

In reply to  Mike Carrell's message of Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:01:06 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>"deeper level" I allow for such. The "Critic's Circle" on HSG have concluded
>that Mills' orbitsphere model itself is fatally flawed, and a private
>trusted source who has looked at it agrees. The trusted source indicates
>that the "sub-ground" state of the H atom, Mills' hydrino, is well supported
>in standard literature when correctly interpreted. Thus when Mills
>postulates a limit to hydrino shrinkage based on his model, this may in fact
>not exist. Thus the Cirillo paper should be looked at most carefully. The

The model on my web page allows for radii shrinking as the square of the 
quantum number. Mills' limit of the inverse fine structure constant for the 
maximum level of shrinkage is correct, in as much as by that time the "orbital" 
velocity of the electron would need to equal the speed of light.
According to my model, however that limit is never reached, because increasing 
kinetic energy is paid for by decreasing rest mass of the electron, and a point 
is reached where the decrease in rest mass would not be enough to supply the 
increase in kinetic energy required. This happens at about n=1/120.

At that level of n, the radius would be 1/120^2 x a0 = 3.675 F, which is 
approximately nuclear dimensions. IOW long before it reached it's practical 
shrinkage limit, the hydrino would be small enough to get close enough for 
nuclear reactions to occur in "very reasonable" times. In fact it should be 
possible at that size to fuse it with almost any element from the periodic 
table.

Considering that muon catalyzed fusion occurs at a distance of
a0/207 = 255.6 F in times possibly as short as 1E-23 seconds, fusion reactions 
with hydrinos should be possible in roughly the same time frame when 
n=sqrt(1/207) ~= 1/14. In short, don't expect to find many hydrino compounds 
where n << 1/14. :)

>cell produces excess heat -- which could come from BLP reactions. It
>operates at atmospheric pressure and very intensly. The calorimetry is not
>good enough to determine whether the energy release is in the BLP or nucelar
>range. If neutron-like entities are being produced by the BLP process, then
>the energy release will be very high.

The thing that bothers me most about this is that if hydrinos are producing 
nuclear reactions, then I would expect to see at least the occasional gamma ray.
(Though there may be possible particle reactions that are far more probable 
than gamma ray production).

>
>The cell may also be producing particle condensates as postulated by
>Takahashi. We may be looking at a very interesting rabbit hole.

Indeed.


Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

All SPAM goes in the trash unread.

Re: Let us make a list of the mistakes in the DoE report

[Robin van Spaandonk]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 02 Dec 2004 13:30:54 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>When they say: "Several reviewers specifically stated that more experiments 
>similar in nature to those that have been carried out for the past fifteen 
>years are unlikely to advance knowledge in this area." Translated into 
>plain English that means:
>
>Stop telling us what we do not want to know! No more excess heat!

Actually, they are probably correct in that regard. What is really needed is 
more variety in the experiments. I think Pd has pretty much been exhausted.
Had I been the one presenting the experiments, I would not have put so much 
emphasis on the Pd experiments, which generally speaking tend to yield just a 
few % excess.


Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

All SPAM goes in the trash unread.

Re: CF in everyday life

[Robin van Spaandonk]

In reply to  RC Macaulay's message of Thu, 02 Dec 2004 15:11:47 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
>nightime temp of 70 degrees F. The water temperature inside the olla will fall 
>to 70 degrees F as it "surrenders " heat to the clay wall of the olla. 
>Comparing the differential potential for giving up heat to atmospheric 
>conditions external to the olla is usually explained via evaporation due to 
>the breeze. There is NO breeze in the desert. The lowering of the olla water 
>temperature must be caused by what? 

It is caused by evaporation. Even without wind, the thin layer of air against 
the wall of the vessel will be saturated with water vapour, which makes it 
lighter than the surrounding air. That makes it rise up, and it gets replaced 
by heavier dryer air, which in turn absorbs more moisture from the vessel.
So this works, even in the complete absence of wind. However even on so called 
wind still days, there are usually occasional small air movements, which help 
out with the process.

>The indians dont worry about it.. they just enjoy the fact.
>
>Now consider a 12" X 12" X 1" Mexican Saltillo tile , red clay with small 
>amounts of volcanic and flint rock. After firing the tile, it is extremely 
>dry. Keep the tile dry but allow it to completely cool and sprinkle a small 
>amout of water on the tile and watch it " boil" as it is absorbed into the 
>porous tile. Why does the water momentarily boil?

This "boiling" is more likely to be air bubbling up through the water, as the 
water soaks into the porous tile, and replaces the internal air.
[snip]

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

All SPAM goes in the trash unread.

Re: comments on the Cirillo paper

[Horace Heffner]

Typo!

I wrote: "The standard method of doing boiloff calorimetry is to measure
the weight of water boiled off (that disappears) and then multply by the
energy required to boil that water (which explicitly *is* the method used
by Cirillo.)"

I that should have said: "The standard method of doing boiloff calorimetry
is to measure the weight of water boiled off (that disappears) and then
multply by the energy per gram required to boil that water (which
explicitly *is* the method used by Cirillo.)"

Regards,

Horace Heffner  

Re: comments on the Cirillo paper

[Horace Heffner]

At 12:06 PM 12/2/4, Jones Beene wrote:
>Horace, you seem to be saying that the condenser was
>air-cooled instead of water-cooled. Of course this would
>introduce major errors, and it still doesn't address  the
>issue of tritium.

Actually, there is no mention of a condenser in the Cirillio paper. The
standard method of doing boiloff calorimetry is to measure the weight of
water boiled off (that disappears) and then multply by the energy required
to boil that water (which explicitly *is* the method used by Cirillo.)  It
appears the plastic cylinder with pyrex lid located above the cell does the
condensing.  There is apparently no intent to use the condensation heat
(i.e. mass flow calorimetry on the secondary coil) as a secondary
calorimetric means.  Cirillo's method is definitely susceptable to
entrained water droplets.

I would assume P.J van Noorden (he can clue us in) used an ordinary
laboratory condenser.  Such condensers are typically made of glass and used
in either straight through mode or reflux mode.  In straight through mode
the steam comes in through one (elevated) end and water comes out the
other.  In reflux mode the condenser is usually vertical and steam is
admitted  in at the bottom and water comes out the bottom into an attached
flask.  Unless you are trying to do dual calorimetry, it doesn't matter how
the condenser is cooled, by gas, by water, or by ice.  The heat measurment
is via the mass of water lost in the reactor.

Boiloff calorimeters are typically calibrated using boil-off runs using
calibration resistors for heat and cool-off runs to determine the
calorimeter constant for ambient losses.  P.J van Noorden certianly makes
it clear that such calibration runs may be invalid becuase ultrasound or
other turbulence creates entraind droplets, and tthe calibration resistor
will not cause droplet entrainment like a source of ultrasound does.  One
solution to this problem is to include an ultrasound device in at least one
clibration run to test whatever water drop barrier is used.  It would not
be possible to calibrate the drop formation rate itself, so some kind of
drop barrier would have to be utilized.

These principles have ramifications *way* beyond the Cirillo paper.  They
are fundamental to all boiloff calorimetry.


>
>Only if it had been water cooled could all the heat be
>accounted for, and that is why I assumed it was water cooled
>and that the thallium was turning up in the second circuit.
>
>> This is a very important comment.  It means that boiloff
>calorimetry can be very suspect without proper controls.
>
>Yes, proper controls like a second circuit with dual
>calorimetry.


You need to account for more than just the enthalpy of condensation.


