RE: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released
Well...what I said is my view of the effect of the documentall the players in this have different goals and objectivesBarnhart's job is to scan the horizon and warn other people in DoD of potential, uh, issues. ...the co-authors of the document have different goals objectives, as you imply... the science is strong enough now that, yes indeed, with a good conduit, it can put up a very good fight At 11:37 PM 11/16/2009, you wrote: So the Intelligence community of the DoD looked into LENR, decided that there's enough sound scientific evidence to suggest that LENR just might be real, and because of the most extraordinary ramifications if it is real, is, with this report, warning government agencies and the scientific mainstream to WAKE THE F*CK UP or GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR A$$! ??? Or, someone on the inside found a conduit thru which to fight the 'perception'...
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released
On Nov 16, 2009, at 5:17 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: What I found particularly interesting: If rapid, explosive energy output can occur in one or several modes, could LENR serve as a new high-energy-density explosive? LOL! DIA and DOD interest. Where's DOE? A belly-buster, IMO. Cheeze! Terry It is ironic isn't it? CF dismissed by DOE and the patent office, and yet potentially important to DOD. However, I think the potential for concern is very real. Thermal excursions and particularly thermal excursions producing neutrons have been noted by various researchers. I now think there is a theoretical basis for such events. See pages 9-10 of draft #3 of Cold Fusion Nuclear Reactions, located here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:DIA paper uploaded
See: Barnhart, B., et al., Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance 2009, Defense Intelligence Agency. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BarnhartBtechnology.pdf This is an annoying document. There is a duplicated footnote, the graphics quality is poor, and converting it to a searchable format with ABBYY either degrades the image quality even more, or inflates the file size. The version I uploaded here was made searchable with PDF Converter Professional, which adds only 29 KB to the file and leaves the graphic quality alone. Unfortunately, the text has OCR errors in it. I have a completely corrected version from the ABBYY file. I think I will upload the text only here. NOTE: If you wish to see the underlying text in a searchable image-over-text Acrobat document, you can use two methods: 1. Put a block around a section of the document, press Ctrl-C and then paste into another program. 2. With some documents, within Acrobat select save a copy of this file. Change Save as type: to text. This does not seem to work with this file but you can always do this with a more civilized program such as PDF Converter Professional. I do not think much of Adobe Acrobat. - Jed
[Vo]:DIA-08-0911-003 text
[Here is the corrected text from the DIA report, ABBYY version. Unfortunately, this is not the underlying text in the version I uploaded. That has more OCR errors. I believe there are no OCR errors here, but I have not checked closely. - JR] UNCLASSIFIED Defense Intelligence Agency Defense Analysis Report DIA-08-0911-003 13 November 2009 Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance Scientists worldwide have been quietly investigating low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR)for the past 20 years. Researchers in this controversial field are now claiming paradigm-shifting results, including generation of large amounts of excess heat, nuclear activity and transmutation of elements.1,2,3 Although no current theory exists to explain all the reported phenomena, some scientists now believe quantum-level nuclear reactions may be occurring. DIA assesses with high confidence that if LENR can produce nuclear-origin energy at room temperatures, this disruptive technology could revolutionize energy production and storage, since nuclear reactions release millions of times more energy per unit mass than do any known chemical fuel.4,5 Background In 1989, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons announced that their electrochemical experiments had produced excess energy under standard temperature and pressure conditions.6 Because they could not explain this physical phenomenon based on known chemical reactions, they suggested the excess heat could be nuclear in origin. However, their experiments did not show the radiation or radioactivity expected from a nuclear reaction. Many researchers attempted to replicate the results and failed. As a result, the physics community disparaged their work as lacking credibility, and the press mistakenly dubbed it cold fusion. Related research also suffered from the negative publicity of cold fusion for the past 20 years, but many scientists believed something important was occurring and continued their research with little or no visibility. For years, scientists were intrigued by the possibility of producing large amounts of clean energy through LENR, and now this research has begun to be accepted in the scientific community as reproducible and legitimate. Source Summary Statement This assessment is based on analysis of a wide body of intelligence reporting, most of which is open source information including scientific briefings, peer-reviewed technical journals, international scientific conference proceedings, interviews with scientific experts and technical media. While there is little classified data on this topic due to the ST nature of the information and the lack of collection, DIA judges that these open sources generally provide the most reliable