Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: Cude You find it so hard to believe that a few hundred cold fusion researchers can all be wrong, but if cold fusion is real, then far far more researchers would have to be wrong. Lomax This is the core of Cude's religious position: he believes that researchers have demonstrated that cold fusion is not real. It's a fantasy. Taking a little break from your actual research, I see. Your premise is wrong. You set up this straw man because you think you can knock it down. Basically everything that follows is therefore irrelevant (and more than a little boring), but what would be the fun in ignoring it? The core of my position has been stated many times. It's that cold fusion researchers have failed to demonstrate that cold fusion is real. The evidence is simply lacking. Since the effect is contrary to what we understand about natural science, without evidence for an effect, I remain skeptical. In this point of view, I am in good company. When PF claimed they had evidence in 1989, the world leapt at the potential; journalists and scientists alike, all over the world, paid attention, and many got involved in experiments. When two scientists with respectable reputations claimed evidence for something revolutionary, no one wanted to be left behind. The world was giddy with excitement and anticipation. But then, in the next weeks, months, and years, nothing came of the great excitement. Many excellent scientists did experiments and concluded PF were incompetent or deluded or both; that there was nothing there. CF was a bust. It didn't help that PF were caught in a really obvious error with respect to the associated radiation. Now, I've heard your response to that. Those who failed to reproduce all did something wrong. The conditions weren't right. The D-Pd ratio was too low. The surface wasn't treated right. They actually did see heat, they were just too stupid to realize it. They were afraid their paradigm would collapse. And on and on. Well maybe so. But given the failures, the CF cabal would have to come up with something better to get taken seriously again. After all, new discoveries in science typically auger in progress at breakneck speed. That's the best time for a new field. Lots of low-hanging fruit to pick. Instead, CF people kept doing the same experiment with the same results over and over. Electrolysis experiments with input power, chemical reactions, differential equations, and finally after much data reduction, a claim of excess heat. Nothing obvious, and it never got more obvious. In fact as the experiments improved, the effect got smaller. (And as they got worse (as with Rossi) the effect got bigger.) Some people did try variations on the experiment, using gas loading, glow discharge, sonic, superwave, and so on, but in every case the results were and are unconvincing. As Rothwell complained, they never stand out. There is always some form of input (or at least it is not obviously excluded), and the heat is demonstrated with calorimetry, which is known for being prone to artifact. I think mainstream science's attitude toward the field has become like it is to other fringe areas that never seem to get anywhere. Instead of pulling their hair out trying to figure out where other people have gone wrong from their poorly documented, unrefereed accounts, they are waiting for evidence that stands out. The claim is a factor of a million more energy density than chemical. How can that be so hard to make obvious. Why can't they make an isolated device that remains indefinitely warmer than its surroundings? Why can't they make an isolated device that makes a cup of tea? That's what's needed. It's a bit like Uri Geller claiming he can bend spoons with his mind, as long as he provides the spoons and can control the conditions under which he demonstrates it. I can't explain how he does it, no matter how long I think about it, and tear my hear out. And, although it makes me a little curious, I'm not all that interested in understanding how he does it. I'm satisfied that it's a trick, an artifact, because if he could really bend metal with his mind, a far more direct demonstration could be done. Strip him down, to underwear, shackle his hands and feet, and bring in a metal bar he has never seen before and hold it a foot in front of his mind, and ask him to bend it. Same with CF. The experiments always have to have a certain context. Dardik required Duncan to come to Israel to see the experiment. Rossi invites only select people to his laboratory, with protocol under his control. They need input for safety they say, and the evidence for GJ/g heat comes in the form of instrument readings. It is purely a mug's game trying to understand and analyze these contrived experiments. If D-Pd or H-Ni generates GJ/g of heat, then take some D-Pd or H-Ni and put it in an isolated beaker and watch it boil. If an electrode
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: Lomax That work was done before the turn of the century. The source is the conversion of deuterium to helium. The mechanism for this is unknown, but the conversion would have a characteristic energy of 23.8 MeV/He-4, regardless of mechanism (i.e., as long as significant energy does not escape, as with neutrino generation). The work done does not rule out other possible reactions, as to fuel and product, and there is evidence for them, but the evidence is strong enough that believing in the contrary is believing in something highly unlikely, believing in something not only in the absence of evidence, but in the presence of contrary evidence. The evidence for CF and for this heat-helium correlation is pitifully weak. And the evidence for the quantitative correlation has not been reproduced under peer-review. That's why a panel of experts in 2004 said evidence for nuclear reactions was not conclusive. The work I'm referring to is that of Miles. Huizenga, author of Cold fusion, scientific fiasco of the century, notice Miles' work in the second edition of his book, and said that, if confirmed, this would solve a major mystery of cold fusion: the ash. And it has not been confirmed. That paper (Storms again) represents the state of the field today Agreed. Unconvincing and published mostly in conference proceedings. and shows what is currently passing peer review, Exactly: obituaries instead of new experimental results. it is the latest in about seventeen positive reviews of cold fusion to appear in mainstream journals, with no negative reviews. Seventeen reviews and less than a dozen positive experimental papers since 2004. That's pathetic. And who writes negative reviews of moribund fields? No one. Why would they? The pseudo-skeptical position is dead, it is unable to pass peer review, and that is not for lack of submissions or effort. You keep saying this, but you never identify who you are referring to. We all know about the rejection of Shanahan's rebuttal to a rebuttal to a rebuttal, but you know journals don't want to turn into on-line forums. That rejection is meaningless. Do you have any other rejections. Because you know an entire proceedings was rejected by the APS recently. Really, with very rare exceptions, people who submit material on cold fusion are going to be cold fusion advocates. Why would skeptics bother? This is the reproducible experiment that was, for so long, claimed to be missing: set up the F-P effect (hundreds of research groups have done this; it's difficult, but certainly not impossible), using careful calorimetry, the state of the art as to the calorimetry and as to the electrochemistry, and measure helium. Work has been done with more helium measurement accuracy and completeness than what was available to Miles, and the results are closer to the 23.8 MeV value. Storms estimates, reviewing all the work, correcting for retained helium, a ratio of 25 +/- 5 MeV/He-4, in good agreement with the theoretical value for deuterium fusion. 1. The much better work was not peer-reviewed, and was subject to biting criticism from a journalist. 