Re: [Vo]:Anti cold fusion and anti-HOT-fusion book

[Steven Krivit]

Did you read the book Jed?


I read it.

Here's my short Vortex review:

Charles Siefe was the lead reporter for Science during cold fusion's early 
days. When Seife wrote this current book, he based it (apparently) on what 
he knew and learned about cold fusion in 1989. He does mention the 2004 DoE 
review, but everything in Seife's book is as if he's still sleeping - like 
a Rip Van Wrinkle who has not yet woken up. His point? Cold fusion doesn't 
look like fusion and we know all there is to know about fusion, so it can't 
possibly be real; don't look further, don't investigate it further, don't 
seek deeper understanding, just throw it in the trash can.


Seife's book appears wholly ignorant of the Beaudette, Storms, Rothwell or 
Krivit books.


No need to be angry with Seife.

Pity him.

s

Re: [Vo]:Anti cold fusion and anti-HOT-fusion book

[Edmund Storms]

If the Farnsworth fuser were as efficient as the least productive cold  
fusion cell, anyone within a radius of about 40 feet would be dead  
from neutron radiation.


I agree, they might make ITER over unity. Unfortunately, they have not  
solved the first wall problem, which I predict does not have a  
solution. In addition, no company can afford to build such a large and  
complex machine that can fail in a large number of ways. In addition,  
I can't imagine a government would build such a machine while  
competing with the private power companies.   So, while the physics  
might be solved, the practically will never be solved, especially now  
that many other equally green energy solutions are being explored.


Ed




On Oct 26, 2008, at 10:26 PM, John Berry wrote:

Though not OU, the most effective fusion is IMO from the Farnsworth  
Fusor.


Rather than billions being put into it, it's a hydrogen fusion  
process anyone can make. (and get neutrons from)


Not that I'm disrespecting cold fusion, it is however unclear how to  
make it easily replicable IMO. (and I don't view it as conclusive  
that every apparent success is the result of fusion)


On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:56 PM, thomas malloy  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Jed Rothwell wrote:

At first I thought this was another dig at cold fusion alone but it  
also attacks plasma fusion.


Sun in a Bottle: The Strange History of Fusion and the Science of  
Wishful Thinking



Did you read the book Jed?

My nephew thinks that laser fusion projects such as the ITER, will  
work. OTOH, he's savvy enough not to spend his own money on this  
research. He'd  happily spend your (tax) money on it however. As for  
the wrecked careers, the hot fusion physicists have used this dream  
as a cash cow for over a half century. AFAIK, there's no end in site.


When the British announced their latest laser fusion experiment, I  
questioned Ed Storms about it. Apparently their approach is  
different from the magnetic confinement with a lithium blanket  
approach. I haven't read any evaluations of it's feasibility.


The book's attacks on LENR really irk me. It's clear that some  
results, The Patterson Cell, and the heat after death, clearly show  
surplus energy. Then there's the matter of the anomalous neculides.



--- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html 
 ---

Re: [Vo]:Sodium Hydride and Differential Scanning Calorimetry - no Raney Nickel involved

[Edmund Storms]

Let's get back basics.  NaH is a material that decomposes to H2 and Na  
liquid containing dissolved H above 100°C. This is a process that  
causes the pressure of H2 to rise as temperature is increased  
according to the equation  log P(atm) = 9.49-5070/T(K).  As a result,  
the pressure of H2 goes from 22.5 atm at 350°C to 90.5 atm at 400°,  
within the region that the endothermic reaction is said to occur.  At   
650°, the pressure is 9932 atm, while the Na liquid contains  
considerable H.


Because of this behavior, a sharp endothermic reaction is not expected  
if the H2 is in equilibrium with the liquid, especially in the range  
measured. However, if the loss of H2 is inhibited, the loss rate might  
occur rapidly over a narrow range of temperature.


The pressure of H2 at the start of the exothermic reaction is higher  
than most normal devices can take. Therefore, either the pressure was  
reduced or a small amount of NaH was used so that the pressure  
remained in the safe range. This means that the liquid Na contained  
less dissolved H than its maximum. Unfortunately I could only find a  
value for the solubility of H in Na at 450°C, which is 4 atom %.  The  
concentration increases with temperature.


So, the endothermic reaction appears to be caused either by a  
inhibited decomposition of NaH or a reaction with the container.  My  
question is, what kind of material was used to contain the liquid Na  
during the test?


In the BLP reactor configuration, the liquid Na might fill the pores  
in the Raney Ni. Therefore, the gas would be in contact with Na  
liquid. Question, is the proposed reaction occurring between the Na(H)  
and Ni or between the Na(H) and H2?  I don't know the partial pressure  
of NaH gas, but I expect it would be very low.


What are we to conclude in light of these expected behaviors?

Ed


On Oct 26, 2008, at 8:30 PM, Jeff Driscoll wrote:


Does someone have the capability of doing a Differential Scanning
Calorimeter measurement on Sodium Hydride (NaH)?  NaH can be bought
from chemical suppliers where it is sold as 60% weight NaH and 40%
weight mineral oil.  The oil keeps air and water from contacting it
and chemically reacting with it.  There is no Raney Nickel involved.
According to wikipedia, the oil can be rinsed off the NaH with pentane
or tetrahydrofuran.

Mills gets an exothermic reaction of 354 kJ/mole H2 (or 177 kJ/mole H)
when he put .067 grams of Sodium Hydride in the Differential Scanning
Calorimeter (reaction started at 640 C).  That's 45% higher energy
than the 242 kJ/mole for burning hydrogen in air - even though the
sample volume had been flushed with helium twice before the start of
the test.

Is it possible that there was enough oxygen contamination (from
leaking or whatever) to burn with the hydrogen?  Could they  have
incorrectly measured the amount of NaH in their sample?  If not, then
this test (when carefully done) could be a verification method of
Mills data.  Just rule out oxygen contamination and weight measuring
mistakes.

Magnesium Hydride (MgH2) was used in a separate test and displayed the
predicted endothermic reaction of decompisition and endothermic
reaction of melting magnesium.  Since this test didn't have oxygen
contamination issues then I would assume the NaH test didn't either.

look at page 21 here from BLP's paper regarding this differential
scanning calorimeter test:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/papers/WFC101608WebS.pdf

One thing I don't understand is that there was an endothermic reaction
at 350 C where sodium hydride decomposed before the exothermic
reaction (hydrino creation) starting at 640 C.  If the sodium hydride
decomposed then all of the hydrogen has evaporated and there is no
longer a NaH molecule.  According to Mike Carrell the NaH molecule is
necessary for the hydrogen shrinkage reaction because  the breaking of
the bond energy between the Na and H is involved in absorbing a
portion of the 54.4 eV from the hydrogen shrinkage (along with double
ionization of Na to Na++).

Does the monatomic hydrogen released during decomposition recombine
with another H to make H2?  That would prevent the hydrino reaction.
Somehow the monatomic H has to recombine with the Na to make NaH at
640 C so as to trigger the hydrino reaction.

Does this mean you could coat sodium metal onto nanoparticles and
expose them to hydrogen at 640 C and trigger the hydrino reaction?

you can read about differential scanning calorimetry here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_scanning_calorimetry

Jeff D.