intelligence available on this topic. The information in this report has been corroborated and reviewed by U.S. technology experts who are familiar with the data and the international scientists involved in this work. Although much skepticism remains, LENR programs are receiving increased support worldwide, including state sponsorship and funding from major corporations.7,8,9,10 DIA assesses that Japan and Italy are leaders in the field, although Russia, China, Israel, and India are devoting significant resources to this work in the hope of finding a new clean UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED energy source. Scientists worldwide have been reporting anomalous excess heat production, as well as evidence of nuclear particles12,13,14 and transmutation.15,16,17 Y. Iwamura18 at Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries first detected transmutation of elements when permeating deuterium through palladium metal in 2002. Researchers led by Y. Arata at Osaka University in Japan19 and a team led by V.Violante at ENEA in Italy (the Italian National Agency for New Technologies, 20 Energy, and the Environmentthe equivalent to the U.S. Department of Energy) also made transmutation claims. Additional indications of transmutation have been reported in China, Russia, France, Ukraine, and the United States.21, Researchers in Japan, Italy, Israel, and the United States have all reported detecting evidence of nuclear particle emissions.23,24 Chinese researchers described LENR experiments in 1991 that generated so much heat that they caused an explosion that was not believed to be chemical in origin. Japanese, French, and U.S. scientists also have reported rapid, high-energy LENR releases leading to laboratory explosions, according to scientific journal articles from 1992 to 2009.26,27 Israeli scientists reported in 2008 that they have applied pulsating electrical currents to their LENR experiments to increase the excess energy production. 2S As of January 2008, India was reportedly considering restarting its LENR program after 14 years of dormancy. 29 U.S. LENR researchers also have reported results that support the
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released
Is the DIA a parody of the CIA? harry From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, November 17, 2009 8:00:57 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released On Nov 16, 2009, at 5:17 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: What I found particularly interesting: If rapid, explosive energy output can occur in one or several modes, could LENR serve as a new high-energy-density explosive? LOL! DIA and DOD interest. Where's DOE? A belly-buster, IMO. Cheeze! Terry It is ironic isn't it? CF dismissed by DOE and the patent office, and yet potentially important to DOD. However, I think the potential for concern is very real. Thermal excursions and particularly thermal excursions producing neutrons have been noted by various researchers. I now think there is a theoretical basis for such events. See pages 9-10 of draft #3 of Cold Fusion Nuclear Reactions, located here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ __ Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com
RE: [Vo]:New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released
From: Horace Heffner If rapid, explosive energy output can occur in one or several modes, could LENR serve as a new high-energy-density explosive? It is ironic isn't it? CF dismissed by DOE and the patent office, and yet potentially important to DOD. However, I think the potential for concern is very real. Yup. Absolutely. Going back to Robert Forward we find the idea of really cold fusion . plus the realization that bosons could be involved in LENR in a higher temp range than with the Bose condensate (i.e. a transient condensate at ambient) . and the realization that the very high effective pressure inside a metal matrix is essentially the same effect as cryogenic confinement, in terms of limiting degrees of freedom - plus realizing that palladium-hydride is superconductive at low temperature . are any of these factors synergistic? . it very likely that near absolute zero the rate of reaction could possibly be poised to go into a rapid chain-reaction mode, if there is a stable BEC and extremely high loading. That is the scary part, especially if it were perfected by our enemies first and the first evidence we see of it is Tel Aviv being leveled, for instance. That scenario is likely one of many reasons why the Israelis have been deeply involved in the RD, and we probably only see the tip of that iceberg. From time to time, there have been divergent opinions expressed here on whether or not this military aspect is actually already well-known to a few in the Pentagon, from a black project perhaps (assuming it is real) - and then that secret knowledge is what has translated down the food chain into what we see as the incredible level of official neglect given to the whole field since 1989 .? IIRC - Jed has led the chorus for the argument that goes something like this: our military bureaucracy is really not that smart and there is no high-level conspiracy to quash LENR - just basic ignorance. The bureaucrats could not keep it secret, in any event. I hope that argument turns out to be correct, but I suspect something more sinister. They cannot keep many secrets, but there are a few that could be worth protecting at extraordinary cost. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released