2. The results were available at the time of the 2004 DOE review, and they were not convinced by them. 3. Given that the quality of the results has not convinced the DOE or the mainstream, why is there no subsequent work? Scientists are obsessive about nailing down errors. And yet, the most recent results Storms used for this pivotal experiment are from 2000, and the most recent peer-reviewed results from the early 90s. 4. If the later results (unrefereed) are so much better, why did Storms still use some of Miles' results in calculating the ratio, if not to make the ratio better; i.e to cherry pick? Normally, when experiments get better, data from old and crude experiments is replaced. 5. Isn't it a remarkable coincidence that of all the possible products of nuclear reactions -- neutrons, tritium, gamma rays, helium, transmutations e.g. -- the only one that shows up commensurate with the observed heat is the one that exists in the background at similar or higher levels? Nature is such a tease. It is certainly possible to assert that his analysis was biased, but Cude has ridiculed this as having a +/- 20% error bar, whereas, in fact, that ratio existing within an order of magnitude of the expected value was considered a stunning result by Huizenga, and Huizenga was correct about this. Well, then Huizenga must be a believer in CF, right? Wrong! Because the improved results have not been subject to peer-review, and because there has been no peer-reviewed replication at all, and because Storms' 20% is the result of cherry-picking and cognitive bias. (NiH is clearly a different effect, though there may be some common type of mechanism.) Right. Cognitive bias. This kind of work [repeating Miles heat-helium results] is normally
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: The mainstream started shifting sometime around 2005, What is your evidence for this? The fact that NW published a few papers on CF? In 2000 the J of Electroanal. Chem. stopped publishing (positive) papers on CF. It has not restarted. It has more or less the same impact factor as NW, so that looks like a wash. No mainstream nuclear physics journals publish CF papers, and that is the field that would be most affected. There has been no shift in the mainstream regarding cold fusion at all. The number of papers published is still only a few per year. And most of the experimental papers have been on doubtful, low level neutron detection, or very low power gas-loading experiments. There has been a shift at one relatively minor multidisciplinary journal. Even Josephson calls the journal obscure. it had never been monolithic, with at least three Nobel laureates in physics supporting the possibility of cold fusion. This is a favorite claim, so let's examine it. Julian Schwinger is the most impressive case. He was a major figure in theoretical physics, and won the Nobel prize in 1965. He was in his 70s when cold fusion hit the scene, by which time he was no longer contributing significantly. He wrote several papers on cold fusion, but they were rejected by Physical Review, and few physicists took him seriously after that. Brian Josephson won the Nobel prize in 1972, at the early age of 33, for work done prior to receiving a PhD. He has advocated cold fusion in various internet forums, and on his web site, but he has not really made any significant contribution to the field himself. The only things listed on Rothwell's database related to CF are some talks dealing apparently with the sociology of the field rather than the science. This is odd, since he was at a productive age in 1989, and had valuable expertise to contribute. If he believed in CF, he must have understood the revolutionary possibilities. How could he have resisted becoming directly involved to save the world, and become one of the select few to win 2 Nobel prizes? Maybe he peaked too early, because there is not much evidence of contributions to physics after he won the Nobel prize. Most of his publications since, and practically the only things he lists on his web site are related to topics like parapsychology and mind-matter unification. To most scientists, it does not add to the credibility of cold fusion to have an endorsement from someone who also endorses telepathy and homeopathy, Nobel prize or not. The third case is presumably Carlo Rubbia. He does not appear in Rothwell's database at all, so I assume it is safe to say he has not published on CF, although he is acknowledged by some CF authors. A google search turns up a few people attributing support for CF to him, but I didn't find any direct quotes. Do you have some? In any case, I don't know how seriously one can take his alleged support for cold fusion, considering he has been actively involved in sustainable energy, but has directed his focus toward concentrated solar energy and nuclear energy using thorium and depleted uranium. So there are no laureates who have actually performed CF experiments, only one who has published on the topic, although the papers were rejected by APS journals, one who is rumored to have said positive things about it, but is actively researching competitive technologies, and one who is an advocate of cold fusion and other paranormal phenomena. That's supposed to get respect for the field, but it doesn't mean anything that virtually all other laureates dismiss the field out of hand, with explicit statements from many of the prominent ones with nuclear expertise, while still contributing to physics: Leon Lederman, Sheldon Glashow, Glenn Seaborg, Steven Weinberg, Murray Gell-Mann … Cude has asserted that far more researchers would have to be wrong. That is so defective a claim that we might as well call it a lie. […] It's possible that more researchers have negative opinions about cold fusion than have positive opinions, Possible? The vast majority of researchers have negative opinions about cold fusion. but researchers in what? In nuclear physics. It doesn't matter how you spin it, nuclear reactions involve nuclear forces and nuclear physics, and the people who know the most about that are nuclear physicists. And they are pretty much unanimous that cold fusion has not been demonstrated. They'd all have to be wrong if CF were real. And so, my statement stands. Call it a lie if it helps you sleep at night, but it's the truth. Rothwell pointing out that hundreds of researchers would have to be wrong, and by that, he meant that their *experimental results* would have to be wrong, artifact, error, or worse. There is no large body of contrary research in opposition to this, All of nuclear physics experiments are quantitatively consistent with the
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Cude To the extent they believe cold fusion is real based on existing measurements, then in the opinion of mainstream science, they are mistaken. Every last one of them. Rothwell That is incorrect. Mainstream scientists have not published papers showing errors in these experiments. You mean, that is correct. Scientists don't waste time publishing papers to point out errors or express doubt in a phenomenon only a fringe group takes seriously. Once they are satisfied there is nothing to see, they move on. They would have no time for anything else if they had to find errors in every latest fringe experiment, that looks pretty much like all the other fringe experiments. Opinions unsupported by rigorous, quantitative analysis do not count. Opinions that reject cold fusion are supported every bit as much as opinions that reject perpetual motion, and those count. Would you say the same thing about polywater? If even one of the scientists had been correct about viscosity or the boiling point or the freezing point, then the effect was real after all. Surely, most of their measurements were right; they were just caused by artifacts, and the effect turned out not the real, in spite of many correct measurements. Only one group of researchers in one lab thought they saw evidence of polywater, That account differs from every other account of polywater I've seen. According to Ackermann in 2006, 450 papers were published on polywater in 12 years, with more than 250 over 2 years. That would be difficult for one group. Here's what he writes indicating prominent Soviet and American groups were involved: The Polywater seminal papers include an initial group of four papers by Soviet