Re: [Vo]:Anti cold fusion and anti-HOT-fusion book

[John Berry]

Though not OU, the most effective fusion is IMO from the Farnsworth Fusor.

Rather than billions being put into it, it's a hydrogen fusion process
anyone can make. (and get neutrons from)

Not that I'm disrespecting cold fusion, it is however unclear how to make it
easily replicable IMO. (and I don't view it as conclusive that every
apparent success is the result of fusion)

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:56 PM, thomas malloy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>  At first I thought this was another dig at cold fusion alone but it also
>> attacks plasma fusion.
>>
>> Sun in a Bottle: The Strange History of Fusion and the Science of Wishful
>> Thinking
>>
>>
> Did you read the book Jed?
>
> My nephew thinks that laser fusion projects such as the ITER, will work.
> OTOH, he's savvy enough not to spend his own money on this research. He'd
>  happily spend your (tax) money on it however. As for the wrecked careers,
> the hot fusion physicists have used this dream as a cash cow for over a half
> century. AFAIK, there's no end in site.
>
> When the British announced their latest laser fusion experiment, I
> questioned Ed Storms about it. Apparently their approach is different from
> the magnetic confinement with a lithium blanket approach. I haven't read any
> evaluations of it's feasibility.
>
> The book's attacks on LENR really irk me. It's clear that some results, The
> Patterson Cell, and the heat after death, clearly show surplus energy. Then
> there's the matter of the anomalous neculides.
>
>
> --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! --
> http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
>
>

[Vo]:Sodium Hydride and Differential Scanning Calorimetry - no Raney Nickel involved

[Jeff Driscoll]

Does someone have the capability of doing a Differential Scanning
Calorimeter measurement on Sodium Hydride (NaH)?  NaH can be bought
from chemical suppliers where it is sold as 60% weight NaH and 40%
weight mineral oil.  The oil keeps air and water from contacting it
and chemically reacting with it.  There is no Raney Nickel involved.
According to wikipedia, the oil can be rinsed off the NaH with pentane
or tetrahydrofuran.

Mills gets an exothermic reaction of 354 kJ/mole H2 (or 177 kJ/mole H)
when he put .067 grams of Sodium Hydride in the Differential Scanning
Calorimeter (reaction started at 640 C).  That's 45% higher energy
than the 242 kJ/mole for burning hydrogen in air - even though the
sample volume had been flushed with helium twice before the start of
the test.

 Is it possible that there was enough oxygen contamination (from
leaking or whatever) to burn with the hydrogen?  Could they  have
incorrectly measured the amount of NaH in their sample?  If not, then
this test (when carefully done) could be a verification method of
Mills data.  Just rule out oxygen contamination and weight measuring
mistakes.

Magnesium Hydride (MgH2) was used in a separate test and displayed the
predicted endothermic reaction of decompisition and endothermic
reaction of melting magnesium.  Since this test didn't have oxygen
contamination issues then I would assume the NaH test didn't either.

look at page 21 here from BLP's paper regarding this differential
scanning calorimeter test:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/papers/WFC101608WebS.pdf

One thing I don't understand is that there was an endothermic reaction
at 350 C where sodium hydride decomposed before the exothermic
reaction (hydrino creation) starting at 640 C.  If the sodium hydride
decomposed then all of the hydrogen has evaporated and there is no
longer a NaH molecule.  According to Mike Carrell the NaH molecule is
necessary for the hydrogen shrinkage reaction because  the breaking of
the bond energy between the Na and H is involved in absorbing a
portion of the 54.4 eV from the hydrogen shrinkage (along with double
ionization of Na to Na++).

Does the monatomic hydrogen released during decomposition recombine
with another H to make H2?  That would prevent the hydrino reaction.
Somehow the monatomic H has to recombine with the Na to make NaH at
640 C so as to trigger the hydrino reaction.

Does this mean you could coat sodium metal onto nanoparticles and
expose them to hydrogen at 640 C and trigger the hydrino reaction?

you can read about differential scanning calorimetry here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_scanning_calorimetry

Jeff D.

Re: [Vo]:Anti cold fusion and anti-HOT-fusion book

[thomas malloy]

Jed Rothwell wrote:

At first I thought this was another dig at cold fusion alone but it 
also attacks plasma fusion.


Sun in a Bottle: The Strange History of Fusion and the Science of 
Wishful Thinking




Did you read the book Jed?

My nephew thinks that laser fusion projects such as the ITER, will work. 
OTOH, he's savvy enough not to spend his own money on this research. 
He'd  happily spend your (tax) money on it however. As for the wrecked 
careers, the hot fusion physicists have used this dream as a cash cow 
for over a half century. AFAIK, there's no end in site.


When the British announced their latest laser fusion experiment, I 
questioned Ed Storms about it. Apparently their approach is different 
from the magnetic confinement with a lithium blanket approach. I haven't 
read any evaluations of it's feasibility.


The book's attacks on LENR really irk me. It's clear that some results, 
The Patterson Cell, and the heat after death, clearly show surplus 
energy. Then there's the matter of the anomalous neculides.



--- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- 
http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---

Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion

[Jed Rothwell]

Okay, people, let's have a serious discussion of this. The election is just
around the corner, and we should have the letter ready on day one, as the
politicians say. Let's hear some suggestions -- wording, goals, people we
should send it to, etc.

I want to make it clear that I am not proposing this be an exclusive
approach to the new administration. I hope that many other cold fusion
researchers and supporters also try to make contact with the new admin. The
more approaches we make, the more likely it is that one will get through. Ed
Storms told me that other people are approaching Obama's people quietly. I
am sure the Navy people are getting ready to make their case. That's fine. I
am not proposing they stop, or combine forces with others on this letter, or
that all CF researchers should agree on what is needed. But we do many
things in parallel. The Navy people can contact the higher-ups in their
organization while at the same time they sign a letter with other people
outside the Navy.

The one thing I would suggest is that we should not have two simultaneous
campaigns to publish open letters by many CF researchers. That would confuse
things.

I propose to put it on its own HTML page at LENR-CANR. I wil keep the list
of signatures current, if people start to respond. Steve Krivit and others
can periodically copy the text, or just point to the HTML page, whichever
they prefer.

I think the letter should have the following characteristics:

It should be very short. It should get right to the point, and be
categorical.

It should be non-technical. There is plenty of technical information
available at LENR-CANR for those who want to learn more.

It should make only a few points: that cold fusion is real and it may be
able to solve the energy crisis. It should include nothing about the
controversy, history, calorimetry, theory, present state of the art,
reproducibility, or anything else. Again, such details are available for
those who want them.

It should make one or two specific recommendations: $5 or $10 million in
government funding per year (or whatever dollar amount we agree on). No
specifics about who gets the money or what they do with it.

It should be signed by as many people as we can muster, especially people
with impressive sounding titles.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:NaH - strong and strange

[R C Macaulay]

And Mom, wash Remi's mouth out with soap before you tuck him in.  The 
problem with letting a kid hang around college students is they pick up on 
the slang without ever learning there is a difference between wisdom and 
knowledge.

Richard

Remi wrote,
Sorry bedtime the clocks have gone back. 