>
>> A radioactive tracer would be good in labs equipped to
>handle them.
>
>Not unless the possibility of tritium can be eliminated,


I have done plenty of tritium counting using liquid scintillation counting.
I think it is more difficult to count water borne tritium by other means.
Scintillation couters can reliably and automatically discriminate between
tritium and say carbon 14.  There is almost no penetrating power for 20 keV
beta particles, so counting 201 Tl without interference from tritium is
easy.

Technetium counting and even imaging is readily done using 180 degrees
opposed scintillation couters to track positron annihilation photon pairs.
I had this procedure done to image my heart.  I was signifcantly
radioactive for a day.  It was a bit scary to turn on my geiger counter and
hear it go wild near me.


>or
>unless your tracer has a far more energetic signature than
>tritium. Thallium is just too close IMHO.
>
>After all, your are doing cold fusion. Cold fusion often
>produces tritium. Isn't the cross-connection obvious? BTW
>even though tritium "normally" has a significant spread of
>energy, can we be sure that tritium produced via CF is not
>closer to being mono-energetic?


What do you mean significant spread?  The peak is fairly confined.

BTW, my handbook shows 201 Tl decaying by electron capture (1.36 MeV) with
Hg and K shell x-rays of 135.28 keV and 167.40 keV.  This stuff should
stand out like the sun on a clear day.


At 4:14 PM 12/2/4, P.J van Noorden wrote:
>Hello
>We used 201 Thallium in our nuclear medicine department
>to study the perfusion of the heart.The energy emission of radioactive
>thallium is about 80 eV.
>Now we have a technetium based radiopharmacon which gives a better image
>quality.( 140eV)


I don't see how 80 keV enters into the picture.

Regards,

Horace Heffner  

Re: Introduction

[Steven Krivit]

Welcome Haiko!
Steve

Re: A typical reviewer comment, about Iwamura

[Horace Heffner]

At 4:51 PM 12/2/4, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>Look at this, from:
>
>http://www.newenergytimes.com/DOE/2004-DOE-ReviewerComments.pdf
>
>Quote:
>
>"16 (a) The paper by Iwamura et al. presented at ICCF10 (Ref. 47 in DOE31)
>does an exhaustive job of using a variety of modern analytical chemistry
>methods to identify elements produced on the surface of coated Pd
>cold-fusion foils. There are two very unusual aspects of this work: (i) The
>energy source is gas pressure, permeation of D2 gas through the foils into
>vacuum. (ii) The claim is made that if Cs is coated on the metal surface,
>it is converted into Pr; if Sr is coated on the metal surface, it is
>converted into Mo. The analytical results, from a variety of techniques,
>such as mass spectroscopy and electron spectroscopy, are very nice.

[snip theory arguments]

The reviewer somehow overlooks the main point.  The data justifies further
study.  The proposed theories, regardless the source, including the
reviewer, are irrelevant to the DOE review.

Regards,

Horace Heffner  

Re: CF and Orientation .

[Horace Heffner]

At 4:02 PM 12/2/4, Harry Veeder wrote:

>I misunderstood the focus of your 'gravi-chem' research.
>I thought your focus was D+D fusion.
>Is it fair to say the primary focus of your research is the critique of the
>conservation laws by physical means?

Actually, if you look at the vortex archives at



around June or July 2003, you will see that the gravi-chem stuff was merely
comments I posted here on vortex as a result of what I considered some bad
math written by folks who apparently had no concept of bouyancy.  It did
seem to take a life of its own though because it is so general in nature
and so unexplored.  The immediate energy application is probably in the
mundane field of hydrogen generation I would guess.  If there is indeed
free energy to be had from the theory (I doubt it) then it is likely to be
had in chemical form.  The only clear relation of gravi-chem to CF is the
fact that electrolysis is one mode of CF and a more efficient electrolysis
merely results in a better COP (coefficient of power) for a CF device.

However, extremely high g forces change the location of the nucleus to a
point away from the center of charge of the electron cloud.  The electron
cloud can thus be compressed, and electron shielding can potentially be
increased.  The distance between deuterons in D2, D2O, and D3O+ molecules
can be decreased under extreme pressure, thereby increasing the potential
for fusion.  As evidenced by neutron stars, *some* degree of gravitational
force or compressive force will ultimately cause nuclear reactions.  The
problem is how best to make use of such a force in a practically achievable
domain.

My main focus, if I have such, being a rank amateur and irreverant member
of the free energy lunatic finge, is collaboration in search of a solution
to the energy problem.  There is also the joy of seeing various anomalies
and puzzles posted here on occasion.  When you subscribe to vortex you
never know for sure when you wake up exactly what you might possess your
thinking by evening. 8^)

Regards,

Horace Heffner  

Re: A typical reviewer comment, about Iwamura

[Jed Rothwell]

Give this five more minutes of thought, and it is even worse. Here is a 
revised version:

. . . The reviewer rejects the results based on nuclear theory; it is "not 
to be believed," but then proposes an alternative explanation that would 
violates even more fundamental chemical and physical theories. Constituents 
from the interior of the Pd could not have migrated to the surface because:

1. The gas was flowing the other way.
2. Bulk mass spectroscopy showed there are no such constituents.
3. The material that was originally on the surface disappears at the same 
rate the new material reappears.
5. The isotopes of the new material are unnatural, and the isotope shifts 
are exactly what you would expect when the missing material transmutes into 
the new material.
6. Since the old material disappears, if migration is the cause of the 
change, we have to postulate that starting material on the surface migrates 
downward, while the (non-existent) material migrates up.

Such explanations are mere handwaving, and they violate many more 
fundamental theories than cold fusion does.

- Jed

A typical reviewer comment, about Iwamura

[Jed Rothwell]

Look at this, from:
http://www.newenergytimes.com/DOE/2004-DOE-ReviewerComments.pdf
Quote:
"16 (a) The paper by Iwamura et al. presented at ICCF10 (Ref. 47 in DOE31) 
does an exhaustive job of using a variety of modern analytical chemistry 
methods to identify elements produced on the surface of coated Pd 
cold-fusion foils. There are two very unusual aspects of this work: (i) The 
energy source is gas pressure, permeation of D2 gas through the foils into 
vacuum. (ii) The claim is made that if Cs is coated on the metal surface, 
it is converted into Pr; if Sr is coated on the metal surface, it is 
converted into Mo. The analytical results, from a variety of techniques, 
such as mass spectroscopy and electron spectroscopy, are very nice. It 
seems difficult at first glance to dispute the results. However, the 
Japanese workers conclude, not that the elements in question are 
constituents from the interior of the
Pd that migrated to the surface, but that they are the products of 
sequential nuclear reactions, in which changes of atomic number and atomic 
mass of 4 and 8 are preferred.

From a nuclear physics perspective, such conclusions are not to be 
believed. The energetics of merging two deuterons in a fusion reaction are 
tough enough. Merging four deuterons with a heavy nucleus such as Pd is not 
to be believed, especially when no evidence is presented for any nuclear 
products such as Y, Zr, and Nb that are between Sr and Mo. Yet people in 
the cold-fusion community are citing this paper as further evidence for 
exotic new nuclear phenomena."

It is "not to be believed"! But we are supposed to believe, with no 
questions asked, that the "constituents from the interior of the Pd that 
migrated to the surface" even though:

1. The gas was flowing the other way.
2. Bulk mass spectroscopy showed there are no such constituents.
3. The isotopes are not natural.
This is handwaving. Theory says it cannot happen, so damn the facts. And 
these people call themselves scientists!