scientists N.N. Fedyakin and B.V. Deryagin that experienced delayed recognition due to being published in non-English language (Russian) journals during the Cold War era of American–Soviet political rivalries. Only when the fourth paper was published by a group of American scientists (LIPPENCOTT et al., 1969) confirming the discovery of Polywater did the original Russian papers began to receive increased notice and the period of epidemic growth began (FRANKS, 1981). Here's what Henry Bauer wrote in 2002 (with reference to Franks), indicating a great many people claimed evidence for polywater: Unlike with N-rays, scientists all over the world reported the preparation and investigation of polywater; indeed the very name is owing to a prominent American spectroscopist, Ellis Lippincott. The renowned British physicist J.D. Bernal called anomalous water the most important physical-chemical discovery of this century (Franks 1981, p. 49). Polywater was discussed at several of the prestigious annual Gordon Research Conferences (Franks 1981, p. 124). So it's not so different from cold fusion, except in degree, as I've already admitted. But then polywater was bigger than N-rays, and they used that as evidence that it was not like N-rays. But it was. And CF is like them too. and they later retracted. Well, yes, polywater was finally debunked. But it might not have been, and then people would still be making claims. Look at homeopathy (not completely unrelated). Claims will continue forever, but mainstream medicine long ago rejected it. Whether CF will ever be decisively debunked remains to be seen. Given its potential, and the history of belief in free energy claims, it's likely to maintain a religious following similar to homeopathy, regardless of continued failure to make progress. Their evidence appeared to be on margins of detectability. Just like cold fusion. In cold fusion, hundreds of researchers have observed the phenomenon, The potential implications of CF are far greater than polywater, so it is not surprising that it has attracted more deluded researchers. But there were dozens involved in polywater, maybe close to 100; the number of publications is close to half that of CF. none have retracted, Actually Paneth and Peters originally reported the transformation of hydrogen into helium by spontaneous nuclear catalysis when hydrogen was absorbed by finely divided palladium at room temperature. However, the authors later retracted that report, acknowledging that the helium they measured was due to background from the air. PF retracted their neutron and helium claims. Texas AM retracted their tritium claims, Georgia tech retracted excess heat claims, Beuhler Friedman retracted their water cluster fusion claims. and in many cases the effect is quite easy to detect, for example with 100 W of heat output an no input, That's the problem. You call it quite easy, it should blindingly obvious, and yet it doesn't convince anyone except believers. World class experts do make mistakes. There were world-class experts involved with polywater and N-rays. There was only one experts involved with each of those claims. Hundreds of
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: CudeTo the extent they believe cold fusion is real based on existing measurements, then in the opinion of mainstream science, they are mistaken. Every last one of them. Lomax As Rothwell said. Cude is simply repeating a common myth. That mainstream science regards CF as a mistake is a fact you have admitted. Not a myth. Polywater and N-rays were not debunked by negative replications. Negative replication is quite unreliable when one is dealing with a previously-unobserved phenomenon. What works is positive replication with, then, additional controls to show the origin of the observations. By that standard, according to Rothwell, Focardi was debunked. (See accompanying post.) Where does that leave Rossi? With polywater, the clear refutation appeared, not from failures to create polywater effects, because there could be a million reasons for that, but from actual replication, showing the reported phenomena, then with further analysis showing the prosaic origin. True. This turned out to be somewhat easier with polywater, but if I get the drift of a parallel discussion I have only glanced at, there are still those who cling to the reality of polywater. In any case, there are a great many pseudo-sciences which, like CF, are much more difficult to debunk, and which are likely to persist indefinitely: homeopathy, straight chiropractic, perpetual motion, telepathy, and so on. The FP Heat Effect is quite clear, frequently, standing well above noise. Artifacts frequently stand well above the noise. The effect is not sufficiently clear to convince a panel of experts that it is real. It does not go away with more precise measurement, that is another myth. Well, some people did not see it. And it is clear that the results have gotten smaller in time; just look at the tables in Storms' book. Surely, experiments get better in time, not worse. Rossi's claims are bigger, but his experiment is much worse. You can see the flaws from the internet, even though he hasn't published them, and has kept critical parts secret. In the case of heat/helium ratio, that is, the correlation between excess heat and helium measured, Storms analysis is based on the work of twelve research groups, and there are no negative reports. Twelve groups? His correlation ratio does not use data from 12 groups. And none of the data he uses after Miles has been subject to peer-review. Rothwell says 7 groups have replicated Miles. Which is right? Anyway, how did 12 groups do this experiment that, as you say elsewhere, only graduate students do, if there are no graduate students working in CF? You're not making sense. And 12 groups did the experiment, and yet no peer-reviewed results are good enough for Storms? Also, one group admitted the helium results were not definitive. Tritium is not (well) correlated with the heat, so it doesn't explain the heat. However, tritium being produced would be a clear sign that, sometimes, something nuclear is taking place in the cells. That's a stunning result, from the point of view that such reactions are impossible! Except that the results vary by 10 or more orders of magnitude, completely destroying the credibility of the measurements. It's the same with SPAWAR neutrons. Because the rates are so incredibly low, they tell us nothing about the reaction, and I have no idea if they are correlated with heat, those neutron measurements did not look for heat. SPAWAR has not been reproduced, and the results are too weak to be convincing. Anyway, you've got tritium that doesn't account for the heat, and now neutrons that don't account for the heat, so there must be another reaction that does. Multiplying small probabilities does not make this scenario seem any more likely. Of course steam can be heated to higher temperatures. Steam being evolved from water boiling will always be at about 100 degrees, that's a consequence of the phase change. The water being boiled will be at 100 degrees at atmospheric pressure. To raise those two temperatures, yes, it takes pressure. But that doesn't mean that you cannot coninue to heat steam beyond 100 degrees! Right, but in Rossi's device the steam is always 100C. If it were dry, and the power were a little above what is required to produce dry steam, then the temperature would exceed the boiling point. I'll confess that I don't read most of his writing any more, so malignant has it come to be in my eyes. The truth hurts. Yes. That was partly a replication failure. An experiment like this raises some doubt, but what is obvious is this: the experiment did not exactly reproduce the conditions in the Focardi work. Sure. Now you say that. Now that you think Rossi is CF's latest saviour. What happens when Rossi fades away like Patterson? So, while this experiment raises some level of doubt, it certainly does not prove Focardi wrong, as Cude cavalierly