Re: [Vo]:Anti cold fusion and anti-HOT-fusion book

[Steven Krivit]

I'm in the process of writing a review.


At 11:33 AM 10/26/2008, you wrote:
At first I thought this was another dig at cold fusion alone but it also 
attacks plasma fusion.


Sun in a Bottle: The Strange History of Fusion and the Science of Wishful 
Thinking


http://www.amazon.com/Sun-Bottle-Strange-History-Thinking/dp/0670020338

Review:

"When weapons builders detonated the first hydrogen bomb in 1952, they 
tapped into the vastest source of energy in our solar system--the very 
same phenomenon that makes the sun shine. Nuclear fusion was a virtually 
unlimited source of power that became the center of a tragic and comic 
quest that has left scores of scientists battered and disgraced. For the 
past half-century, governments and research teams have tried to bottle the 
sun with lasers, magnets, sound waves, particle beams, and chunks of meta. 
(The latest venture, a giant, multi-billion-dollar, international fusion 
project called ITER, is just now getting underway.) Again and again, they 
have failed, disgracing generations of scientists. Throughout this 
fascinating journey Charles Seife introduces us to the daring geniuses, 
villains, and victims of fusion science: the brilliant and tortured Andrei 
Sakharov; the monomaniacal and Strangelovean Edward Teller; Ronald 
Richter, the secretive physicist whose lies embarrassed an entire country; 
and Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, the two chemists behind the 
greatest scientific fiasco of the past hundred years. Sun in a Bottle is 
the first major book to trace the story of fusion from its beginnings into 
the 21st century, of how scientists have gotten burned by trying to 
harness the power of the sun."


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion

[Remi Cornwall]

Clever guy:

 

http://newdeal.feri.org/speeches/1932d.htm

http://www.hpol.org/fdr/inaug/

 

Someone with balls, a clever Ivy Leaguer to command the economy over the
craziness of the market being far from equilibrium. 

 

It's like settling a large wobbling bowl of water: you need to be bigger and
stronger than it to have an overview of its behaviour to catch the chaotic
oscillations and smooth them out. Once conditions have returned back to
normal a light hand on the tiller is sufficient.

 

Tough times need men with balls: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6rDeOojFXk 

 

  _  

From: Remi Cornwall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 26 October 2008 22:39
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion

 

Print gov. bonds, print money. Joe Soap picks the tax bill up in the future.
It's tough sh.t, you want free market funny money instead? Just what is the
difference anyway? Hyper inflated house prices is just the same legerdemain.

 

Oh it's bedtime.

 

  _  

From: R C Macaulay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 26 October 2008 22:03
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion

 

Remi,

Add to the list... NO MONEY .. and you have a better picture to the new
regime.

Richard

 

 

 

> I assume Obama will win. This is probably good news for us. His people are
highly in tune with technology and change.

 

A liberal broad church. No Creationists, lobby, war or mad greedy lobby in
the democrat camp.

 

RE: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion

[Remi Cornwall]

Print gov. bonds, print money. Joe Soap picks the tax bill up in the future.
It's tough sh.t, you want free market funny money instead? Just what is the
difference anyway? Hyper inflated house prices is just the same legerdemain.

 

Oh it's bedtime.

 

  _  

From: R C Macaulay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 26 October 2008 22:03
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion

 

Remi,

Add to the list... NO MONEY .. and you have a better picture to the new
regime.

Richard

 

 

 

> I assume Obama will win. This is probably good news for us. His people are
highly in tune with technology and change.

 

A liberal broad church. No Creationists, lobby, war or mad greedy lobby in
the democrat camp.

 

RE: [Vo]:NaH - strong and strange

[Remi Cornwall]

[snip]
Nobody knows anything. There is no such thing as knowledge, because
knowledge
implies certainty, and there is always some element of doubt.

Come off it. Someone said that getting a PhD was a license to do research.
I'm not saying the state should ban non-initiates but there is the
Scientific Method.

1) Conjecture stage. Wacky idea. Wacky data. Wacky discovery. 

2) Hypothesis. You do some sums, read some books, talk to some people begin
to understand it or understand that you misunderstood it. You design future
experiments.

3) Theory/theorem stage. The data comes in and there is no other way to
explain it. You attach a theorem to the data and it matches to so many s.f.
(that's significant figures not science fiction, right?) and it achieves
general acceptance

4) Outreach stage. The clever people come along and look at it in all
different ways from different directions and see it ties up with other
stuff. They reformulate it and beauties of economy and other predictions
come out.

No, go find a Hydrino. Go look at spectrums from stars. Try and isolate the
stuff. Get a few uL of it. Do diffraction testing, find out how big they
are. Compress it and do a thermodynamic analysis of it so you can get its
equation of state. That'll give you an idea of how big the particles are too
and the forces they exert amongst each other. Try getting its emission
spectrum and tie it up with your astronomical data. Tackle the problem in
several directions and get the data to tie up.


He doesn't do any of this on his 60M$ dollar budget because he doesn't know
what he is doing or he is vain and wants to push a theory or it just doesn't
bloody exist.

If all you say all day is f..king hydrino, hydrino, hydrino on the john, on
the wife, on the au pair, squeezing your zits, having a w.nk, then I would
say you based your whole project on it and it was pretty damn central. So
your objective would be to nail that one right away. Right? 

Having met that milestone it would get generally accepted.

But you don't like certainty? Not even CERTAINTY OF APPROACH???



On the other hand they kick co-researchers in the nuts who are doing similar
things with metals and hydrides, drag them DOWN INTO THE MIRE BY ASSOCIATION
when all that needed to be said was:

"We get excess heat, we don't know what the mechanism is but there is
definitely excess heat"


Charismatic mono-idea-its who never touch reality are soggy floating turds
in the punch bowl of serious endeavour. (Does a soggy turd float? On the
stock market I guess)

Yes, having an intuition may guide you to the result (or even completely
different directions) even if the intuition is wrong. But it must touch
reality to be called Science.

The CF, LENR people I'd call the Anomalous Metal Hydride Excess Heat
Phenomena (AMHEHP?) and start again. Get the best (**experimenters**) in the
field and keep the cranks out unless they come to you with something that
works. They'll drag you down and kill it all.

You go in with the CERTAINTY of what something IS by giving it a NAME. If
research is open-ended you might not know what that thing even is. 

Changing CF to LENR was a good move. Besides some programming language has
appropriated the name.

Changing Global Warming to Climate Change is a similar move because some
prediction from xs CO2 cause a cooling, ironically, by altering airflow or
ocean current flow.

Sorry bedtime the clocks have gone back. 

-Original Message-
From: Robin van Spaandonk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 26 October 2008 21:55
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NaH - strong and strange

In reply to  Remi Cornwall's message of Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:42:34 -:
Hi Remi,
[snip]
>Have you ever come across Hydrinos?
>
> 
>
>Can people tell the difference between Star Trek and the Discovery channel?
>
> 
>
>Despite the Arthur C Clarke quote, the initiated know the difference
between
>science, the pursuit of science and pure and applied bullshitology.
[snip]
Nobody knows anything. There is no such thing as knowledge, because
knowledge
implies certainty, and there is always some element of doubt.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion

[R C Macaulay]

Remi,
Add to the list... NO MONEY .. and you have a better picture to the new regime.
Richard




  > I assume Obama will win. This is probably good news for us. His people are 
highly in tune with technology and change.