Mark Iverson wrote: Jed, then you've got some extremely liberal definition of 'insider'! I was using the skeptics' definition. As I said, one of them called Duncan a charlatan because he concluded that Energetics Technology is correctly measuring 0.8 W in, ~20 W out. Any sane expert in calorimetry would reach this conclusion, but the skeptics say anyone who does becomes an insider and loses all credibility. My definition of an insider is one who has at least done some experimental/theoretical research on the subject; LENR in this case. Duncan has now become an insider, by that definition. The people who consulted in this review are listed on p. 6. Some of them are not known to have contributed to cold fusion but they are knowledgeable about the field and that makes them insiders as some people define it. This devolves into a no true Scotsman logical fallacy. Agreed, some may now refer to Dr. Duncan as somewhat of an insider, but his single assessment had MORE of a positive impact than anything that I can think of... it drastically reduced the negative aura surrounding LENR... I would not say drastically. There is still a lot of resistance and no good press in the mass media. It has had a welcome effect, and it has opened doors. That was mainly because it was broadcast on CBS. Gerischer was as qualified and prestigious as Duncan, and his review is even more positive than Duncan's, but it had no impact because no one has ever heard of it, apart from people who download his paper. Which is here, by the way: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GerischerHiscoldfusi.pdf - Jed
RE: [Vo]:DIA-08-0911-003 text
Many thanks, Jed. Would there be any utility to taking your text and adding some formatting to resemble the actual report? (I'm not suggesting that you must be the one to do it.) Lawry -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 10:23 AM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:DIA-08-0911-003 text [Here is the corrected text from the DIA report, ABBYY version. Unfortunately, this is not the underlying text in the version I uploaded. That has more OCR errors. I believe there are no OCR errors here, but I have not checked closely. - JR] UNCLASSIFIED Defense Intelligence Agency Defense Analysis Report DIA-08-0911-003 13 November 2009 Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance Scientists worldwide have been quietly investigating low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR)for the past 20 years. Researchers in this controversial field are now claiming paradigm-shifting results, including generation of large amounts of excess heat, nuclear activity and transmutation of elements.1,2,3 Although no current theory exists to explain all the reported phenomena, some scientists now believe quantum-level nuclear reactions may be occurring. DIA assesses with high confidence that if LENR can produce nuclear-origin energy at room temperatures, this disruptive technology could revolutionize energy production and storage, since nuclear reactions release millions of times more energy per unit mass than do any known chemical fuel.4,5 Background In 1989, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons announced that their electrochemical experiments had produced excess energy under standard temperature and pressure conditions.6 Because they could not explain this physical phenomenon based on known chemical reactions, they suggested the excess heat could be nuclear in origin. However, their experiments did not show the radiation or radioactivity expected from a nuclear reaction. Many researchers attempted to replicate the results and failed. As a result, the physics community disparaged their work as lacking credibility, and the press mistakenly dubbed it cold fusion. Related research also suffered from the negative publicity of cold fusion for the past 20 years, but many scientists believed something important was occurring and continued their research with little or no visibility. For years, scientists were intrigued by the possibility of producing large amounts of clean energy through LENR, and now this research has begun to be accepted in the scientific community as reproducible and legitimate. Source Summary Statement This assessment is based on analysis of a wide body of intelligence reporting, most of which is open source information including scientific briefings, peer-reviewed technical journals, international scientific conference proceedings, interviews with scientific experts and technical media. While there is little classified data on this topic due to the ST nature of the information and the lack of collection, DIA judges that these open sources generally provide the most reliable intelligence available on this topic. The information in this report has been corroborated and reviewed by U.S. technology experts who are familiar with the data and the international scientists involved in this work. Although much skepticism remains, LENR programs are receiving increased support worldwide, including state sponsorship and funding from major corporations.7,8,9,10 DIA assesses that Japan and Italy are leaders in the field, although Russia, China, Israel, and India are devoting significant resources to this work in the hope of finding a new clean UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED energy source. Scientists worldwide have been reporting anomalous excess heat production, as well as evidence of nuclear particles12,13,14 and transmutation.15,16,17 .Y. Iwamura18 at Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries first detected transmutation of elements when permeating deuterium through palladium metal in 2002. .Researchers led by Y. Arata at Osaka University in Japan19 and a team led by V.Violante at ENEA in Italy (the Italian National Agency for New Technologies, 20 Energy, and the Environment-the equivalent to the U.S. Department of Energy) also made transmutation claims. Additional indications of transmutation have been reported in China, Russia, France, Ukraine, and the United States.21, Researchers in Japan, Italy, Israel, and the United States have all reported detecting evidence of nuclear particle emissions.23,24 Chinese researchers described LENR experiments in 1991 that generated so much heat that they caused an explosion that was not believed to be chemical in origin. Japanese, French, and U.S. scientists also have reported rapid, high-energy LENR releases leading to laboratory explosions, according to scientific journal articles from 1992