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: LomaxThe world is so complex that math can be useless, unless simplifying assumptions are made. It is certain simplifying assumptions that led to the conclusion that QM predicts that LENR is impossible. This was already a problematic assumption, because we already knew of a three-body example where fusion is known to take place, muon-catalyzed fusion, so the question then naturally arises if there might be other exceptions. What? Muons are exceptional in nature, and muonic atoms are exotic, but muon-catalyzed fusion in no way represents an exception to standard QM. In fact, the phenomenon was predicted theoretically before it was observed. The reaction rates fit the calculations perfectly. The fusion reactions follow expected branches. The production of muons for the purpose is understood. Everything makes sense. This was all understood in the 1950s. The only way this can be bootstrapped to explain CF is if you claim electrolysis, or deuterium absorption in Pd, or hydrogen absorption in Ni produces exotic nuclear particles, a process just as unlikely as any other proposed mechanism for nuclear reactions producing useful heat. Physics only uses math in the interpretation of results, in the development of theories, and some of these theories, applied in simplified situations -- such as plasma conditions -- are extraordinarily successful, amazingly accurate. As long as you stay away from messy situations, like the stuff that we live with all the time. Physics is also extraordinarily successful at describing mathematically the properties of materials, crystals, and lattices, just the sort of environment cold fusion is supposed to take place in. Fleischmann and Pons were quite aware of this, and they agreed, but they also knew that it was possible, even probable, that there was *some deviation* from expected fusion cross-section in condensed matter. Fleischmann has written that he expected this to be below measurement accuracy, that he and Pons expected failure to find anything. That's revisionist balderdash. They were clueless about nuclear physics, and expected to find fusion, and said as much in interviews after the fact. So what now? I'm willing to bet a significant chunk of my net worth on Rossi being real, That's what he's counting on.
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 2:53 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Don't you get any enjoyment from creative, out-of-the-box thinking? You're right. I shouldn't have weighed in on this subject, but I couldn't resist when you said: With all the sophistication and accuracy to umpteen decimal places in atomic physics/QM, how come we can't explain WHY they're perpendicular! because the people who make calculations to the umpteenth decimal place use mathematics, and they would argue that they can explain why the fields are perpendicular using the same mathematics, based on some very fundamental principles. So the fact that *they* make accurate calculations, and that there is no explanation for perpendicular fields that satisfies *you* is not really a conundrum.
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it
Dear Joshua, in case your approach to the New Energy is constructive and not destructive would you contribute seriously to: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/05/call-for-perfect-e-cat-experiment.html ? what experiment, what results will convince you that the device is producing useful energy? Please do not bypass the question saying that you want the experiment made in your garage. Dissecting the past to separate cells does not lead anywhere. My poisoning hypothesis explain why CF is a rather weak effect with capricious reproductibility Peter On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Cude To the extent they believe cold fusion is real based on existing measurements, then in the opinion of mainstream science, they are mistaken. Every last one of them. Rothwell That is incorrect. Mainstream scientists have not published papers showing errors in these experiments. You mean, that is correct. Scientists don't waste time publishing papers to point out errors or express doubt in a phenomenon only a fringe group takes seriously. Once they are satisfied there is nothing to see, they move on. They would have no time for anything else if they had to find errors in every latest fringe experiment, that looks pretty much like all the other fringe experiments. Opinions unsupported by rigorous, quantitative analysis do not count. Opinions that reject cold fusion are supported every bit as much as opinions that reject perpetual motion, and those count. Would you say the same thing about polywater? If even one of the scientists had been correct about viscosity or the boiling point or the freezing point, then the effect was real after all. Surely, most of their measurements were right; they were just caused by artifacts, and the effect turned out not the real, in spite of many correct measurements. Only one group of researchers in one lab thought they saw evidence of polywater, That account differs from every other account of polywater I've seen. According to Ackermann in 2006, 450 papers were published on polywater in 12 years, with more than 250 over 2 years. That would be difficult for one group. Here's what he writes indicating prominent Soviet and American groups were involved: The Polywater seminal papers include an initial group of four papers by Soviet scientists N.N. Fedyakin and B.V. Deryagin that experienced delayed recognition due to being published in non-English language (Russian) journals during the Cold War era of American–Soviet political rivalries. Only when the fourth paper was published by a group of American scientists (LIPPENCOTT et al., 1969) confirming the discovery of Polywater did the original Russian papers began to receive increased notice and the period of epidemic growth began (FRANKS, 1981). Here's what Henry Bauer wrote in 2002 (with reference to Franks), indicating a great many people claimed evidence for polywater: Unlike with N-rays, scientists all over the world reported the preparation and investigation of polywater; indeed the very name is owing to a prominent American spectroscopist, Ellis Lippincott. The renowned British physicist J.D. Bernal called anomalous water the most important physical-chemical discovery of this century (Franks 1981, p. 49). Polywater was discussed at several of the prestigious annual Gordon Research Conferences (Franks 1981, p. 124). So it's not so different from cold fusion, except in degree, as I've already admitted. But then polywater was bigger than N-rays, and they used that as evidence that it was not like N-rays. But it was. And CF is like them too. and they later retracted. Well, yes, polywater was finally debunked. But it might not have been, and then people would still be making claims. Look at homeopathy (not completely unrelated). Claims will continue forever, but mainstream medicine long ago rejected it. Whether CF will ever be decisively debunked remains to be seen. Given its potential, and the history of belief in free energy claims, it's likely to maintain a religious following similar to homeopathy, regardless of continued failure to make progress. Their evidence appeared to be on margins of detectability. Just like cold fusion. In cold fusion, hundreds of researchers have observed the phenomenon, The potential implications of CF are far greater than polywater, so it is not surprising that it has attracted more deluded researchers. But there were dozens involved in polywater, maybe close to 100; the number of publications is close to half that of CF. none have retracted, Actually Paneth and Peters originally reported the transformation of hydrogen into helium by spontaneous nuclear catalysis when hydrogen was absorbed by finely divided palladium at room temperature. However, the authors later retracted that
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: But, Joshua, what about Fukashima? Do you think that the reactor there needed to be plugged in -- for safety -- meant that the energy produced was doubtful? It occurred to me that the Fukushima disaster occurred partly *because* it depended on external power for cooling in the event of an unintentional shut-down. Modern reactors have passive emergency cooling systems that do not depend on power of any kind.