   

  A liberal broad church. No Creationists, lobby, war or mad greedy lobby in 
the democrat camp.

   

Re: [Vo]:NaH - strong and strange

[Robin van Spaandonk]

In reply to  Remi Cornwall's message of Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:42:34 -:
Hi Remi,
[snip]
>Have you ever come across Hydrinos?
>
> 
>
>Can people tell the difference between Star Trek and the Discovery channel?
>
> 
>
>Despite the Arthur C Clarke quote, the initiated know the difference between
>science, the pursuit of science and pure and applied bullshitology.
[snip]
Nobody knows anything. There is no such thing as knowledge, because knowledge
implies certainty, and there is always some element of doubt.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: [Vo]:NaH - strong and strange

[Robin van Spaandonk]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sun, 26 Oct 2008 14:20:48 -0700 (PDT):
Hi,
[snip]
>Robin,
>
>Have you ever come across this in Mills' CQM (or in any commentary by others):
>
>The possible direct conversion of the negative hydrogen ion (H-) into hydrino 
>hydride in one step? 

No I haven't, however that doesn't mean much. 

Mills does cover the shrinkage of the H2 molecule in one step.
(It's always intrigued me that he never followed through on that.)
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

RE: [Vo]:NaH - strong and strange

[Remi Cornwall]

Have you ever come across Hydrinos?

 

Can people tell the difference between Star Trek and the Discovery channel?

 

Despite the Arthur C Clarke quote, the initiated know the difference between
science, the pursuit of science and pure and applied bullshitology.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEfKEzX9QLE

 

(Not a personal attack)

 

  _  

From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 26 October 2008 21:21
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NaH - strong and strange

 

Robin,

Have you ever come across this in Mills' CQM (or in any commentary by
others):

The possible direct conversion of the negative hydrogen ion (H-) into
hydrino hydride in one step? 

I think you can see where that suggestion is going wrt NaH 

Jones

 

Re: [Vo]:NaH - strong and strange

[Jones Beene]

Robin,

Have you ever come across this in Mills' CQM (or in any commentary by others):

The possible direct conversion of the negative hydrogen ion (H-) into hydrino 
hydride in one step? 

I think you can see where that suggestion is going wrt NaH 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:NaH - strong and strange

[Jones Beene]

Robin,

> Surely when dissolved in water NaH just yields NaOH + H2?

In the end yes - of course - in fact it has been suggested as a suitable 
hydrogen "carrier" for the so-called hydrogen economy.

BTW - here are some relevant numbers which are handy to have around.

12Kg ( 26.45lb) of NaH are required to deliver 1Kg of Hydrogen gas.
1 mol of hydrogen = 2.0 grams = 22.4 standard liters
1 kilogram of hydrogen = 33.3 kilowatt-hours = .12 gigajoules
1 gram of Hydrogen = 33.33 watts = 113.814198 Btu
1 standard of cubic foot H2 = 2.53 grams = 28.32 liters = .028 cubic meters
Heat of combustion of hydrogen: 241.8 kilojoules / mol of H2 (LHZ)
Hydrogen weighs just 0.08988 grams per liter
Sodium Hydride (NaH) will release 1300 times it's volume in hydrogen
The hydrogen gas produced with NaH and water is 99.997% pure (low NOx

RE: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion

[Remi Cornwall]

> I assume Obama will win. This is probably good news for us. His people are
highly in tune with technology and change.

 

A liberal broad church. No Creationists, lobby, war or mad greedy lobby in
the democrat camp.

 

>  When you specify an amount, you run the risk of creating an
artificial ceiling that you may come to regret. OTOH if you don't specify an
amount you run the risk of getting too little.

 

Nice to have educated people not greedy salesmen types controlling your
existence, know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

 

  _  

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 26 October 2008 20:21
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion

 

After the election, I think it would be a good idea for cold fusion
researchers to make a concerted effort to approach the incoming
administration. We should find out who has been tapped for the secretary of
energy and/or who the elected president's energy advisors are, and try to
approach those people. We should approach anyone who might have access to
the nascent administration, along with influential people who have expressed
sympathy for cold fusion, such as Llewellyn King. There will be millions of
e-mails and letters sent to the new administration so it will be difficult
to get through this blizzard, but perhaps if we act in concert and we sound
like highly  responsible mainstream people and we can generate a signal
above the noise level.

I assume Obama will win. This is probably good news for us. His people are
highly in tune with technology and change. I have first-hand personal
experience with this, working as a volunteer for the campaign. They have
used computers and other technology in ways that never would have occurred
to me, and I pride myself on being a forward-looking, with-it kind of guy.
(Whether Obama himself is highly computer literate does not matter; he hires
people who are and he gives them free reign to do what they want to do.)
Obama and his people are also extremely well-organized and responsive.
Quoting an expert on this: "[Obama] has the best political organization for
a presidential campaign that I have ever seen here," Tom Slade, a former
[Florida] state Republican chairman, said of Mr. Obama. "Bar none. He has
run a phenomenally good campaign."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/us/politics/25florida.html

I have not had time to think about this lately, but I am going to circulate
this memo to cold fusion researchers and interested people such as the
readers of this list. Anyone who has ideas to contribute should post them
here.

I recommend a restrained, sensible tone, concentrating strictly on technical
issues. There is no need to mention the anti-cold fusion hysteria of the
last 20 years. We need to describe the results, but we should avoid
experimental jargon. I recommend a short message signed by many people. I
have not thought much about what the content should be, but it should be
short and to the point. The person reading it will be extremely busy so we
must get right to the point and say everything we need to say in two or
three short paragraphs.

I would make the tone similar to the standard response I send to people who
attacked cold fusion: 

"Cold fusion was replicated by hundreds of world-class laboratories, and
these replications were published in mainstream, peer-reviewed  journals.
You will find a bibliography of over 3,000 papers and the full text from
over 500 papers here:

http://lenr-canr.org   "

(I just sent a copy to Charles Seife, the author of the new book.)

The letter has to be a little longer than this but it should have the same
tone. It should be an "open letter" meaning we circulate copies everywhere
and upload them to various websites. I suppose the main points we want to
make are:


Cold fusion, the Fleischmann and Pons effect, has been replicated by
hundreds of scientists, and these replications have been published in
roughly 1000 peer-reviewed papers in mainstream journals.

The effect has produced as much as 10,000 times more energy per gram of fuel
than any chemical reaction can, and no chemical ash has been detected, so it
is a nuclear reaction. It has produced temperatures and power density equal
to the core of a conventional fission reactor. At present, the cold fusion
effect cannot be easily reproduced or controlled, but if it can be
controlled it may become a useful source of energy. It produces virtually no
pollution; the fuel source is inexhaustible; and the energy will be far
cheaper than any alternative.

We believe that the federal government should allocate between five and $10
million a year to this research. Many qualified fellow researchers would
like to perform cold fusion research, but they have not been funded.



I would make the letter not much longer or more detailed than this.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion

[Remi Cornwall]

Ahh, the art of grant proposals...