RE: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released
My definition of an insider is one who has at least done some experimental/theoretical research on the subject; LENR in this case. Duncan has now become an insider, by that definition. No, I disagree. Has he set up a lab and done some experiments? No. Has he delivered a theoretical paper at a conference? No. ALL he did was a personal peer-review. That's not 'research'. Yes, some will use any supportive statements to label a person as an insider... so what. My point was that at the time of the 60-Minutes piece, he most certainly was NOT, and that's why his assessment, along with being done on 60-Mins to reach a much larger audience, had the impact it did. He came in as a skeptic, but did, in a sense, an individual peer-review; did his own calculations to make sure the math was correct, check for good experimental process, etc., and came to a conclusion based on data... what any true scientist would do. So what if he is now considered an insider...he had the intended affect. Now get a small group of expert OUTSIDERS to do the same thing and issue their conclusions... not DOE; they couldn't put together an objective panel if their lives depended on it. Again, its a perception battle, and the goal is not to convince the diehard (pathological) skeptics like Park; its to persuade the average Science or Nature reader, the average researcher, who then writes or calls the journal editors and expresses their concern that a major breakthru is being held back because of political/egotistical reasons. When they realize this could be a clean source of power... what scientist doesn't want to wean the world off of oil? Duncan/60-Mins, and now this DIA Report increases the pressure on journal editors to give LENR papers a fair chance at peer-review... and that's exactly what's needed at this point in time. -Mark _ From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 7:55 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released Mark Iverson wrote: Jed, then you've got some extremely liberal definition of 'insider'! I was using the skeptics' definition. As I said, one of them called Duncan a charlatan because he concluded that Energetics Technology is correctly measuring 0.8 W in, ~20 W out. Any sane expert in calorimetry would reach this conclusion, but the skeptics say anyone who does becomes an insider and loses all credibility. My definition of an insider is one who has at least done some experimental/theoretical research on the subject; LENR in this case. Duncan has now become an insider, by that definition. The people who consulted in this review are listed on p. 6. Some of them are not known to have contributed to cold fusion but they are knowledgeable about the field and that makes them insiders as some people define it. This devolves into a no true Scotsman logical fallacy. Agreed, some may now refer to Dr. Duncan as somewhat of an insider, but his single assessment had MORE of a positive impact than anything that I can think of... it drastically reduced the negative aura surrounding LENR... I would not say drastically. There is still a lot of resistance and no good press in the mass media. It has had a welcome effect, and it has opened doors. That was mainly because it was broadcast on CBS. Gerischer was as qualified and prestigious as Duncan, and his review is even more positive than Duncan's, but it had no impact because no one has ever heard of it, apart from people who download his paper. Which is here, by the way: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GerischerHiscoldfusi.pdf - Jed No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.69/2508 - Release Date: 11/17/09 07:40:00
Re: [Vo]:DIA-08-0911-003 text
2009/11/17 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: [Here is the corrected text from the DIA report, ABBYY version. Unfortunately, this is not the underlying text in the version I uploaded. That has more OCR errors. I believe there are no OCR errors here, but I have not checked closely. - JR] Gmail's spellchecker, after massive use of the ignore command for correctly spelt surnames, reveals a couple residual errors, which are not all the OCR's fault: Fleischman Internationa] Conference Japan Journal oj Applied Physics Spzak Thennochimicc Acta Spzak
RE: [Vo]:DIA-08-0911-003 text
Lawrence de Bivort wrote: Would there be any utility to taking your text and adding some formatting to resemble the actual report? (I'm not suggesting that you must be the one to do it.) It will preserve the formatting if I export it to Microsoft Word or HTML. If I am going to go to the trouble to do that I might as well convert the whole thing to text Acrobat, the format God intended Acrobat files should be. But that would be a large departure from the original. I would have to rustle up new copies of the graphic images to make it look half decent. It reduces the file size to 112 KB, which is temping. 4 MB is ridiculous. (I just did a test run conversion.) Michel Jullian wrote: Fleischman Internationa] Conference Japan Journal oj Applied Physics Spzak Thennochimicc Acta Spzak Thanks. I will make these corrections to the ABBYY file. Not sure what to do with it after that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:DIA-08-0911-003 text