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 3:45 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Joshua, in case your approach to the New Energy is constructive and not destructive would you contribute seriously to: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/05/call-for-perfect-e-cat-experiment.html ? what experiment, what results will convince you that the device is producing useful energy? I'm glad you asked. *A. Demonstrating power:* To demonstrate thermal power, the simplest method is to heat water, and that is of course what Rossi does. But he doesn't do it in a transparent way that allows anyone to conclude, just by watching it, that yup, his device is producing power without an external supply of fuel. Here is an example of an experiment that would be visual and not require experts to tell you what's happening: 1. First and foremost, the device must be completely and obviously standalone. So, disconnect the hydrogen bottle, and the mains power input. - The hydrogen bottle should be easy because they claim so little hydrogen is consumed, and in some experiments they claim the valve was closed, and in at least one, it is disconnected. Given that, it is completely baffling that in the only somewhat public display they have had, the bottle was left connected, with the valve open. - The input electricity is probably more complicated. As it is explained, heat is needed to initiate the reaction, and that is provided by resistive heating. Fine. Use the mains for that, but then unplug it when the reaction starts. And make it obvious: wheel the whole contraption away to show no umbilical cords are attached. Rossi claims the thing has run without power, but that it's dangerous, although he doesn't explain why. The speculation is that an input control is needed to prevent some sort of runaway condition, but it seems counter-intuitive to use additional heat input to prevent runaway. In particular, it is implausible that cutting the power by 10% or less would stop a runaway condition, when the variation in claimed output levels is far greater than 10%. In one experiment the claimed input was 80 W, less than 1 % of the output when it peaked briefly at 120 kW. Does he expect us to believe that that subtracting 80 W from 120 kW will shut down the reaction, even while they claim it operates perfectly well at 15 kW? It makes much more sense to vary the flow rate of the coolant with a solenoid valve to control the reaction. Then you can actually remove heat to try to stop the reaction, rather than just stop adding heat. Of course a solenoid valve needs power too, but only a few watts, and could be controlled for several days with a suitable lithium battery. Rossi claimed to shut down the reactor in the Dec demo (reported by Levi) using tap water at a high flow rate, so one could set up an emergency passive cooling tank above the ecat to cool it in a runaway condition. Alternatively, they could power a stirling engine between the inflowing and outflowing water and use it to run a generator to produce the electricity needed. Rossi's supposed to be an engineer, so this should be easy for him. The efficiency would be low of course, but he's claiming 30x gain, and keep in mind that the heat that's expelled by the engine could still be used to heat the coolant in the first stage, so the ability to generate steam would only be compromised by the energy that's actually converted to electricity. The importance of being standalone goes beyond obviating the measurement of input power. It has practical importance too. If you can't generate the electricity for the input because the efficiency is too low given the small temperature difference, then ideally, that means a heat pump can supply the same heat. And we know heat pumps will not solve our energy problems. Now practically, a heat pump will perform between 1/2 and 3/4 as well because of losses, but still, this is nothing at all exceptional. In my opinion, any energy device has to power itself to make a significant contribution above what heat pumps can already do, let alone convince the world that it's real. 2. With no inputs, if cold water goes in, and hot water comes out, then it is clear that the device itself is transferring energy to the water. But even that simple phenomena was not made obvious in Rossi's January demonstration. It was pretty clear that water was going in, but what came out? It was in a different room, and we had to take someone's word for it that the temperature was at the boiling point. Even if it was necessary to exhaust the output in another room, a very simple and visible method could have been designed to show that it was at or near the boiling point. Simply run the output fluid through a copper coil inside a clear container of water. If the fluid in the conduit is at the boiling point, it should maintain a gentle boil in the water in the container. 3. To establish that the amount of power is in the ballpark of the claimed 10 kW
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
Ok, as you might guess from my email address I very much disagree that the aether was proven false, nothing of the sort. Only a static Aether was found to have evidence against it. Secondly if you still want to know why Electric and Magnetic fields are perpendicular in an EM wave etc... then you are ignoring the fact that I have already essentially proven that magnetic fields are non-existant and only a convenient was to understand how relativistically distorted electric fields manifest. So it is like asking why I am perpendicular to that dark guy lying on the floor where I am standing by a light at night, how come we are always perpendicular when I am standing on the floor. If I have told you that it just looks like a man but it is just my shadow do you really need to keep on being curious when you now understand precisely how it comes to be that way? I can show you every example where magnetic forces arise are due to electric fields/forces that are distorted by movement that creates precisely the same force we expect and get magnetically. Quite a co-incidence. If you choose to ignore the simple logical truth that makes sense then it is likely you are really just practicing mysticism, and IMO there are plenty of real mysteries to work out, no need to create them where none exists. Electrons spin and orbit, Nucleus's spin, and distort their electric fields doing so and should create the forces that we experience with permanent magnets. Wires attract and repel in theory as experienced. On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: On 05/27/2011 07:50 PM, Charles Hope wrote: I suppose we are all somewhere on the conservative/crank spectrum. I think physics is a difficult place for novel thought because the current models are so excellent. Yet mysteries do remain. However I didn't know that Cooper pairs was one of them. But I see the difficulty in our communication. I take epistemic issue with the idea that there can be a mathematical model without true understanding. If we have a model, it behooves us to twist our minds into understanding that! There is no understanding but the use of a valid model. Exactly. And once you understood it, you stick with it because it just works. You almost never question it at the philosophical or epistemological level. During most of the last century, there was a lot of confusion, introduced by Relativity theory, about the concept of time, by example. The case of the aether is also paradigmatic: when the results of some experiments were not the expected ones, the aether was disregarded, and relativity theories appeared. Nobody, or almost nobody, took the time to reflect at the philosophical level on what had happened, and as a consequence, a lot of confusion ensued. What had happened was that the mechanical model of the aether was found to be false by experiment. As a replacement, purely mathematical models were quickly introduced, which