I hate project management, how can you plan every last detail in advance if
you are doing research? To paraphrase Einstein 'if we knew what we were
doing it wouldn't be research'.

> When you specify an amount, you run the risk of creating an artificial
ceiling
that you may come to regret. OTOH if you don't specify an amount you run the
risk of getting too little.


Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: [Vo]:NaH - strong and strange

[Robin van Spaandonk]

In reply to  R C Macaulay's message of Sun, 26 Oct 2008 08:30:52 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
Jones wrote:
>  The salt NaH is a strong base, meaning that it normally donates the negative 
> ion H- instead of the proton in liquid solution  However, on reading up 
> on it, there is more to it than meets the eye.
[snip]
Surely when dissolved in water NaH just yields NaOH + H2?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

RE: RE: [Vo]:Generating X-RAYS From Scotch Tape

[Remi Cornwall]

That was brilliant Harry. (One of them looks like the actor from "Numbers").

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triboelectric_effect

 

It seems counter-intuitive then one thinks of a Van de Graff machine and it
seems obvious, then on thinking again it seems counter-intuitive again.

 

".100,000 x-ray photons in a billionth of a second what kind of collective
process can do that?"

 

Then the picture of the strands of adhesive (about 100um) pealing.

 

I dunno, voltage of 50kV in a length of 100um field strength 5MV/m. Some
sort of transducer effect (Tribo) turns the flexing into surface charge and
it seems to cascade over at catastrophic breakdown.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulator_(electrical)

"Porcelain has a dielectric strength of about 4-10 kV/mm."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch_tape

So some kind of cellulose or derivative.

 

I guess perhaps it's like a high voltage ladder generator where at flash
over everything is suddenly put in series to generate a large voltage. May
be the twisting of the polymer molecules does the alignment and the field
breaks down the dielectric along the backbone of the molecule.

 

 

  _  

From: Harry Veeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 26 October 2008 19:53
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: RE: [Vo]:Generating X-RAYS From Scotch Tape

 

also, that page has a link to great video demo:

http://www.nature.com/nature/videoarchive/x-rays/

harry

 

- Original Message -

From: Remi Cornwall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

Date: Sunday, October 26, 2008 3:08 pm 

Subject: RE: [Vo]:Generating X-RAYS From Scotch Tape 

> Interesting. I imagine high voltages are generated too. 
> 
> 
> 
> I like the one when you open mail in a darkened room and get a 
> blue flash as 
> the adhesive is torn. I think it's called electro-trilubescence 
> . 
> 
> 
> _ 
> 
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 26 October 2008 18:36 
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
> Subject: [Vo]:Generating X-RAYS From Scotch Tape 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello all. I have been lurking here for eons, however, this report 
> is too 
> intriguing not to post. According to "Nature" It has been 
> discovered that 
> scotch tape when peeled in a vacuum gives off x-rays! Enough x- 
> rays to 
> photograph the bones in a finger! 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081022/full/news.2008.1185.html 
> 
> 
&g t; 
> It is speculated that the well known luminescense that crystals 
> radiate when 
> struck or compressed or when certain tapes are unwound is the 
> cause.Thecomments at the bottom of the page are as interesting as 
> the article. You 
> will see a couple from Bill B. 
> 
> There is also mine. Would astronauts have to be warned not to use 
> duct tape 
> in a vacuum? Trevor Lawrence 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _ 
> 
> Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, no 
> registration required and great graphics - check 
>
 %0ahttp://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame0001> it out! 
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion

[Robin van Spaandonk]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Sun, 26 Oct 2008 16:21:26 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>We believe that the federal government should allocate between five 
>and $10 million a year to this research. Many qualified fellow 
>researchers would like to perform cold fusion research, but they have 
>not been funded.
[snip]
When you specify an amount, you run the risk of creating an artificial ceiling
that you may come to regret. OTOH if you don't specify an amount you run the
risk of getting too little.

Perhaps you could just say that at least "x number" of researchers should be
supported?

Also, it may not hurt to remind that the review panel said that some research
should be supported.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion

[Jed Rothwell]

After the election, I think it would be a good idea for cold fusion 
researchers to make a concerted effort to approach the incoming 
administration. We should find out who has been tapped for the 
secretary of energy and/or who the elected president's energy 
advisors are, and try to approach those people. We should approach 
anyone who might have access to the nascent administration, along 
with influential people who have expressed sympathy for cold fusion, 
such as Llewellyn King. There will be millions of e-mails and letters 
sent to the new administration so it will be difficult to get through 
this blizzard, but perhaps if we act in concert and we sound like 
highly  responsible mainstream people and we can generate a signal 
above the noise level.


I assume Obama will win. This is probably good news for us. His 
people are highly in tune with technology and change. I have 
first-hand personal experience with this, working as a volunteer for 
the campaign. They have used computers and other technology in ways 
that never would have occurred to me, and I pride myself on being a 
forward-looking, with-it kind of guy. (Whether Obama himself is 
highly computer literate does not matter; he hires people who are and 
he gives them free reign to do what they want to do.) Obama and his 
people are also extremely well-organized and responsive. Quoting an 
expert on this: "[Obama] has the best political organization for a 
presidential campaign that I have ever seen here," Tom Slade, a 
former [Florida] state Republican chairman, said of Mr. Obama. "Bar 
none. He has run a phenomenally good campaign."


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/us/politics/25florida.html

I have not had time to think about this lately, but I am going to 
circulate this memo to cold fusion researchers and interested people 
such as the readers of this list. Anyone who has ideas to contribute 
should post them here.


I recommend a restrained, sensible tone, concentrating strictly on 
technical issues. There is no need to mention the anti-cold fusion 
hysteria of the last 20 years. We need to describe the results, but 
we should avoid experimental jargon. I recommend a short message 
signed by many people. I have not thought much about what the content 
should be, but it should be short and to the point. The person 
reading it will be extremely busy so we must get right to the point 
and say everything we need to say in two or three short paragraphs.


I would make the tone similar to the standard response I send to 
people who attacked cold fusion:


"Cold fusion was replicated by hundreds of world-class laboratories, 
and these replications were published in mainstream, 
peer-reviewed  journals. You will find a bibliography of over 3,000 
papers and the full text from over 500 papers here:


http://lenr-canr.org";

(I just sent a copy to Charles Seife, the author of the new book.)

The letter has to be a little longer than this but it should have the 
same tone. It should be an "open letter" meaning we circulate copies 
everywhere and upload them to various websites. I suppose the main 
points we want to make are:



Cold fusion, the Fleischmann and Pons effect, has been replicated by 
hundreds of scientists, and these replications have been published in 
roughly 1000 peer-reviewed papers in mainstream journals.


The effect has produced as much as 10,000 times more energy per gram 
of fuel than any chemical reaction can, and no chemical ash has been 
detected, so it is a nuclear reaction. It has produced temperatures 
and power density equal to the core of a conventional fission 
reactor. At present, the cold fusion effect cannot be easily 
reproduced or controlled, but if it can be controlled it may become a 
useful source of energy. It produces virtually no pollution; the fuel 
source is inexhaustible; and the energy will be far cheaper than any 
alternative.