- Jed 

RE: DoE recommendations are posted

[Johnson, Steven]

>>Akira Kawasaki wrote:
> Jed Rothwell wroge

>> Fortunately Steven Krivit (of New Energy Times) has foreseen the
>> need and has gone ahead and posted the various (anonymous) DoE
>> requested reviews for our study and independent evaluation to see
>> how DoE reached its 'final' report.
>
>Whoa! You mean here, right? On this page:
>
>http://www.newenergytimes.com/DOE/DOE.htm
>
>Where did he get all that stuff?!? That is remarkable.
>
>- Jed

Indeed it is.

I found Reviewer #8 concluding paragraph most enlightening. Charles
Beaudette in his book "Excess Heat & Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed" has
already eluded to this problem:

Reviewer #8 concluding statement:

"...But with all the above said... these experiments are frustrating and
difficult, and require expertise that cross-cuts physics, materials science,
electrochemistry, as well as analytical chemistry of breathtaking
difficulty. The two most difficult things any scientist can be asked to do
are trace analysis/mass balance and calorimetry. Most scientist simply
aren't good enough to do extremely demanding experiments in every aspect of
the research - and highly deuterided palladium seems unwilling to cut us a
break at any stage."


Maybe he read Beaudette's book. ;-)

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com

Introduction

[Haiko Lietz]

Greeting people,
let me introduce myself, I'm new on this list. My name is Haiko Lietz, I 
am a science, political, media journalist from Cologne, Germany.

I'm writing a series about cold fusion for a German online magazine 
(Telepolis). I've also recently written about an (antigravity) field 
propulsion concept based on Heim's unified field theory.

I've got quite a few contacts to the German (speaking) free energy and 
UFO research networks.

Don't worry, I'm not gonna quote from what is being said here ;)
Special hello to all that already know me.
Haiko
--
Haiko Lietz
Science Reporter
Germany
PS: Jed made me aware of this list, thanks!

CF in everyday life

[RC Macaulay]

Perhaps it's time to demonstrate CF in everyday life in 
order there be no great mystery about some secret know only to the few that 
advise the king.
 
For centuries the people in desert areas have used water 
" ollas" to cool water. These clay vessels are fixed in a woven sling and 
suspended under a shady overhang. Consider the daytime  temperature can 
reach 110 degrees F and nightime temp of 70 degrees F. The water temperature 
inside the olla will fall to 70 degrees F as it "surrenders " heat to the clay 
wall of the olla. Comparing the differential potential for giving up heat to 
atmospheric conditions external to the olla is usually explained via evaporation 
due to the breeze. There is NO breeze in the desert. The lowering of the olla 
water temperature must be caused by what? The indians dont worry about it.. they 
just enjoy the fact.
 
Now consider a 12" X 12" X 1" Mexican Saltillo 
tile , red clay with small amounts of volcanic and flint rock. After firing 
the tile, it is extremely dry. Keep the tile dry but allow it to completely cool 
and sprinkle a small amout of water on the tile and watch it " boil" as it is 
absorbed into the porous tile. Why does the water momentarily boil?
 
Another example is to pour liquid propane on the ground. 
The propane goes from liquid to solid phase as you watch and finally evaporates 
as off gas. A canny observer will notice the liquid " boil" as it goes from 
liquid to solid phase and the solid phase expands before it goes to a gas 
phase.
 
This is a demonstration of cold fusion in everyday life. 
Grimer has an excellent paper on diphase concept of material behavior that would 
surely be appreciated by the olla water crowd should they ever decide to 
investigate... 
 
Richard
 
 
<>

RE: DoE recommendations are posted

[Jed Rothwell]

Akira Kawasaki wrote:
Earlier, Jed missed my suggestion on the DoE report.
I didn't exactly miss it, I thought it might be counterproductive.

Fortunately Steven Krivit (of New Energy Times) has foreseen the need and
has gone ahead and posted the various (anonymous) DoE requested reviews for
our study and independent evaluation to see how DoE reached its 'final'
report.
Whoa! You mean here, right? On this page:
http://www.newenergytimes.com/DOE/DOE.htm
Where did he get all that stuff?!? That is remarkable.
- Jed

Re: CF and Orientation .

[Harry Veeder]

on 12/2/04 12:40 PM, Horace Heffner at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> At 11:58 AM 12/2/4, Harry Veeder wrote:
> 
>> My hunch is that earth's gravity plays a essential role in the generation
>> excess heat in a CF cell. If I am correct, then rotating the same apparatus
>> will change the amount of excess heat generated. ( I am not sure if the
>> change will be positive or negative.)
>> 
>> Of course, to properly test my hunch, the CF cell would have to be designed
>> in such a way that the electrolytic performance is not appreciably improved
>> or worsened when undergoing rotation. Would it be possible build such an
>> 'indifferent electrolytic cell'?
> 
> So you hope to do an experiment?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Horace Heffner   
> 
> 

Of some kind. I hope.

I misunderstood the focus of your 'gravi-chem' research.
I thought your focus was D+D fusion.
Is it fair to say the primary focus of your research is the critique of the
conservation laws by physical means?

Harry

FW: RE: DoE recommendations are posted

[Akira Kawasaki]

Dec. 02, 2004

Vortex,

Earlier, Jed missed my suggestion on the DoE report. 
Fortunately Steven Krivit (of New Energy Times) has foreseen the need and
has gone ahead and posted the various (anonymous) DoE requested reviews for
our study and independent evaluation to see how DoE reached its 'final'
report. 
Many thanks for a fast and efficient job!

-ak-



> [Original Message]
> From: Steven Krivit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 12/2/2004 8:33:47 AM
> Subject: RE: DoE recommendations are posted
>
> Your wish is granted.
> I have them now on my website
> 
>
>
> At 01:41 PM 12/1/2004 -0800, you wrote:
> >Dec. 01, 2004
> >
> >Vortex,
> >
> >Perhaps we could invoke "The Freedom of information Act" to see what the
> >various selected reviewers wrote in their overviews of the state of CF
> >results fifteen years after 1989. Their identities could be kept
> >confidential. And it is not a top National Security issue.
> >
> >-ak-

Re: comments on the Cirillo paper

[Jones Beene]

Horace, you seem to be saying that the condenser was
air-cooled instead of water-cooled. Of course this would
introduce major errors, and it still doesn't address  the
issue of tritium.

Only if it had been water cooled could all the heat be
accounted for, and that is why I assumed it was water cooled
and that the thallium was turning up in the second circuit.

> This is a very important comment.  It means that boiloff
calorimetry can be very suspect without proper controls.

Yes, proper controls like a second circuit with dual
calorimetry.

> A radioactive tracer would be good in labs equipped to
handle them.

Not unless the possibility of tritium can be eliminated, or
unless your tracer has a far more energetic signature than
tritium. Thallium is just too close IMHO.

After all, your are doing cold fusion. Cold fusion often
produces tritium. Isn't the cross-connection obvious? BTW
even though tritium "normally" has a significant spread of
energy, can we be sure that tritium produced via CF is not
closer to being mono-energetic?

Jones

Re: Let us make a list of the mistakes in the DoE report

[Jed Rothwell]

Horace Heffner wrote:
This may be an interesting intellectual exercise, but what will it achieve?
Another 15 years of bickering?
The purpose is to keep the readers at LENR-CANR informed. We would not want 
the public to think that we are satisfied with the quality of the DoE report.