I informed the author there are some spelling errors, and footnotes #11 and #14 are the same. I asked her to provide another copy of the paper in text Acrobat format. So maybe I will get a copy the easy way. Thanks again to Michel Jullian for finding human spelling errors: Fleischman Spzak (I think the others were OCR errors.) - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released
Mark Iverson wrote: Duncan has now become an insider, by that definition. No, I disagree. Has he set up a lab and done some experiments? No. Yes, he has now. That's my point. I am pleased he has! My point was that at the time of the 60-Minutes piece, he most certainly was NOT . . . That's true. But that's not how our friends the skeptics see it. Again, its a perception battle, and the goal is not to convince the diehard (pathological) skeptics like Park; its to persuade the average Science or Nature reader, the average researcher . . . That's true, and it is important. There is no point in trying to convince the blowhard . . . I mean diehard skeptics. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released
At 07:37 AM 11/17/2009, you wrote: Is the DIA a parody of the CIA? profound question
Re: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released
Mark Jed sez: ... Again, its a perception battle, and the goal is not to convince the diehard (pathological) skeptics like Park; its to persuade the average Science or Nature reader, the average researcher . . . That's true, and it is important. There is no point in trying to convince the blowhard . . . I mean diehard skeptics. This deserves to be repeated. The natural curiosity of the average researcher and scientist is where future breakthroughs will come from. All they need are convenient ways to access accurate information so that they can arrive at their own conclusions. It's pointless to waste valuable energy on the skeptics, or as they say: casting pearls before swine. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Cold fusion bombs
This is a perennial subject. I suppose that cold fusion bombs are probably not possible, for the reasons given below, but I do not think suppose can roll them out definitively. First, the reasons why they may be possible: 1. Several cold fusion devices have exploded. 2. Martin Fleischmann worried that cold fusion might have weapons applications, which is one of the reasons he wanted to keep the research secret for several more years back in 1989. I gather he still worries about this. I do not know his reasons but he is a smart cookie so perhaps there is something to it. Clearly, you can make a small bomb. But I doubt you can make a kiloton or megaton scale device, for the following reasons -- 1. Cold fusion is not a chain reaction. 2. Cold fusion cannot exist without an intact lattice. Cold fusion is not a chain reaction in the same sense a fission bomb is. That is to say, each nuclear reaction does not give rise directly to one or more other reactions, on the timescale of a nuclear reaction. Cold fusion does exhibit positive feedback, but that is not the same as a chain reaction. As far as I know, positive feedback comes about because the cold fusion reaction heats the metal, and the heat increases the reaction rate. I assume that as soon as the lattice melts or vaporizes the reaction stops. And it will melt locally long before you get multiple generations of reactions from a large fraction of the total population of deuterons, because heat conducts very slowly compared to the timescale of a nuclear reaction. It conducts at the speed of sound. Suppose a tiny spot on the cathode becomes very hot because multiple reactions occur there. This may trigger a runaway reaction in the area right around that spot which gets hot, but by the time the rest of the cathode gets hot, that spot will have melted or evaporated. I doubt that the heat can spread over the whole cathode and trigger a uniform reaction over a large volume (or surface area), so that a large fraction of the deuterons present in the lattice participate in the reaction. By the time the neighboring metal or nanoparticles heat up, the metal in the starting location is gone and the reaction is quenched. Regarding this subject Jones Beene wrote: Going back to Robert Forward we find the idea of really cold fusion plus the realization that bosons could be involved in LENR in a higher temp range than with the Bose condensate . . . it very likely that near absolute zero the rate of reaction could possibly be poised to go into a rapid chain-reaction mode, if there is a stable BEC and extremely high loading. I do not know about this theory but cold fusion at room temperature and in the positive feedback high temperatures exhibits no signs of being a chain reaction as far as I know, so I do not see why it would become a chain reaction at cryogenic temperatures. IIRC - Jed has led the chorus for the argument that goes something like this: our military bureaucracy is really not that smart and there is no high-level conspiracy to quash LENR just basic ignorance. The bureaucrats could not keep it secret, in any event. I know for a fact that our military bureaucracy is not that smart when it comes to cold fusion. This is an observation, not speculation. I have spoken with some of them and I know many other people who have communicated much more extensively at much higher levels, and they confirm my observation. This is also true of the Japanese bureaucracy under the previous two Prime Ministers. The bureaucrats or Men in Black have never lifted a finger to stop me from publishing information about cold fusion, so I suppose they are not trying to keep it secret. Take the Defense Intelligence Agency report. As noted it is based on open sources, and those sources are credible. In fact you could write just about every sentence based on stuff at LENR-CANR.org. You would not even have to