We believe that the federal government should allocate between five 
and $10 million a year to this research. Many qualified fellow 
researchers would like to perform cold fusion research, but they have 
not been funded.




I would make the letter not much longer or more detailed than this.

- Jed

Re: RE: [Vo]:Generating X-RAYS From Scotch Tape

[Harry Veeder]

also, that page has a link to great video demo:
http://www.nature.com/nature/videoarchive/x-rays/
harry
 
- Original Message -
From: Remi Cornwall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, October 26, 2008 3:08 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Generating X-RAYS From Scotch Tape

> Interesting. I imagine high voltages are generated too. > > > > I like the one when you open mail in a darkened room and get a > blue flash as > the adhesive is torn. I think it's called electro-trilubescence > . > > > _ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 26 October 2008 18:36 > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: [Vo]:Generating X-RAYS From Scotch Tape > > > > Hello all. I have been lurking here for eons, however, this report > is too > intriguing not to post. According to "Nature" It has been > discovered that > scotch tape when peeled in a vacuum gives off x-rays! Enough x- > rays to > photograph the bones in a finger! > > > > http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081022/full/news.2008.1185.html > > &g
 t; > It is speculated that the well known luminescense that crystals > radiate when > struck or compressed or when certain tapes are unwound is the > cause.Thecomments at the bottom of the page are as interesting as > the article. You > will see a couple from Bill B. > > There is also mine. Would astronauts have to be warned not to use > duct tape > in a vacuum? Trevor Lawrence > > > > > > _ > > Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, no > registration required and great graphics - check > > %0ahttp://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame0001> it out! > > 

[Vo]:Anti cold fusion and anti-HOT-fusion book

[Jed Rothwell]

At first I thought this was another dig at cold fusion alone but it 
also attacks plasma fusion.


Sun in a Bottle: The Strange History of Fusion and the Science of 
Wishful Thinking


http://www.amazon.com/Sun-Bottle-Strange-History-Thinking/dp/0670020338

Review:

"When weapons builders detonated the first hydrogen bomb in 1952, 
they tapped into the vastest source of energy in our solar 
system--the very same phenomenon that makes the sun shine. Nuclear 
fusion was a virtually unlimited source of power that became the 
center of a tragic and comic quest that has left scores of scientists 
battered and disgraced. For the past half-century, governments and 
research teams have tried to bottle the sun with lasers, magnets, 
sound waves, particle beams, and chunks of meta. (The latest venture, 
a giant, multi-billion-dollar, international fusion project called 
ITER, is just now getting underway.) Again and again, they have 
failed, disgracing generations of scientists. Throughout this 
fascinating journey Charles Seife introduces us to the daring 
geniuses, villains, and victims of fusion science: the brilliant and 
tortured Andrei Sakharov; the monomaniacal and Strangelovean Edward 
Teller; Ronald Richter, the secretive physicist whose lies 
embarrassed an entire country; and Stanley Pons and Martin 
Fleischmann, the two chemists behind the greatest scientific fiasco 
of the past hundred years. Sun in a Bottle is the first major book to 
trace the story of fusion from its beginnings into the 21st century, 
of how scientists have gotten burned by trying to harness the power 
of the sun."


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Generating X-RAYS From Scotch Tape

[Remi Cornwall]

Interesting. I imagine high voltages are generated too.

 

I like the one when you open mail in a darkened room and get a blue flash as
the adhesive is torn. I think it's called electro-trilubescence .

 

  _  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 26 October 2008 18:36
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Generating X-RAYS From Scotch Tape

 

Hello all. I have been lurking here for eons, however, this report is too
intriguing not to post.  According to "Nature" It has been discovered that
scotch tape when peeled in a vacuum gives off x-rays!  Enough x-rays to
photograph the bones in a finger!

 

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081022/full/news.2008.1185.html

 

It is speculated that the well known luminescense that crystals radiate when
struck or compressed  or when certain tapes are unwound is the cause.The
comments at the bottom of the page are as interesting as the article.  You
will see a couple from Bill B.

There is also mine.  Would astronauts have to be warned not to use duct tape
in a vacuum?   Trevor  Lawrence





  _  

Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, no
registration required and great graphics - check
  it out!

RE: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?

[Remi Cornwall]

Vortex,

Not blowing my own trumpet (I don't need to I've got good support behind me)
this is what an apprentice learns in graduate school:

The subject frontiers
The art of scientific writing
How to do presentations
How to lead
Research Ethics
Writing grant proposals
How to manage time
How to manage people
Life in general

There is more, much more. In fact there is a requirement to actually attend
taught courses as such in UK universities in grad school. If you've done a
lot outside it feels like you are having your style cramped being told how
to write papers, for instance. We all hate these courses. I've done a bunk
on some of them but I'll catch up when they are re-run half yearly.

Now not blowing my own trumpet:
http://uk.geocities.com/remicornwall/PartOutline.pdf. I've got a contentious
idea, right? I learn to keep schtump until I begin (just beginning to) to
pass master with people who are professionals in the field. Yes over the
years I'll get shown the door, insulted, have to put up with fools in high
positions I know I ring circles around (Polytechnic Professors).

*The art of progress is dealing with people, keeping your cool, conceding
when you are wrong, being gentle in victory and DOING THE GODDAM WORK!*

Section by section I write that document in the link above. It will
eventually be cut and pasted into a thesis which I will have to defend.

Sometimes I get pissed off with the whole establishment, down tools for
months, go and do something else. Sometimes I get depressed. Sometimes I
avoid my supervisors. Then I pluck up the courage go and see them and they
are happy to see me. Yes I was annoyed how slow things were going in their
acceptance of my ideas BUT THE CHANGE COMES FROM ME TOO.

I am chuffed that these guys are even bothering. I think for the fees to
attend (I don't pay them now) I get a lot of their wisdom and facilities for
buttons. Like a lawyer might represent you, these guys know how to present
an argument in the court of expert opinion and if you don't take their
advice, then the client is a fool.

Bit by bit I hone the arguments, design experiments, get the grants in, get
the data and do the seminars/write the papers. Leave the knock-out whammy
far-out sh.t to the end. Who knows, ideas at the start may be very different
when at the end: Plasticity in thought.

I am prepared, though with much frustration, to accept the wisdom of others
more experienced than me IF I KNOW THEIR INTENTIONS ARE GOOD. If I smell the
rat of indifference and incompetence I leave the place (yeah Brighton).

I like liberal patricians. I like the good 'ole Ivy league types when
watching BBC4 in programmes like Alan Clarke's "Civilisation" or Simon
Schama on the USA (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00f4zgd). I get to
realise how little I know. I know my limitations. Then again I might think
what Schama says about the US realising that the US dream is dead (war,
environment, finance) is sh.t because he doesn't have the mind of someone
who knows about technology or the sheer optimism and ignorance of someone
not as smart as him to do something everyone thinks is wrong. 

I also like the world outside university and the ability it gives you to run
off and get your own funding when no-one listens. Then again I see the waste
and endless charismatic half-wits with silly permanent magnet motors.

I hate the scam artists, the vain and incompetent. They ruin it for
everyone.