The document is mostly written already. I was thinking of adding the text I 
just wrote here to the News report. It does not matter much, because most 
readers skip the news section and the other HTML screens. They go directly 
to the Acrobat documents. So it does not matter much what we say.

I just glanced at the DoE report yesterday, and those two mistakes caught 
my eye. There are probably more.

Anyway, the report has nothing to do with science, and no real technical 
content. The so-called objections are all transparent handwaving. All of 
the points they raised are addressed in the literature. Heck, they are all 
addressed by me, in a paper written for the non-expert general public: 
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJintroducti.pdf. This is babyfood. 
These "expert" reviewers made stupid mistakes that would earn a failing 
grade in high school chemistry. Obviously, they did not bother to read the 
papers, or stop and think. As I said, the purpose of the report is to 
arrange another assassination of cold fusion by proving that it does not 
produce neutrons. They probably plan to fund a few more experiments by 
Jones and others who despise excess heat, and then announce either:

1. CF does not exist. Case closed.
OR --
2. CF does exist, it produces neutrons, and it is an unimportant type of 
hot fusion.

When they say: "Several reviewers specifically stated that more experiments 
similar in nature to those that have been carried out for the past fifteen 
years are unlikely to advance knowledge in this area." Translated into 
plain English that means:

Stop telling us what we do not want to know! No more excess heat!
- Jed

Re: Let us make a list of the mistakes in the DoE report

[Horace Heffner]

At 11:14 AM 12/2/4, Jed Rothwell wrote:

>I think we should make a list of some of the major blunders, and uploaded
>into LENR-CANR.org as part of our News report. Two mistakes struck me the
>moment I glanced at the report. They are:


This may be an interesting intellectual exercise, but what will it achieve?
Another 15 years of bickering?

The glass is half empty, but also half full.  The main problem is getting
qualified research proposals on the table.  If qualified proposals are
rejected it then seems reasonable to mount a hostile response.  The problem
at this time is getting qualified PhD's to make the proposals and do the
work.  The stigma is obviously still there.

Another line of attack may be to propose establishment of a politically
independent foundation to explore controversial energy related physics and
innovations.  Energy related physics would include both energy generation
and conservation issues.  Based on recent developments in global warming,
such a foundation might be permanently fundable by private endowment
enhanced by matching government grants and DOE and other agency cooperative
efforts.

Regards,

Horace Heffner  

DOE Report, NYTimes article, and Dr. Mallove links

[Mitchell Swartz]

  Latest links to, and excerpt information from, the just-issued DOE Report,
to today's New York Times article about it,
(and to info re: Dr. Mallove's cold case) have been updated.
  Links are also present to references in cold fusion which are uncensored 
(unlike the 'LENR' site),
and to robust cold fusion systems, including the JTP Phusor.

URL  COLD FUSION TIMES http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html

Re: CF and Orientation .

[Horace Heffner]

At 11:58 AM 12/2/4, Harry Veeder wrote:

>My hunch is that earth's gravity plays a essential role in the generation
>excess heat in a CF cell. If I am correct, then rotating the same apparatus
>will change the amount of excess heat generated. ( I am not sure if the
>change will be positive or negative.)
>
>Of course, to properly test my hunch, the CF cell would have to be designed
>in such a way that the electrolytic performance is not appreciably improved
>or worsened when undergoing rotation. Would it be possible build such an
>'indifferent electrolytic cell'?

So you hope to do an experiment?

Regards,

Horace Heffner  

Re: comments on the Cirillo paper

[Horace Heffner]

At 9:13 AM 12/2/4, Jones Beene wrote:
>Peter,
>
>Thank you for having carefully considered this.
>
>> We analysed the reaction product with a multi channel
>analyser and we where
>> convinced that it was 201 Tl.
>
>However...  in order that others can dispose of any
>lingering questions, especially about the ability of
>thallium to migrate across a heat exchanger,


That should be "through a condenser" not "across a heat exchanger".



>is any of your
>data and/or instrumentation info (Beckman LS ? etc)  from
>this experiment available online?
>
>Jones

Regards,

Horace Heffner  

Re: comments on the Cirillo paper

[Horace Heffner]

At 6:51 AM 12/2/4, Jones Beene wrote:
>- Original Message -
>From: "P.J van Noorden"
>
>> It was very interesting to see that during evaporation a
>significant amount
>> (25%) of the radioactive Thallium could be found in the
>second vessel,
>> where you only would expect destillated water. So I
>suspect that during
>> violent boiling of the electrolyte a significant amount of
>small dropplets
>> liquid water ( with radioactive Tl ) was transported
>through the condensor
[snip]
> but as to the unusual "transport mechanism" (if it did
>indeed cross a metal boundary)
[snip]


Jones, there is no metal boundary indicated.  The suggestion is that water
droplets (carrying thallium) were entrained with the steam by violent
boiling. When the steam was condensed in a condenser the water droplets,
like fog into dew, condensed out too.

This is a very important comment.  It means that boiloff calorimetry can be
very suspect without proper controls.  The water droplets constitute
missing water which was not boiled, i.e. vaporized.  If the heat of
vaporization is applied to the total water missing in the reactor vessel
(and/or condensed into the second vessel) then an over unity condition
might be indicated where none exists.

Proper controls might mean placing a tracer in the electrolyte and
condensing out the vapor, doing dual calorimetry, and including a barrier
to water droplets.

A radioactive tracer would be good in labs equipped to handle them.
Measuring the conductivity of the condensate, as compared to distilled
water, would be a minimum level of required check.  An accurate pH check
might be useful too.   Some kind of non-volatile tracer in the elecrolyte
should be looked for in the condensate.

Regards,

Horace Heffner  

Re: comments on the Cirillo paper

[Jones Beene]

Peter,

Thank you for having carefully considered this.

> We analysed the reaction product with a multi channel
analyser and we where
> convinced that it was 201 Tl.

However...  in order that others can dispose of any
lingering questions, especially about the ability of
thallium to migrate across a heat exchanger, is any of your
data and/or instrumentation info (Beckman LS ? etc)  from
this experiment available online?

Jones

Re: CF and Orientation .

[Harry Veeder]

on 12/2/04 8:32 AM, Horace Heffner at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> At 11:11 PM 11/27/4, Harry Veeder wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> This is my first post.
>> 
>> I was wondering if anyone in CF community has looked for evidence of a
>> correlation between the orientation of a CF cell and the amount of excess
>> heat produced.
>> 
>> Perhaps the performance of a CF cell would change if the cell or some of its
>> parts were rotated 90 degrees or even spun.
>> 
>> This questions are based on the speculation that the direction of gravity
>> (rather than the magnitude of gravity) may effect the performance of CF
>> cells.
>> 
>> Harry Veeder
> 
> In replying to your query earlier I should have also noted that centrifugal
> force can be used to advantage in chemical processes, and may have energy
> generation prospects as well.  I will post separately a summary of 2003
> posts of mine on the subject of Gravi-chem.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Horace Heffner   
> 
> 


That is interesting innovation. I looked at your other posts where you
describe the concept in more detail. It is not quite what I mean, BUT it
does suggest away of testing my hunch.

My hunch is that earth's gravity plays a essential role in the generation
excess heat in a CF cell. If I am correct, then rotating the same apparatus
will change the amount of excess heat generated. ( I am not sure if the
change will be positive or negative.)

Of course, to properly test my hunch, the CF cell would have to be designed
in such a way that the electrolytic performance is not appreciably improved
or worsened when undergoing rotation. Would it be possible build such an
'indifferent electrolytic cell'?