spring for Ed's book or an ICCF proceedings -- although anyone serious about the subject should do that. So if they are trying to suppress this they are doing a terrible job. The only people who have ever asked me to remove papers from LENR-CANR are publishers who do not want me to violate copyright. (A few authors prefer not to have me upload in the first place.) The only calls I have gotten from bureaucrats were requests for copies of papers not on file. Naturally if there were a high-level conspiracy I would not hear about it. But it seems to me that the non-conspiratorial actions by people like Robert Park and the editors of the Scientific American and Nature can account for the opposition to cold fusion. If there is a high-level conspiracy that meets every 6 months the members are not busy. They convene a meeting and go through a quick checklist: Are there any positive reports on cold fusion in the Washington Post or any other mass media? Nope. Nothing since
RE: [Vo]:New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released
Jones, I believe you meant Robert Carroll, not Robert Forward. --- On Tue, 11/17/09, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net Subject: RE: [Vo]:New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Tuesday, November 17, 2009, 7:47 AM From: Horace Heffner If rapid, explosive energy output can occur in one or several modes, could LENR serve as a new high-energy-density explosive? It is ironic isn't it? CF dismissed by DOE and the patent office, and yet potentially important to DOD. However, I think the potential for concern is very real. Yup. Absolutely. Going back to Robert Forward we find the idea of “really cold fusion” … plus the realization that bosons could be involved in LENR in a higher temp range than with the Bose condensate (i.e. a “transient condensate” at ambient) … and the realization that the very high effective pressure inside a metal matrix is essentially the same effect as cryogenic confinement, in terms of limiting degrees of freedom – plus realizing that palladium-hydride is superconductive at low temperature … are any of these factors synergistic? … it very likely that near absolute zero the rate of reaction “could possibly” be poised to go into a rapid chain-reaction mode, if there is a stable BEC and extremely high loading. That is the scary part, especially if it were perfected by our enemies first and the first evidence we see of it is Tel Aviv being leveled, for instance. That scenario is likely one of many reasons why the Israelis have been deeply involved in the RD, and we probably only see the tip of that “iceberg”. From time to time, there have been divergent opinions expressed here on whether or not this military aspect is actually already well-known to a few in the Pentagon, from a black project perhaps (assuming it is real) – and then that secret knowledge is what has translated down the food chain into what we see as the incredible level of “official neglect” given to the whole field since 1989 …? IIRC - Jed has led the chorus for the argument that goes something like this: our military bureaucracy is really “not that smart” and there is no high-level conspiracy to quash LENR – just basic ignorance. The bureaucrats could not keep it secret, in any event. I hope that argument turns out to be correct, but I suspect something more sinister. They cannot keep many secrets, but there are a few that could be worth protecting at extraordinary cost. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion bombs
I wrote: I know for a fact that our military bureaucracy is not that smart when it comes to cold fusion. This is an observation, not speculation. . . . This is also true of the Japanese bureaucracy under the previous two Prime Ministers. I meant Cabinets. Although I am pretty sure the bureaucracy is equally obtuse. Those who are not obtuse are probably afraid to stick their necks out, perhaps justifiably so. It would accomplish nothing except to put a quick end to their careers. We must recognize, there is a large reservoir of anti-cold fusion hysteria out there. The skeptics claim that vast majority of scientists do not believe the results. That would be difficult to verify, but there is no doubt that many people have it in for this research. I think that is enough to explain the suppression that has taken place so far, without resorting to conspiracy theories. Many people ridicule the research. A much smaller number actively campaign against it, but the larger crowd eggs them on and rewards them. Most of the activists are well known to readers here: Park, Huizenga, Close, Garwin . . . Unfortunately, they have a lot of influence, and cold fusion researchers have practically no influence at all. Although that does seem to be changing, doesn't it? As things now stand, Park can excoriate a researcher in the pages of the Washington Post any time feels like it, and no researcher will be allowed to respond. This has enormous influence on funding. More than people realize. When your reputation is dragged through the mud in the Post or Scientific American, no one will talk to you and there is no chance you will get funded by any agency or venture capitalist. A conspiracy is not needed. All it takes is one psychopath with the power of the mass media at his disposal. In addition to the Big Gun opponents such as Park, there are scads of penny-ante nitwits campaigning against the research, such as the editors at Wikipedia and bloggers. Individually they cause little damage compared to Park, but their cumulative actions add up, because many people consider Wikipedia or a blog to be a legitimate source of information. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion bombs