[Vo]:Generating X-RAYS From Scotch Tape

[TrevStar22]

Hello all. I have been lurking here for eons, however, this report is too  
intriguing not to post.  According to "Nature" It has been discovered that  
scotch tape when peeled in a vacuum gives off x-rays!  Enough x-rays to  
photograph the bones in a finger!
 
_http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081022/full/news.2008.1185.html_ 
(http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081022/full/news.2008.1185.html) 
 
It is speculated that the well known luminescense that crystals radiate  when 
struck or compressed  or when certain tapes are unwound is the  cause.The 
comments at the bottom of the page are as interesting as the  article.  You 
will 
see a couple from Bill B.
There is also mine.  Would astronauts have to be warned not to use  duct tape 
in a vacuum?   Trevor   Lawrence
**Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, 
no registration required and great graphics – check it out! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir=
http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame0001)

RE: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?

[Remi Cornwall]

You know organisations, big plans, fail when the leadership is weak. It's
tragic when people get promoted beyond their ability or the ability of their
ego to contain it all. Then the hangers on smell the carrion.

I'd rather take a quiet role as advisor than the captain of the ship.
Technical knowhow and business don't often mix.

Yeah, the Ivy Leaguers don't know everything but I'd sooner have an Ivy
Leaguer directing it all, peer reviewing, running the whole show, patrician
and patronising as they may be, than submit to the Searls, Steorns, The
Meyers, Mills(?), The Millers(he's a UK phenomenon nipped in the bud),
Newmans, Enrons, Bear Sterns of this world than the totally-gone
laissez-faire alternative.


Jed gave this a few weeks ago.
http://newdeal.feri.org/speeches/1932d.htm
http://www.hpol.org/fdr/inaug/

We need that kind of vision and integrity at the top allied with the private
sector for new energy.

(Drop below the ground state, tsck! bollox! Tricks with wheels and magnets
bollox! 'Tickling phase space', 'The Searl Effect', 'Collateralised debt',
'financial engineering' all bollox and scams! )

Re: [Vo]:NaH - strong and strange

[R C Macaulay]

Howdy Jones,
Good way to learn would be to  add "Drano".
Richard



  The salt NaH is a strong base, meaning that it normally donates the negative 
ion H- instead of the proton in liquid solution  However, on reading up on 
it, there is more to it than meets the eye.

   also despite the combination with the lightest gas, Na with H  - the 
resultant salt NaH is 40% denser than the Na metal, which admittedly is very 
light, but still...


  Those two factoids alone should tell you something is unusual with this 
species. Another unusual and related subject is helium gas as a solvent, since 
helium is so "hydrogen-like".





  If you think about it - and this suggestion may be way 'off-base' (so to 
speak) but in the event NaH were to begin to ionize and once in a while act 
like an acid, instead of a base when solvated by helium-  i.e. occasionally 
donate the proton - then here is the beauty of it (in the context of BLP). 





  Caveat: I cannot find a reference (after a half hour search) that this has 
been documented to occur in a statistically relevant fashion, so maybe it is 
your basic no-go.





  Anyway - If the proton did occasionally ionize instead of the anion with an 
inert gas, and assuming this could happen fairly often: then the proton is 
poised to temporarily grab one of the helium electrons for even a very short 
time, sub-nanosecond - then you have transient monatomic hydrogen within a 
helium catalyst at a resonant level - made to order for hydrinos. The race is 
on.





  The only question then: is the time frame short enough for 'shrinkage' to 
happen statistically often (before the proton "returns home") ? IOW is the 
shrinkage reaction extremely fast, relative to reversible ionization ?





  Dunno. This could all be about "time" on the quantum level... but the fact 
that there is the energy anomaly Mike mentioned with the simple mix of the two 
- that alone raises the possibility, and makes it worth investigating all the 
angles, no matter how seemingly bizarre, no?





  Jones




--

Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: CMNS at a Critical Point?

[Haiko Lietz]

I agree with Ed's point that my analysis is not diagnostic of the LENR 
process and will not help identify the nuclear active environment.


I think that we can only learn something about the collective endeavor 
of LENR. We can learn something about the field of CMNS. My question is: 
is the field at a critical point?


Criticality indicates the regime of complexity between chaos and order.

An Fe/H system is not complex in terms of LENR. Excess heat measurements 
will center on a mean of 0W with some variance. This system is not 
complex because there are not even any variables to understand in terms 
of LENR. This may be the chaotic regime.


But a combustion engine is not complex either. All variables that 
influence power generation are understood. It's controlled technology. 
This may be the ordered regime.


The power-law of CMNS may indicate that the field is at a critical point 
between non-technology (such as an Fe/H system) and controlled technology.


My hypothesis is, counter to Ed's statement, that combustion engines' 
power outputs are normally distributed, not scale-invariant. I don't 
expect extreme engines to exist that a power-law rather than an 
exponential distribution describes the distribution. However, there may 
be a power-law effect if different classes of cars are aggregated, as I 
did with the LENR data.


This can be tested. Does someone have access to combustion engine power 
data, possibly with an additional class variable?


Haiko



I appreciate the analysis Haiko did of the data I list in my book. 
Before too much effort is spent on deciding what the power law Haiko 
found means, we should consider several facts.


The values I listed are the maximum excess energy reported by each 
listed study. This energy is based on a variety of temperatures of the 
cathode, applied current density, simple size, and amount of NAE that 
might have formed on the sample. Each of these variables is known to 
affect the amount of excess energy produced. Therefore, the data do not 
describe the same conditions.  When a power law is applied, the same 
conditions are assumed to exist. For example, if a phase transition is 
being examined, the transition is always between the same two phases.  
Instead, the CF reaction is occurring under a variety of conditions.


Nevertheless, the data appear to fit a power law. What can this mean 
when these considerations are applied?  I would like to suggest the 
relationship means nothing. I suggest the same relationship could be 
obtained by plotting many conditions in nature. For example, I expect 
the same relationship can be obtained by plotting the number of gasoline 
engines in service vs their horse power.  Many small engines would be 
found to exist and the number would drop as the size increased. A few 
spikes might exist in the relationship at the popular sizes. Such a 
relationship, although interesting, gives no basic understanding about 
how gasoline engines work or why the different sizes were created.


The challenge no longer is to prove CF is real, which was the intent 
behind making this list. The challenge now is to discover the 
characteristics of the NAE.  I don't think this relationship gives any 
insight about how this can be done or how the NAE behaves under various 
conditions.


Ed


On Oct 25, 2008, at 2:05 AM, Haiko Lietz wrote:



Dear colleagues,

I've taken a closer look at the 157 excess heat experiments collected by
Ed Storms in his 2007 book. The collective body of experiments
represents 1/f noise: many small events, few large ones. Kozima et al.
have found the same result for individual experiments. Now I want to
discuss the meaning of it. A short description of my analysis and my
questions are here:

http://complexity.haikolietz.de/?p=38

The website is public, so you may forward this to anyone who might have
something to contribute (or let me know who). This is a rather new type
of analysis and I hope to tap the "wisdom of the crows."

We can discuss this here on the list.

Many thanks

Haiko

--

Haiko Lietz
Science Reporter & Sociologist
complexity.haikolietz.de
www.haikolietz.de
Germany

RE: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?