agreed with the experiments. But those models were now devoid of physical meaning. Just the general idea of relativity, and of all is relative popped up, and stuck like a grand revelation. That happened during most of the last century, and is still happening. That philosophical thinking is still lacking, and it's coming from outsiders like me, because real scientists are so busy trying to understand the math first, and to apply for grants and publish later, that they don't have time to really reflect and think. Philosophy was disregarded(a big mistake) in the name of results and predictive power. The other consequence of the increasing complexity and the quest for results was super-specialization. You have to be an expert to be able to talk with authority and understanding about something. And when you finally study to be an expert in one field, you cannot talk about anything else! Moreover: you mostly lost the ability to relate and correlate knowledge from different fields of knowledge. That is an unfortunate state of affairs, and we can say that a great part of the decadence of the western culture we experience today is related to our urge for control only from the mechanistic perspective. Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it
Joshua- this will need some discussions but I think eventually we can establish a Perfect Experience Protocol for Indiviual E-Cats- that is satisfactory both from the points of view of engineering and of the sane bureaucracy of standardization. i am opting for fully quantitative and not for common sense experiments. For your information ( I don't know if you read my Ego Out blog- anyway here the following points were proposed: 1- in case of steam experiments NOT to measure the temperature or dryness/wetness but the enthalpy- i.e total heat of the steam, 2- the minimum duration of the experiment 72 hours, 3- water heating experiments prefered 4- as far it is possible, after startup to work with zero input *Now your ideas*:- - disconnecting hydrogen bottle I agree however the Bologna people have measured the hydrogen consumed. Plus I have a great experience with hydrogen as fuel - it is a lousy one- much heat on weight basis but it comes in volumes *i had to solve the problem* *of finding an use *for the millions of cu.ft excess hydrogen from the NaCl electrolysis plant OLTCHIM. Natural gas is 3 times better than hydrogen and how colud you burn hydrogen without forced air/oxygen in the E-cat? Lets' be reasonable. However the H2 bottle has to be disconnected and acrried away, OK! - input electricity disconnected after start-up- I agree. FYI- Prof. Francesco Piantelli the scientist of the NI-H field had a cell working without any input for months at the level of 70 W- in the year 2000. So this restriction should be possible for Rossi too -at much greater energy levels. - Stirling Engine- I think not a practical idea- which commercial type would yoiu buy/recommend?- - to make visible water coming out- or steam betore mixing it with say ten fold more cold water- a good idea but it cannot help- is not quantitative but it say water is not hidden somewhere Some Pyrex needed -Your Point 3. is common sense experiment, rather qualitative and using ice water is an useless complication, the ice-water ratio cannot be established and maintained- please do not insist!. Experiment made by engineeers NOT by Hausfrauen I protest angrily- a fg experimrent done without thermo-, flow-, volume- meters is not serious, sorry! -Chemical vs nuclear vs some ZPE- unanswerable without a complete chemicl isotopic analysis of the spent Ni fuel or exhausted Catalyst. We can speculate a lot but without data it si just am intellectual exercise (Rossi has used a more precise expression) I don't understand the use of the E-cat in a mode analoguous with a heater immersed in a hot tube/reservoir. OK let's continue defining the Protocol. I am ready to explain you the details- but please let's organize better the materil of discussion- we need a good taxonomy. Peter On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 3:45 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: Dear Joshua, in case your approach to the New Energy is constructive and not destructive would you contribute seriously to: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/05/call-for-perfect-e-cat-experiment.html ? what experiment, what results will convince you that the device is producing useful energy? I'm glad you asked. *A. Demonstrating power:* To demonstrate thermal power, the simplest method is to heat water, and that is of course what Rossi does. But he doesn't do it in a transparent way that allows anyone to conclude, just by watching it, that yup, his device is producing power without an external supply of fuel. Here is an example of an experiment that would be visual and not require experts to tell you what's happening: As emphasized in my blog papers re the E-cat, Control still seems to be a problem for the E-cat and we have no data (or discussion partners) to know what we dob't know, and what Rossi doesn't know (more important) the commercial product must be completely automatized as my home methane gas burner for heating and warm water. (By the way, it cannot work without electricity) - 1. First and foremost, the device must be completely and obviously standalone. So, disconnect the hydrogen bottle, and the mains power input. - The hydrogen bottle should be easy because they claim so little hydrogen is consumed, and in some experiments they claim the valve was closed, and in at least one, it is disconnected. Given that, it is completely baffling that in the only somewhat public display they have had, the bottle was left connected, with the valve open. - The input electricity is probably more complicated. As it is explained, heat is needed to initiate the reaction, and that is provided by resistive heating. Fine. Use the mains for that, but then unplug it when the reaction starts. And make it obvious: wheel the whole contraption away to show no umbilical cords are attached. Rossi claims the thing has run without power, but that it's
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
On 5/25/2011 1:12 AM, Mark Iverson wrote: Just wanted to throw out a question to the Vort Collective... In an EM wave, why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular to each other? The answer to the question is really quite simple and it comes from our definition of what these fields are - which is in turn dictated by what we can measure with instruments. The most fundamental quantity related to these fields that nature seems to possess is a 3 dimensional time varying charge displacement field whose dynamic characteristics are excellently described by Maxwell's equations and whose definition seems most completely given by the two components which are conventionally called the vector and scalar potentials. However to date we are unable measure either of these components directly, but can only measure their differentials - eg the rate of change of scalar potential with distance (= electric field) and the integral around a loop (ie curl) of the vector potential (= magnetic field). It turns out that when this charge displacement field is propagating in a vacuum, these two components are naturally perpendicular because they are orthogonal components (in a mathematical sense) of the one entity. One might just as well ask why is length always perpendicular to breadth?. The answer would be simply that it is a convenient way to measure and define two independent components of a useful quantity called area! To provide an intuitive illustration of an EM wave one might imagine a long steel rod, one end of which is suddenly given a sharp torsional jerk or twist. This torsional displacement wave is a pure shear wave as there is no compression or rarefaction associated with it, and it will propagate along the rod from one end to the other as a coherent