I understand your objections to the idea of a CF bomb. However, I must cite the history of the laser: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_inversion The issue is timing. This is an issue from comedy to fission to fusion. Once the process is well understood, creating a synchronous reaction becomes somewhat trivial. Jones' explanation of the BCE and CCF (cold cold) offers a possible situation for a synchronous reaction. If our Defense industry does not understand how the reaction populates and our enemies do, there exists a potential thread, IMNSHO. There must not be a CF gap! Terry
RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion bombs
The interesting implication of the Arata-Zhang experiment for this subject, is the extraordinary claimed loading ratio of over 3:1 (deuterons to metal atoms). But the CFB concept might work as well or better with protium. Compelling evidence has been found for the occurrence of superfluidity in liquid hydrogen since 1995 (McClintock) - there are a half dozen reports of this, but curiously none with deuterium - and actually at least one report with HD. Whether you call it a molecular boson or a fermionic condensate very cold hydrogen in a matrix would have special properties due to its already high density. At a loading of 3:1 - we seem to have an effective density of hydrogen (atoms per mm^3) an order of magnitude higher than in liquid hydrogen, which could be the most amazing thing about the Arata claim, if real. What does this do to the possibility of a waveform overlap? Of course, one might opine that Catch-22 you cannot get to that degree of loading when you are near absolute zero, since the fusion will have already started! Jones
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion bombs
On Nov 17, 2009, at 1:16 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: This is a perennial subject. I suppose that cold fusion bombs are probably not possible, for the reasons given below, but I do not think suppose can roll them out definitively. First, the reasons why they may be possible: 1. Several cold fusion devices have exploded. 2. Martin Fleischmann worried that cold fusion might have weapons applications, which is one of the reasons he wanted to keep the research secret for several more years back in 1989. I gather he still worries about this. I do not know his reasons but he is a smart cookie so perhaps there is something to it. Clearly, you can make a small bomb. But I doubt you can make a kiloton or megaton scale device, for the following reasons -- 1. Cold fusion is not a chain reaction. 2. Cold fusion cannot exist without an intact lattice. Cold fusion is not a chain reaction in the same sense a fission bomb is. That is to say, each nuclear reaction does not give rise directly to one or more other reactions, on the timescale of a nuclear reaction. Cold fusion does exhibit positive feedback, but that is not the same as a chain reaction. As far as I know, positive feedback comes about because the cold fusion reaction heats the metal, and the heat increases the reaction rate. Apparently my writing was just too bit vague, too veiled, and too much was left to read between the lines. I fixed that in draft #4 of Cold Fusion Nuclear Reactions: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf Read pages 9, 10 and 12. They are in direct conflict with your statements above. BTW, I read a recent article you put on LENR-CANR.org that showed a beautiful graph of an excursion event. Do you recall which one it was? My memory is getting so bad. Also BTW, I referenced your Barnhart et all article URL for LENR- CANR.org, so thanks for posting that. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion bombs
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Of course, one might opine that Catch-22 you cannot get to that degree of loading when you are near absolute zero, since the fusion will have already started! And if you suddenly allow the temperature to increase, the confinement pressures increase exponentially. Lock, load, fire! Terry
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion bombs
Special delivery. A bomb. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCape0yPrus harry __ Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion bombs
Land shark! Terry On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: Special delivery. A bomb. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCape0yPrus harry __ Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion bombs
Terry Blanton wrote: I understand your objections to the idea of a CF bomb. However, I must cite the history of the laser: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_inversion The issue is timing. This is an issue from comedy to fission to fusion. Once the process is well understood, creating a synchronous reaction becomes somewhat trivial. Well, I don't know much about physics, but I do not see how this applies. There has be a mechanism that allows one cold fusion reaction to directly trigger another, very rapidly. In the case of the laser, from the article above, the mechanism is described: If an atom is already in the excited state, it may be perturbed by the passage of a photon which has a frequencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequencyν 21 corresponding to the energy gap Δ*E* of the excited state to ground state transition. In this case, the excited atom relaxes to the ground state, and is induced to produce a second photon of frequency ν21. The original photon is not absorbed by the atom, and so the result is two photons of the same frequency. . . . Photos perturb one another by passage. That's the causal link. In a fission bomb, a reaction produces neutrons that trigger the next reaction, and it goes through many generations before the critical mass evaporates. That's another kind of causal link. Is there some evidence that CF