[Remi Cornwall]

Mike and all,

Yes it is a really fascinating discussion for all the usual reasons, some of
them science.

We've got a future energy group at university which is damn rigorous, full
of good people, attached to other great departments and universities YET
amazingly open minded and tolerant if you obey the house rules: if you are
junior you get everything checked over by your betters before using the name
of the institution and listen to advice.

As I've said on this list I saw a lecturer/research fellow stand up in a
seminar in front of the head of ITER (hot fusion in Europe) and mention CF.
I thought this would be career suicide. 

It's a rocky road to acceptance but the old conspiracy theories can wear
thin, just like a person were always to say "it 'cos I'm a member of this
 minority they're got it in for me". It might work a few times
then it will piss people off.

That Mills Treatise/grand thesis, like a novel I'd expect to get hooked if
it knew how to tease me from page to page:

1) The data: unequivocal data for excess heat production. The hard ball nuts
and bolts engineering and design calculations that reliably makes your
apparatus. GENERALLY ACCEPTED FACT.

2) HYDRINOS, we got some! Some *measured* properties of Hydrinos, an
equation of state, density measurements, emission data,
diffraction/crystallography data, reaction kinetics data, calorimetry,
specs, mass measurement more more more WHAT CAN YOU DO WITH 60 MILLION
DOLLARS!

3) Taking the stuff further: anomalous astronomical data NOBODY KNEW WHAT
THAT EMISSION LINE WAS AT 54eV for years.

4) Then you start laying on the treatise and telling everyone they are
wrong.


However if it's like this:

Chapter 1) You're all wrong. I ain't got much data yet but trust me. Unlearn
everything (logic, simple arithmetic too). I've got nothing that's generally
accepted but here's my GUT.

Chapter 2) Here's more GUT.

I guess that that smart productive band of people 20s to 50 who are good
senior fellows, post docs, PhDs, MScs, final year students, won't even
bother with it. Your jobbing research fellow going along to seminars will
leave a seminar PDQ. There are similarities to getting research out and
election hustings - there's a lot of emotion over reason.  

So what are left to think?
Crank science, charismatic/loopy leader, flawed science, acolyte troops of
hangers on to the funding money (hey, nice offices, nice logos)

Or they had something but the leader got a bit cranky? Keep a distance.

-Original Message-
From: Mike Carrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 26 October 2008 01:43
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?

Remi,

Thanks for the calibration and apologies for any apparent condescension. I'm

retired afer 38 years as a senior systems engineer for RCA, bridging between

the research world and the production world.

Regards,
Mike Carrell




- Original Message - 
From: "Remi Cornwall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 6:30 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?


> It's alright Mike I am a seasoned researcher, engineer, been in industry,
> know the ropes, have some aptitude, done some work, know a few things, 
> seen
> a few things. People are busy and they don't tend to want to re-learn 
> stuff
> if it doesn't come to the point soon, claims too much, looks too slick
> (websites and overheads) and requires outlay to download papers.
>
>> Remi, I've suggested some homework. When you look at the website, include
> the mamagement credentials and stay tuned. BLP's next step will require 
> some
>
> very serious money and very serious people are interested, despite the
> turmoil in the financial world. BLP's posture is shifting fromn research 
> to
> development.
>
> Mike Carrell
>
>>I mean is anything generally accepted/corroborated,
>> peer reviewed?
>>
>> i.e. can you make the clever people at the Ivy League or Fortune500 labs
>> want to spent their time on it?
>>
>> "
>>>NaH apparently qulaifies as a catalyst because heating can intiate a
>>>reaction resulting in H[1/3] which is a hydrino catalyst.
>> "
>>
>> And such stuff.
>>
>> Like anyone in Physics, Engineering or Chemistry in graduate school or
>> postdoc level could just pick and say "I know this to be a fact".
>>
>> I mean I will show you bogus as bogus gets: look up John Searl on Wiki or
>> YouTube. It's "done" in the style of science to look scientific when it 
>> is
>> science fiction and snake oil.
>>
>> I'm not saying Mills is but taking the stance of an impartial observer 
>> who
>> knows how difficult it is passing muster with peers at top universities
>> and
>> how important it is to take people's advice over presentation matters.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Mike Carrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: 25 October 2008 18:30
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Robin van Spaandonk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: 
>> Sent: Friday, Oct

Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?

[Dr. Mitchell Swartz]

At 06:38 PM 10/25/2008 -0600, Edmund ("Neutral potential") Stroms wrote:


The infrequent success in CF can be explained if the required and rare
catalyst is absent in most studies. This being the case, we need to
search for this catalyst.



"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable
from magic."
 Arthur C. Clarke
[The Jargon File, Version 2.9.10, 01 Jul 1992 ]

  Those who have used engineering have done quite well
in lattice assisted nuclear reactions (LANR,  ie. CF).

 

Re: [Vo]:NaH - strong and strange

[leaking pen]

im confused by your use of the term, donate a proton.  the ion h-
still is the proton. there is just an extra electron on it.  when
accepting a proton, you get h2 and na+ for the salt formation with
whatever gave the proton.  To have it "donate a proton" would mean
creating a stable na, which isnt going to happen, or an extra
electron, and then why would the proton steal an electron from helium?

Basically, you would need an electron sink to get this to happen, or a
neutral, stable, monoatomic sodium, and I'd be a HELL of a lot more
interested in the properties of that little gem than the transient
hydrogen, wouldn't you?

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 7:47 PM, Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The salt NaH is a strong base, meaning that it normally donates the negative
> ion H- instead of the proton in liquid solution  However, on reading up
> on it, there is more to it than meets the eye.
>
>  also despite the combination with the lightest gas, Na with H  - the
> resultant salt NaH is 40% denser than the Na metal, which admittedly is very
> light, but still...
>
> Those two factoids alone should tell you something is unusual with this
> species. Another unusual and related subject is helium gas as a solvent,
> since helium is so "hydrogen-like".
>
> If you think about it - and this suggestion may be way 'off-base' (so to
> speak) but in the event NaH were to begin to ionize and once in a while act
> like an acid, instead of a base when solvated by helium-  i.e. occasionally
> donate the proton - then here is the beauty of it (in the context of BLP).
>
> Caveat: I cannot find a reference (after a half hour search) that this has
> been documented to occur in a statistically relevant fashion, so maybe it is
> your basic no-go.
>
> Anyway - If the proton did occasionally ionize instead of the anion with an
> inert gas, and assuming this could happen fairly often: then the proton is
> poised to temporarily grab one of the helium electrons for even a very short
> time, sub-nanosecond - then you have transient monatomic hydrogen within a
> helium catalyst at a resonant level - made to order for hydrinos. The race
> is on.
>
> The only question then: is the time frame short enough for 'shrinkage' to
> happen statistically often (before the proton "returns home") ? IOW is the
> shrinkage reaction extremely fast, relative to reversible ionization ?
>
> Dunno. This could all be about "time" on the quantum level... but the fact
> that there is the energy anomaly Mike mentioned with the simple mix of the
> two - that alone raises the possibility, and makes it worth investigating
> all the angles, no matter how seemingly bizarre, no?
>
> Jones
>