Harry

The DoE response is pure politics, and it has not changed since 1989

[Jed Rothwell]

Harry Veeder wrote:
The fact that the DOE panel once again diminishes the
value of all the thermal observations and measurements
is perplexing.
No, it is no perplexing, it is politics. This is the work of Steve Jones or 
one his allies. He denies all calorimetry and says there has never been any 
excess heat. Jones and  DoE want to redirect all cold fusion research back 
to the search for neutrons and other hot fusion particles, and away from 
excess heat. Excess heat threatens their paradigm and their funding -- 
whereas the hot fusion crowd welcomes Jones' results. That is why the 
report says the experiments of the last 15 years have been a waste of time. 
I think their plan is simple and obvious, and it is exactly the same plan 
they have had all along:

1. They redirect all cold fusion research back to particles.
2. The particles are not found.
3. They declare the field never existed in the first place.
Even if particles are found in a Jones experiment, they can probably be 
explained by hot fusion mechanisms, according to Storms.

The section of the report that Keith Nagel quoted is about Jones:
"A similar line of investigation involved counting deuterium loaded foils 
to observe the products for the standard fusion reaction channels, proton + 
triton or neutron + 3He, with particle detectors and coincidence 
techniques. Indications of purported detection of proton-triton 
coincidences at a low level were presented. Even skeptical reviewers cited 
this work as one line of investigation that could be pursued to a clear 
conclusion."

This is the only kind of cold fusion the DoE has ever countenanced. Their 
interests and their policies have not changed one iota since April 1989.

- Jed

Re: comments on the Cirillo paper

[P.J van Noorden]

Hello Jones
We analysed the reactionproduct with a multi channel analyser and we where
convinced that it was 201 Tl.
Peter
- Original Message -
From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: comments on the Cirillo paper


> - Original Message -
> From: "P.J van Noorden"
>
> > We used 201 Thallium in our nuclear medicine department
> > to study the perfusion of the heart.The energy emission of
> radioactive
> > thallium is about 80 eV
> > The amounts of thallium we used was about a few nanograms.
> Therefore you can
> > inject it in a patient beacuse in this concentration it is
> not toxic.The
> > amount I used for this experiment is 1% of the amount we
> inject into a
> > patient.
>
> Hello Peter,
>
> Since this tiny amount of thallium works out to only a few
> one-hundredths of a nanogram, one must suspect that this
> cannot be measured reliably (by mass) on any kind of a
> precision scale, so one must further suspect that you
> measured it by assuming that any radioactive emission was
> due to the thallium...
>
> ...but, that raises another problem.
>
> What if the species which you measured "in the second
> vessel, where you only would expect distillated water" was
> NOT the Thallium? That is, it was not the thallium which had
> migrated through the walls of the condenser, but instead was
> Tritium, which was the ash of the adjoining CF reaction?
>
> Tritium of course, easily is transported through most
> metals, such as your condenser. I can find no reference on
> the web to thallium crossing a metal boundary. Also the 80
> KeV is characteristic of tritium as well as thallium, but
> tritium would have a broader spread (did you do spectrometry
> ?)
>
> Although it is somewhat of an affront to Occam, you could
> conceivably have witnessed both radioactive remediation (of
> the thallium) and at the same time the LENR cold-fusion (ala
> Claytor) of the tritium-ash variety, in this cell. But since
> the total radioactive reading on your meter of the combined
> two sources added up to nearly what you were expecting from
> just the thallium, you assumed the simplest underlying
> situation?
>
> Jones
>
>
>

Let us make a list of the mistakes in the DoE report

[Jed Rothwell]

The DoE report really is inept and sloppy. The "reviewers" rejected the 
data based on the first notions that popped into their heads. They made the 
same kinds of silly mistakes that people have repeated year after year over 
in sci.physics.fusion.

I think we should make a list of some of the major blunders, and uploaded 
into LENR-CANR.org as part of our News report. Two mistakes struck me the 
moment I glanced at the report. They are:

The DoE report includes objections made by skeptics that have no technical 
merit. For example, the skeptics claimed: "Contamination of apparatus or 
samples by air containing 4He was cited as one possible cause for false 
positive results in some measurements." This is not in evidence. With most 
experiments the helium is far below atmospheric concentration, so if air 
had leaked into the cell, the amount of helium would probably have 
increased by a huge factor, and the helium levels would have been random 
instead of correlated with excess heat production. With McKubre's 
experiment, which is described in the document submitted to the DoE panel, 
helium climbed above atmospheric concentration. An air leak would have 
reduced the amount of helium, but no reduction was observed.

The report says that the skeptics, "who did not find the production of 
excess power convincing cite a number of issues including: excess power in 
the short term is not the same as net energy production over the entire of 
time of an experiment; all possible chemical and solid state causes of 
excess heat have not been investigated and eliminated as an explanation; 
and production of power over a period of time is a few percent of the 
external power applied and hence calibration and systematic effects could 
account for the purported net effect."

These objections are all without merit, because they all miss the 
fundamental point, which is that no chemical process can store up or 
produce more than a few eV per atom. Suppose at time A the cell begins 
producing significant excess heat, and it continues to be exothermic to 
time B, never dropping to zero or below zero (it is never endothermic, so 
it never stores energy). Suppose the total integrated energy for that burst 
is 100 to 1000 eV per atom. Bursts on this scale have often been recorded, 
some of them lasting for weeks. The energy release during the burst is far 
above the limits of chemistry. That proves the issue. What happened 
previous to that event makes no difference, because there is no mechanism 
that can store that much chemical energy in the cathode. Also, the only 
input to output ratio that matters is the one measured during the burst. 
During a burst, the input to output ratio is usually high, sometimes 1:3 or 
more, and the effect is easy to measure. The overall ratio for the entire 
run is irrelivant. Even if the overall input to output ratio is only, let 
us say, 1:1.02, that has no bearing on the ratio or performance during the 
heat burst.

- Jed

Re: comments on the Cirillo paper

[Jones Beene]

- Original Message - 
From: "P.J van Noorden"

> We used 201 Thallium in our nuclear medicine department
> to study the perfusion of the heart.The energy emission of
radioactive
> thallium is about 80 eV
> The amounts of thallium we used was about a few nanograms.
Therefore you can
> inject it in a patient beacuse in this concentration it is
not toxic.The
> amount I used for this experiment is 1% of the amount we
inject into a
> patient.

Hello Peter,

Since this tiny amount of thallium works out to only a few
one-hundredths of a nanogram, one must suspect that this
cannot be measured reliably (by mass) on any kind of a
precision scale, so one must further suspect that you
measured it by assuming that any radioactive emission was
due to the thallium...

...but, that raises another problem.

What if the species which you measured "in the second
vessel, where you only would expect distillated water" was
NOT the Thallium? That is, it was not the thallium which had
migrated through the walls of the condenser, but instead was
Tritium, which was the ash of the adjoining CF reaction?

Tritium of course, easily is transported through most
metals, such as your condenser. I can find no reference on
the web to thallium crossing a metal boundary. Also the 80
KeV is characteristic of tritium as well as thallium, but
tritium would have a broader spread (did you do spectrometry
?)

Although it is somewhat of an affront to Occam, you could
conceivably have witnessed both radioactive remediation (of
the thallium) and at the same time the LENR cold-fusion (ala
Claytor) of the tritium-ash variety, in this cell. But since
the total radioactive reading on your meter of the combined
two sources added up to nearly what you were expecting from
just the thallium, you assumed the simplest underlying
situation?