reactions perturb one another? Sure, but only by raising the temperature. As I said, that seems too slow and too localized to lead to a nuclear bomb-scale explosion. They don't emit many neutrons. They do not have this quality of photos that gives rise to a laser-like emission from perturbation. (As far as I know they don't.) I assume the reason you sometimes get an intense reaction is because there happens to be many deuterons in a perfectly formed NAE all primed to go off. The environment itself enables them to fuse. The only way to make a bomb -- I suppose -- would be to manufacture a bunch of perfectly formed NAE, and load it up with deuterons but somehow prevent any reaction from occurring. Then when it is all set to go, with a huge number of deuterons right on the verge of reacting, you hit them with a fast traveling stimulus such as a laser. That pushes them all over the edge en mass, as it were. Most of them react before the lattice disintegrates. That might do it. But I do not think you can arrange to have one reaction trigger several others in a runaway chain reaction. Perhaps you can orchestrate many events that are independent of one another, and do not trigger one another, yet all respond perfectly to the stimulus, acting within nanoseconds (or however long the lattice survives). Yamaguchi did something like what I have described here, with a gold plated deuterated Pd foil. It went off all at once. I think he only got it to work once, and spent years trying to make it happen again. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/YamaguchiEcoldfusion.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion bombs
I forgot to mention a critical factor. Heat stimulation of cold fusion reactions seems to occur remarkably slowly. Fleischmann and Biberian both told me they used a heat pulse to trigger the boil off reaction. It worked something like this: Turn up electrolysis power for 3 minutes. The temperature starts to rise. Turn the power back down again. Temperature stabilizes, starts to fall . . . Wait for it . . . Wait for it . . . Minutes later the cell starts to self-heat, as positive feedback kicks in. It ramps up slowly, over several minutes, and finally reaches the climax boil off (as Biberian calls it). It is more like lighting a pile of firewood than a pile of gunpowder. Maybe this slow build up reaction is function of bulk Pd and would not happen with nanoparticles, but I do not know of any evidence for that. To summarize, if I am right and the only way one cold fusion reaction can trigger another is by raising the temperature, and if this trigger acts in an oddly slow manner, then you cannot make a runaway chain reaction style bomb. Clearly you can make some kind of bomb, because bombs have been made by accident. They have released more energy than a chemical bomb of the same mass can, although nobody knows how quickly the reaction took place. In the future, there may be some nasty little compact cold fusion bombs that fit into fake cell phones and cause a lot more damage than a chemical bomb of the same dimensions. But it seems unlikely they will destroy entire cities. As a WMD, it seems unpromising, although I will grant the reaction is not yet understood or controlled, so who knows. Other, conventional WMD such as sarin or anthrax seem better . . . er, more promising . . . uh, more practical. Horace Heffner says his theory predicts I am wrong. That may be, but theory does not count. I have to see experimental evidence showing that I am wrong. If someone can show a trigger that works very rapidly with a huge amount of NEA, or what appears to be a very rapid chain reaction by some mechanism I have not heard of, then I am wrong. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released
He has??? Wow, that's very good news... Do you know if he's just setting up, or have they had this lab up and running for awhile? Have they had any encouraging results, like exploding experiments! :-) You were right the first time... Blowhards. Actually, that's way too gentle a term for people like Park and Garwin. Thanks for the good news about Dr.D! -Mark _ From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 1:01 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released Mark Iverson wrote: Duncan has now become an insider, by that definition. No, I disagree. Has he set up a lab and done some experiments? No. Yes, he has now. That's my point. I am pleased he has! My point was that at the time of the 60-Minutes piece, he most certainly was NOT . . . That's true. But that's not how our friends the skeptics see it. Again, its a perception battle, and the goal is not to convince the diehard (pathological) skeptics like Park; its to persuade the average Science or Nature reader, the average researcher . . . That's true, and it is important. There is no point in trying to convince the blowhard . . . I mean diehard skeptics. - Jed No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.69/2508 - Release Date: 11/17/09 07:40:00
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released
- Original Message From: Steven Krivit stev...@newenergytimes.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, November 17, 2009 4:07:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released At 07:37 AM 11/17/2009, you wrote: Is the DIA a parody of the CIA? profound question Honestly, I had never heard of agency until now. Googling DIA didn't produce any relevant links. This was surprising since googling CIA produces many relevant links. Now I see if you google Defense Intelligence Agency you do get some relevant links. ;-) harry __ Connect with friends from any web browser - no download required. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA at http://ca.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php