Jones

NY Times article on Cold fusion review

[Emeka Okafor]

 
Evidence on Cold Fusion Remains Inconclusive, New Review 
FindsBy KENNETH 
CHANG 

  
  

n a new review of cold fusion - the claim that 
energy can be generated by running electrical current through water - the 
Department of Energy released a report yesterday that says the evidence remains 
inconclusive, echoing a similar report 15 years ago.
Over the past several months, 18 scientists reviewed research in cold fusion, 
and two-thirds of them did not find the evidence for nuclear reactions in the 
experiments convincing. Almost all of them, however, said that aspects of cold 
fusion merited consideration for further research.
"I think the new review has shed some light on the status of research that 
has been done over the last 15 years," said Dr. James F. Decker, deputy director 
of the science office in the Energy Department who agreed to the review at the 
request of several scientists involved with cold fusion research.
Dr. Decker said the department was open to proposals for cold fusion 
research, but added that was not new. "We have always been open to proposals 
that have scientific merit as determined by peer review," he said. "We have 
never closed the door to cold fusion proposals."
Cold fusion briefly appeared to promise an unlimited energy source in 1989 
when Drs. B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann of the University of Utah 
announced that they had generated fusion - the same process that powers the sun 
- in a tabletop experiment using a jar of water containing deuterium, a heavier 
version of hydrogen.
They claimed that an electrical current running through the water pulled 
deuterium atoms into two palladium electrodes, generating heat. The speculation 
was that the heat was coming from the fusion of the deuterium atoms.
Other scientists, however, had trouble reproducing the findings, and at the 
end of 1989, a review by the Energy Department recommended against a specific 
cold fusion research program, although it did support further investigation into 
some aspects.
After that, most scientists regarded cold fusion as a discredited farce, but 
a small group of scientists continued work in the field. Measurements have 
become better, but cold fusion experiments still produce heat at best half of 
the time. At the end of last year, several cold fusion scientists approached Dr. 
Decker, asking for a review. Dr. Decker agreed.
In the review, nine scientists chosen by the Energy Department considered a 
paper submitted by the cold fusion scientists. Another nine listened to oral 
presentations by cold fusion scientists in August.
"This was a very, very scientific, very level-headed, review by everybody," 
said Dr. Kirby W. Kemper, vice president for research at Florida State 
University and one of the reviewers of the oral presentations. But Dr. Kemper 
said, "I don't think we've made much progress since '89 in really nailing down 
the parameters that make it reproducible."
He said there were interesting scientific questions on the behavior of 
hydrogen within metals that merited research, and he said his comments tried to 
offer a future research path. 
Dr. Michael McKubre, a scientist at SRI International, one of the scientists 
who approached Dr. Decker last year, said the conclusions were at least "mildly 
positive" in endorsing consideration of further research.
"All we set out to demonstrate was there were serious issues of science that 
had to be developed further," Dr. McKubre said. "If you look through the 
materials, the majority, if not the entirety, agree on that 
point."
www.timbuktuchronicles.blogspot.com

Re: comments on the Cirillo paper

[P.J van Noorden]

Hello
We used 201 Thallium in our nuclear medicine department
to study the perfusion of the heart.The energy emission of radioactive
thallium is about 80 eV.
Now we have a technetium based radiopharmacon which gives a better image
quality.( 140eV)
The amounts of thallium we used was about a few nanograms. Therefore you can
inject it in a patient beacuse in this concentration it is not toxic.The
amount I used for this experiment is 1% of the amount we inject into a
patient.
Peter

- Original Message -
From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: comments on the Cirillo paper


> - Original Message -
> From: "P.J van Noorden"
>
> > It was very interesting to see that during evaporation a
> significant amount
> > (25%) of the radioactive Thallium could be found in the
> second vessel,
> > where you only would expect destillated water. So I
> suspect that during
> > violent boiling of the electrolyte a significant amount of
> small dropplets
> > liquid water ( with radioactive Tl ) was transported
> through the condensor
> > into the second vessel. This could lead to a significant
> overestimation of
> > the produced heat by about 25 %
>
> Well, first a caveat -  it should be mentioned for the
> benefit of any younger readers contemplating CF experiments,
> that it takes a knowledgeable researcher to experiment with
> thallium (a.k.a. rat poison), which some chemists believe to
> be among the most toxic in the periodic table... and that is
> the less-radioactive variety. Thallium does occurs in the
> environment naturally in trace amounts; and is responsible
> for many more deaths than is commonly known because the
> human body absorbs thallium very effectively, especially
> through the skin, lungs and the digestive tract. Just
> touching it can be dangerous.
>
>  but as to the unusual "transport mechanism" (if it did
> indeed cross a metal boundary) this anomaly seems to be
> similar to what has been witnessed over the years with
> Bismuth, which is a similar heavy metal in many ways and
> which was the subject of messages last month (below)... it
> would be enlightening to understand the dynamics of this
> transport mechanism, and whether or not it is somehow
> related to  gravity, but there appears to be little reliable
> information available.
>
> Nick Reiter wrote:
>
> > It [bismuth] also was or is one of
> > the most promising stars in the odd half integer spin
> > nucleon kinemassic gravity claims of Wallace,
>
> RC Macaulay wrote:
>
> > Once knew a man that spent his days during WW2 on
> > the Manhattan project that remained puzzled by bismuth.
> Such an
> > oddity that he considered the element unexplainable.
>
> (which may have been mentioned in the Rhodes book on the
> Manhattan project), I remember hearing about some definite
> "peculiarities"  concerning bismuth during the LMBR and MSR
> (liquid metal and salt cooled reactors) days at Oak Ridge in
> the
> 60s...  the problem was "containment" of the molten bismuth.
> It seem that you can have a bismuth alloy or eutectic in a
> *sealed*
> circuit - completely encased in SS tubing... but
> miraculously
> it will somehow "seep" through metal and appear in the
> adjoining circuit -
>
> Jones
>
>
>
>
>

Re: oomments on DOE report

[FZNIDARSIC]

The researchers in cold fusion should publish there papers in peer reviewed journals.
Journals reject cold fusion papers, "cold fusion is unworkable!"

How much unpaid time do we have?

It's a catch 22.  They have got us.

We should all cut our looses and run.  

Frank Z

Re: comments on the Cirillo paper

[Jones Beene]

- Original Message - 
From: "P.J van Noorden"

> It was very interesting to see that during evaporation a
significant amount
> (25%) of the radioactive Thallium could be found in the
second vessel,
> where you only would expect destillated water. So I
suspect that during
> violent boiling of the electrolyte a significant amount of
small dropplets
> liquid water ( with radioactive Tl ) was transported
through the condensor
> into the second vessel. This could lead to a significant
overestimation of
> the produced heat by about 25 %

Well, first a caveat -  it should be mentioned for the
benefit of any younger readers contemplating CF experiments,
that it takes a knowledgeable researcher to experiment with
thallium (a.k.a. rat poison), which some chemists believe to
be among the most toxic in the periodic table... and that is
the less-radioactive variety. Thallium does occurs in the
environment naturally in trace amounts; and is responsible
for many more deaths than is commonly known because the
human body absorbs thallium very effectively, especially
through the skin, lungs and the digestive tract. Just
touching it can be dangerous.

 but as to the unusual "transport mechanism" (if it did
indeed cross a metal boundary) this anomaly seems to be
similar to what has been witnessed over the years with
Bismuth, which is a similar heavy metal in many ways and
which was the subject of messages last month (below)... it
would be enlightening to understand the dynamics of this
transport mechanism, and whether or not it is somehow
related to  gravity, but there appears to be little reliable
information available.

Nick Reiter wrote:

> It [bismuth] also was or is one of
> the most promising stars in the odd half integer spin
> nucleon kinemassic gravity claims of Wallace,

RC Macaulay wrote:

> Once knew a man that spent his days during WW2 on
> the Manhattan project that remained puzzled by bismuth.
Such an
> oddity that he considered the element unexplainable.

(which may have been mentioned in the Rhodes book on the
Manhattan project), I remember hearing about some definite
"peculiarities"  concerning bismuth during the LMBR and MSR
(liquid metal and salt cooled reactors) days at Oak Ridge in
the
60s...  the problem was "containment" of the molten bismuth.
It seem that you can have a bismuth alloy or eutectic in a
*sealed*
circuit - completely encased in SS tubing... but
miraculously
it will somehow "seep" through metal and appear in the
adjoining circuit -

Jones

Gravi-chem

[Horace Heffner]

 Gravi-chemistry

DEFINITIONS

Gravi-chemistry (gravi-chem) is chemistry involving a large environmental
acceleration.  Gravi-chem is essentially chemistry in a centrifuge.  Some
important variables are defined below, along with some initial computations
that are essential to discuss gravi-chem.

Variables:

r = radius in meters
rpm = revolutions per minute of the centrifuge
g = acceleration due to gravity = 9.80665 m/s^2
Mg = acceleration of 1 million g's = 9.80665x10^6 m/s^2
Pi = 3.14159
r_1 = radius of top (innermost) surface of electrolyte in meters
r_2 = radius of bottom (outermost) surface of electrolyte in meters
E_ion1 = anion balanced E_ion for given g, in (V/m)/Mg
E_ion2 = cation balanced E_ion for given g, in (V/m)/Mg
a = acceleration in Mg
U = total voltage drop sustainable in volts

Note: both E_ion1 and E_ion2 were taken from Gravi-chem table below.

>From the given:

   a = 10^-6 * r/g * (2 * Pi * rpm / 60)^2

So the incremental potential dU sustained for small radial increment dr is:

   dU = [(E_ion1 + E_ion2)/g * 10^-6  * (2 * Pi * rpm / 60)^2] r dr

And integrating for r = r_1 to r_2:

   U = [(E_ion1 + E_ion2)/g * 2x10^-6  * (Pi * rpm / 60)^2] [(r_2)^2 - (r_1)^2]

where U is given in volts.  Note: if U is negative then hydroxils (OH-) are
concentrated at the bottom of the cell.  If U is positive, then hydronium
(H3O+) is concentrated at the bottom of the cell.

THE GRAVI-CHEM TABLE

Gravi-chem Table for Selected Ions


 R-ion   Vol_ion  rho_ion  F_b   E_ion

 Atomic  Ionic   Ion  Ion  Bouyancy  Balanced E vs g
Atomic  Ion  Weight  Radius  Volume   Density  in water  H2O @ 100 C
Number  Name  q  (g/mol) (ang.) (cm^3/mol)(g/cm^3) (g/cm^3)  (V/m/mega-g)

3   Li1   6.941   0.761.11  6.27-5.31   -0.59761
4   Be2   9.012   0.450.23 39.21   -38.25   -0.44680
5 * B 3  10.810   0.300.07158.72  -157.76   -0.36403
6 * C 4  12.011   0.350.11111.05  -110.10   -0.30256
7 * N 5  14.007   0.120.00   3213.31 -3212.35   -0.28464
8   O-2  15.999   1.406.92  2.31-1.350.47595
9   F-1  18.998   1.335.93  3.20-2.241.35288
11  Na1  22.990   1.022.68  8.59-7.63   -2.07589
12  Mg2  24.305   0.720.94 25.81   -24.86   -1.18931
13  Al3  26.982   0.540.40 67.93   -66.97   -0.90123
14  Si4  28.086   0.260.04633.47  -632.51   -0.71256
15  P 5  30.974   0.170.01   2499.24 -2498.28   -0.62939
16  S-2  32.060   1.84   15.71  2.04-1.080.86390
17  Cl   -1  35.453   1.81   14.96  2.37-1.412.14633
19  K 1  39.098   1.518.69  4.50-3.54   -3.12789
20  Ca2  40.080   1.002.52 15.89   -14.93   -1.91398
21  Sc3  44.956   0.751.06 42.24   -41.29   -1.48853
22  Ti4  47.900   0.610.57 83.66   -82.70   -1.20318
23  V 5  50.942   0.540.40128.25  -127.29   -1.02779
24  Cr3  51.996   0.620.60 86.49   -85.53   -1.74208
25  Mn2  54.938   0.670.76 72.41   -71.45   -2.75496
26  Fe3  55.847   0.550.42133.07  -132.11   -1.87845
27  Co2  58.933   0.650.69 85.07   -84.11   -2.96121
28  Ni2  58.700   0.690.83 70.84   -69.88   -2.94274
29  Cu2  63.546   0.730.98 64.76   -63.80   -3.18158
20  Zn2  65.380   0.741.02 63.96   -63.00   -3.27279
31  Ga3  69.720   0.620.60115.97  -115.01   -2.34257
32  Ge4  72.590   0.530.38193.29  -192.33   -1.83534
33  As3  74.922   0.580.49152.22  -151.27   -2.52233
34  Se   -2  78.960   1.98   19.58  4.03-3.073.05900
35  Br   -1  79.904   1.96   18.99  4.21-3.256.27117
37  Rb1  85.468   1.61   10.53  8.12-7.16   -7.66138
38  SR2  87.620   1.265.05 17.36   -16.41   -4.20703
39  Y 3  88.906   1.022.68 33.21   -32.25   -2.92518
40  Zr4  91.220   0.841.50 61.01   -60.05   -2.28146
41  Nb5  92.906   0.640.66140.50  -139.54   -1.87570
42  Mo6  95.940   0.590.52185.18  -184.23   -1.61679
44  Ru3 101.070   0.680.79127.43  -126.47   -3.39846
45  Rh3 102.906   0.670.76135.64  -134.68   -3.46176
46  Pd2 106.400   0.640.66160.90  -159.94   -5.37498
47  Ag1 107.868   1.153.84 28.12   -27.16  -10.58986
48  Cd2 112.410   0.952.16 51.98   -51.02   -5.60727
49  In3 114.820   0.801.29 88.90   -87.94   -3.84812
50  Sn4 118.890   0.450.23517.21  -516.25   -3.01536
51  Sb3 121.750   0.761.11109.95  -108.99   -4.08889
52  Te   -2 127.600   1.073.09 41.29   -40.336.33405
53  I-1 126.905  

Re: CF and Orientation .

[Horace Heffner]

At 11:11 PM 11/27/4, Harry Veeder wrote:
>Hi,
>
>This is my first post.
>
>I was wondering if anyone in CF community has looked for evidence of a
>correlation between the orientation of a CF cell and the amount of excess
>heat produced.
>
>Perhaps the performance of a CF cell would change if the cell or some of its
>parts were rotated 90 degrees or even spun.
>
>This questions are based on the speculation that the direction of gravity
>(rather than the magnitude of gravity) may effect the performance of CF
>cells.
>
>Harry Veeder

In replying to your query earlier I should have also noted that centrifugal
force can be used to advantage in chemical processes, and may have energy
generation prospects as well.  I will post separately a summary of 2003
posts of mine on the subject of Gravi-chem.

Regards,

Horace Heffner  

Re: Astounding statement in upcoming paper by Cirillo and Iorio

[Mike Carrell]

Robin wrote:


> In reply to  Mike Carrell's message of Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:02:45 -0500:
> Hi,


>> Transmutation is a nuclear reaction and it is **also**
> >occurring. The source of neutrons in this instance is a real puzzle. The
> [snip]
> Not really. A well shrunken hydrino could easily pass for a neutron when
it comes to nuclear reactions. The hydrino electron would be on average much
closer to the nucleus than a normal atomic electron, thus one might expect
that when the tunneling event occurs, the hydrino electron "goes along for
the ride", leading to an almost immediate electron capture event.

Qutie so, and this speculation has surfaced in vortex. I'm not denying this
at all, and when I say that the LENR and BLP worlds may be linked at a
"deeper level" I allow for such. The "Critic's Circle" on HSG have concluded
that Mills' orbitsphere model itself is fatally flawed, and a private
trusted source who has looked at it agrees. The trusted source indicates
that the "sub-ground" state of the H atom, Mills' hydrino, is well supported
in standard literature when correctly interpreted. Thus when Mills
postulates a limit to hydrino shrinkage based on his model, this may in fact
not exist. Thus the Cirillo paper should be looked at most carefully. The
cell produces excess heat -- which could come from BLP reactions. It
operates at atmospheric pressure and very intensly. The calorimetry is not
good enough to determine whether the energy release is in the BLP or nucelar
range. If neutron-like entities are being produced by the BLP process, then
the energy release will be very high.

The cell may also be producing particle condensates as postulated by
Takahashi. We may be looking at a very interesting rabbit hole.

Regards,
Mike

Re: CF and Orientation .

[Horace Heffner]

At 11:11 PM 11/27/4, Harry Veeder wrote:
>Hi,
>
>This is my first post.
>
>I was wondering if anyone in CF community has looked for evidence of a
>correlation between the orientation of a CF cell and the amount of excess
>heat produced.
>
>Perhaps the performance of a CF cell would change if the cell or some of its
>parts were rotated 90 degrees or even spun.
>
>This questions are based on the speculation that the direction of gravity
>(rather than the magnitude of gravity) may effect the performance of CF
>cells.
>
>Harry Veeder

In replying to your query earlier I should have noted that centrifugal
force can be used to improve electrolysis in general.  For example, the
following is a post of mine from 2003:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ELECTROLYSER DESIGN

The following is a proposed design and some design considerations for a
high efficiency electrolyser, especially one where the cathode and anode
gasses can be provided as a mixed product, or gas only evolves from one
plate.  Further, a means is provided to place ordinary hydrogen
electrolysis in these categories by extracting the hydrogen directly
through the cathode.

It is well known that reducing plate separation, in order to reduce cell
resistance, is required to increase existing cell efficiency.  It is also
known that slow bubble evolution limits the closeness of plates due to the
reduction of plate area and effective current path area.  Electrolysers
currently rely on gravity to remove their bubbles using displacement
forces, but reduce the bubble formation rate by operating at high pressure.

One method suggested here to solve the bubble problem is to place the
plates in a rotatable centrifugal tank as shown in Fig. 1.  (Fixed
proportion font like "courier" is required for viewing Fig. 1)  The plates
are thus in annular coaxial form with central circular holes with radial
spokes connected to a central shaft, with insulating spacers and/or axial
bolts included to hold the plate array together.  This use of a centrifugal
force on the rotating plates permits the effectiveness of removing bubbles
to be increased by two or more orders of magnitude over the use of gravity.
The process is made continuous by replenishing the electrolyte and
retrieving the evolved gas through a central open space in the centrifuge
and/or through piping in a hollow central rotor shaft.  During rotation,
the electrolyte is pinned to the outer walls of the cylindrical tank by
centrifugal force.


-  I  - KEY:
|  <-   .  I  .  ->   |
| = .  I  . = | -|  - rotating electrolyser tank
| = .  I  . = | ..  - rotating electrolyte level
| = .  I  . = | ==  - rotating electrolytic plates
| = .  I  . = |  I  - central rotor shaft
| = .  I  . = | ->  - direction of electrolyte flow
| = .  I  . = |
| = .  I  . = |
|  <-   .  I  .   ->  |
---I---

  Fig. 1 - Centrifugal Electrolysis Device


By placing the entire apparatus inside a pressure vessel, with appropriate
plumbing and electrical connections, and temperature control, operation can
occur at high temperatures and pressures currently in use with high
efficiency electrolysers.

The use of bubble scrubbing dielectric particles in the electrolyte is
feasible in this configuration due the pumping action of the electrolyte
through the plates due to the displacement force of the bubbles.  The
electrolyte flow between the plates is thus toward the central shaft, and
the flow outside the plate region is axially away from the central rotor
shaft as shown by arrows in Fig. 1.  The largest dimension of such
particles should be about one fourth the plate separation distance.

Using the methods described here, plate separation can be made almost
arbitrarily close, but plate thickness itself is increased due to the need
for plate structural strength and diffusion requirements.

When electrolysing hydrogen, use can be made of a diffuse or porous
(essentially transparent to hydrogen)  but structurally strong material as
a supporting structure for a Pd surfaced cathode in the centrifuge.  Such a
material can be made by sintering metal or ceramic granules of the size
required for the support of the Pd.  A gradation of granularity can be made
to occur, with the finest granularity located at the cathode surface, just
below the palladium surface.  The Pd coated cathode's interior would then
either be hollow or very porous, so as to conduct the H2 gas away from the
electrolyser directly through the plate interior and then through a hollow
supporting structure (e.g. spokes) for the plate, and to a hollow central
rotor.  In this manner, only O2 would evolve between the plates.  The
hydrogen principally is driven into the cathode interior by the high
operating pressure, but also by the electrolytic potential.

The electrolytic plates in the suggested u

comments on the Cirillo paper

[P.J van Noorden]

A few years ago I did some interesting experiments with a plasma discharge
system send to me by Eugene Mallove.
This system was equiped with a reaction vessel connected with a long
vertical tube . The evaporated gasses could be condensed and where collected
in a second vessel.I used a K2CO3 solution as a electrolyte.
First I did experiments with carbon electrodes but later I used Tungsten as
cathode. I noticed that when a strong glow discharge developed ,a strong EM
signal disturbed my neutroncount readings ,which is in accordance with the
results in the Cirillo paper. Because I was interested in transmutations, I
used radioactive 201 Thallium ( chemically like K) and measured the counts
before and after the plasma discharge. ( activity was 1 MBq)
First I send a mild current through the electrodes and the 201Thallium was
deposited on the cathode. After I raised the voltage and the plasma
discharge developed, I saw a drop in gamma emission measured from the
outside of the reactionvessel. Later I noticed that the 201Tl was removed
from the kathode and could be found in debris on the bottom of the cell.The
change in geometry had produced the measured drop in gamma emission! After
correction for the change in geometry I could not find a significant change
in activity before and after the plasma discharge.
It was very interesting to see that during evaporation a significant amount
( 25%) of the radioactive Thallium could be found in the second vessel,
where you only would expect destillated water. So I suspect that during
violent boiling of the electrolyte a significant amount of small dropplets
liquid water ( with radioactive Tl ) was transported through the condensor
into the second vessel. This could lead to a significant overestimation of
the produced heat by about 25 %.
This effect must i.m.o be taken in account before one can conclude that
there is excess heat produced.
Peter van Noorden
nuclear medicine department
the Netherlands