entity and at at characteristic speed determined only by the density of the material and its shear modulus (spring coefficient). If the mass displacement in the material is equated to the charge displacement in the vacuum then (I think!) this becomes a very good analogy of an EM wave propagating in a vacuum. The reason I have chosen torsional waves is because as far as we know the vacuum only supports charge based shear waves (ie displacement perpendicular to propagation. Experiments seem to prove that the vacuum does not support charge based pressure waves - ie displacement parallel to propagation as in sound waves - which is very surprising and remarkable I think!) If we now consider a small volume of the steel rod at its surface and analyze the stresses and strains in that volume, then we can always identify two conjugate quantities that between them support an oscillation and due to their distributed nature support the wave propagation. An analogous quantity to the vector potential (charge proximity times its velocity per unit volume) I think would be the linear momentum density (mass times velocity per unit volume). So the analogous quantity to the magnetic field is the mathematical curl of this - which is how much rotational component is present in this momentum. This is very closely related to (and possibly exactly equal to) the *angular* momentum density. The direction of angular momentum is always specified by the axis about which the quantity is revolving - and so in the case of this small volume at the surface of the rod, this axis is perpendicular to the surface of the rod. The analogous quantity to the electric field (or electric displacement) I think would be the shear strain density (ie how much the material is displaced in shear per unit distance along the rod and per unit volume). This shear displacement of course occurs in a direction which is tangential to the surface of the rod and about its axis - that being the direction that we applied the initial jerk. So here we have the magnetic field (angular momentum density) which is perpendicular to the surface of the rod, and the electric field (shear strain density) which is tangential to the surface of the rod, and both of these two are perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the wave along the axis of the rod. Now you can see that these two fields are simply mathematically orthogonal energy components of the single entity which is the wave motion. They are perpendicular only because of the interacting components and their definitions that we have chosen to describe the wave in terms of - in this case angular momentum (kinetic energy) and shear strain (potential energy) components. If we chose instead to describe an EM wave in terms of its vector potential (*linear* momentum density) and its electric field (shear strain density) then these components would still be mathematically orthogonal but they would be *parallel* in space. (They must always however be perpendicular to the direction of propagation because EM radiation supports axes of polarization.) So the conjugate fields of an EM wave
RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
Very thoughtful answer ... ... in fact the part about shear strain density seems to have relevance to what I was trying to verbalize wrt the interplay between temperature, electrical conductivity and mechanical strain in a few alloys: especially constantan and similar strain gauge alloys. Hope this is not reading too much into your comments but the net effect of electrothermal dynamics in a few alloys seems to be what can be called ghost current in the sense of the anomalous energy across the alloy being a function of Ohm's law: for instance where (E = .045 volt / R= 5 x 10-6) and the resultant current I = 9,000 amps, yet without the expected physical effects. This is an actual measurement, according to Dotto's patent. IOW - as surprising as it may seem, this exact subject area has relevance to a possible mechanism for enthalpy in a metal hydride devices (perhaps including the Rossi device) when the active material has a negative temperature coefficient of resistance. That is, when one assumes that to avoid conservation of energy problems, there is access to a hidden source of energy (ZPE) based on the precise physical dynamic of the hydride materials at the correct nano-geometry. Maybe I can make this clearer with a bit more contemplation ... Jones From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular? Mark Iverson wrote: Just wanted to throw out a question to the Vort Collective... In an EM wave, why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular to each other? The answer to the question is really quite simple and it comes from our definition of what these fields are - which is in turn dictated by what we can measure with instruments. The most fundamental quantity related to these fields that nature seems to possess is a 3 dimensional time varying charge displacement field whose dynamic characteristics are excellently described by Maxwell's equations and whose definition seems most completely given by the two components which are conventionally called the vector and scalar potentials. However to date we are unable measure either of these components directly, but can only measure their differentials - eg the rate of change of scalar potential with distance (= electric field) and the integral around a loop (ie curl) of the vector potential (= magnetic field). It turns out that when this charge displacement field is propagating in a vacuum, these two components are naturally perpendicular because they are orthogonal components (in a mathematical sense) of the one entity. One might just as well ask why is length always perpendicular to breadth?. The answer would be simply that it is a convenient way to measure and define two independent components of a useful quantity called area! To provide an intuitive illustration of an EM wave one might imagine a long steel rod, one end of which is suddenly given a sharp torsional jerk or twist. This torsional displacement wave is a pure shear wave as there is no compression or rarefaction associated with it, and it will propagate along the rod from one end to the other as a coherent entity and at at characteristic speed determined only by the density of the material and its shear modulus (spring coefficient). If the mass displacement in the material is equated to the charge displacement in the vacuum then (I think!) this becomes a very good analogy of an EM wave propagating in a vacuum. The reason I have chosen torsional waves is because as far as we know the vacuum only supports charge based shear waves (ie displacement perpendicular to propagation. Experiments seem to prove that the vacuum does not support charge based pressure waves - ie displacement parallel to propagation as in sound waves - which is very surprising and remarkable I think!) If we now consider a small volume of the steel rod at its surface and analyze the stresses and strains in that volume, then we can always identify two conjugate quantities that between them support an oscillation and due to their distributed nature support the wave propagation. An analogous quantity to the vector potential (charge proximity times its velocity per unit volume) I think would be the linear momentum density (mass times velocity per unit volume). So the analogous quantity to the magnetic field is the mathematical curl of this - which is how much rotational component is present in this momentum. This is very closely related to (and possibly exactly equal to) the *angular* momentum density. The direction of angular momentum is always specified by the axis about which the quantity is revolving - and so in the case of this small volume at the surface of the rod, this axis is perpendicular to the surface of the rod. The analogous quantity to the electric field (or electric displacement) I think would be the shear strain density (ie how much the material is displaced in shear per unit distance along the rod and per unit volume). This
RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
Jones said: Maybe I can make this clearer with a bit more contemplation ... Contemplation and a Brain Enhancing ElixiR should do the trick! Or is it too early... :-) -Mark attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it
At 03:54 AM 5/29/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Cude You find it so hard to believe that a few hundred cold fusion researchers can all be wrong, but if cold fusion is real, then far far more researchers would have to be wrong. Lomax This is the core of Cude's religious position: he believes that researchers have demonstrated that cold fusion is not real. It's a fantasy. Taking a little break from your actual research, I see. Your premise is wrong. You set up this straw man because you think you can knock it down. Basically everything that follows is therefore irrelevant (and more than a little boring), but what would be the fun in ignoring it? Cude is heavy on claims and light on evidence. The core of my position has been stated many times. It's that cold fusion researchers have failed to demonstrate that cold fusion is real. Lost performative: demonstrating to *whom*? It's rather obviously true, properly framed, but for the same reason, it's banal and boring. Cold fusion researchers have not demonstrated to the satisfaction of an imaginary, non-existent person called Joshua Cude, that cold fusion is real, whatever that means. It's really banal because cold fusion researchers have not failed to do this, they haven't even attempted to do it. The evidence is simply lacking. The evidence must mean the evidence that would convince Joshua Cude. Because there are enormous piles of evidence, all of which means nothing without analysis, and analysis that begins with false assumptions is almost guaranteed to produce false conclusions. As soon as the analyst begins to approach a conclusion that contradicts the assumptions, the analyst will assume analytical error and back up and not go any further down that road. It's how humans think. Since the effect is contrary to what we understand about natural science, without evidence for an effect, I remain skeptical. In this point of view, I am in good company. What is the effect? Lack of precision allows Cude to write tomes of criticism that has no foundation in fact. As to good company, Cude is relying on the past, on an imagined agreement with certain past analysis. Let's concede this immediately: there are many knowledgeable scientists who remain skeptical. In fact there are many cold fusion researchers who remain skeptical. But skeptical about what? By losing precision, Cude can claim all the great scientists are on his side. There is this teeny little problem, but I'm sure he can find a way to dismiss it. The Nobel laurates who took the evidence seriously, and who didn't dismiss it out-of-hand as impossible. It was only a narrow student understanding of quantum mechanics and how it can be applied that led some to think that the experimental results reported by so many were impossible. And that's what we are dealing with, here, experimental results. Not theories. Cold fusion is, technically, a theory. What theory? The terms must be defined. Cold fusion was a term applied by media, mostly, but which also became popular, to refer to whatever is behind the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect, or FPHE. The very first question, scientifically, is not whether or not the FPHE is real or not, because scientific protocols assume that reported data is real. Is there an FPHE? *Of course there is.* The issue is what causes it. When PF claimed they had evidence in 1989, the world leapt at the potential; journalists and scientists alike, all over the world, paid attention, and many got involved in experiments. When two scientists with respectable reputations claimed evidence for something revolutionary, no one wanted to be left behind. The world was giddy with excitement and anticipation. Which was, of course, radically premature. However, it was also a simple human response. Pons and Fleischmann made mistakes, more than one. But they also discovered an effect. It turned out to be much more difficult to replicate than first impressions. That would be a core mistake, but I can easily forgive them for making it, I don't think they anticipated what would ensue. But then, in the next weeks, months, and years, nothing came of the great excitement. And this is where Cude begins to lie, and I use the term lie advisedly. If he stuck to months, he'd be right, more or less. However, the 1989 ERAB report was partly based on negative results from Miles, at China Lake Naval Laboratory, who had been attempting replication and who had found no excess heat. Before the panel issued its report, Miles started to get results. He phoned the ERAB panel. They did not return his phone call. Miles, of course, went on to discover and demonstrate, conclusively, that the reaction was producing helium, that the FPHE is correlated with helium production. Wanting only replication of that result, this was conclusive
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it
At 04:00 AM 5/29/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Lomax That work was done before the turn of the century. The source is the conversion of deuterium to helium. The mechanism for this is unknown, but the conversion would have a characteristic energy of 23.8 MeV/He-4, regardless of mechanism (i.e., as long as significant energy does not escape, as with neutrino generation). The work done does not rule out other possible reactions, as to fuel and product, and there is evidence for them, but the evidence is strong enough that believing in the contrary is believing in something highly unlikely, believing in something not only in the absence of evidence, but in the presence of contrary evidence. The evidence for CF and for this heat-helium correlation is pitifully weak. And the evidence for the quantitative correlation has not been reproduced under peer-review. That's why a panel of experts in 2004 said evidence for nuclear reactions was not conclusive. No, the reports have been summarized and the conclusions accepted by peer-review. There is no skeptical review with this authority. Pitifully weak is Cude's personal and very subjective opinion, not confirmed by any review. It's only a loudmouth, spouting off. The work I'm referring to is that of Miles. Huizenga, author of Cold fusion, scientific fiasco of the century, notice Miles' work in the second edition of his book, and said that, if confirmed, this would solve a major mystery of cold fusion: the ash. And it has not been confirmed. That's so poor a judgment that I'll call it a lie. It's been confirmed. Cude sets up artificial standards for confirmation. Huizenga himself was responding to a conference report! I think the peer-reviewed paper came later. Storms, again, reports in Status of cold fusion (2010) that Miles successfully defended his results. That was approved by the peer reviewers. There is no way around it. The balance of publication in mainstream scientific journals favors the reality of the effect, favors that helium is the ash, and the only thing missing is what Cude seems to desire: convincing theory as to mechanism. And that doesn't exist, as far as I know. That paper (Storms again) represents the state of the field today Agreed. Unconvincing and published mostly in conference proceedings. No, convincing and published in a mainstream, peer-reviewed journal, a multidisciplinary journal of high reputation (where cold fusion belongs, this is not a pure physics field, it's a cross between physics and chemistry, studying phenomena not clearly established in either field.) Convincing to the peer reviewers and editors of the journal. Not to Cude, who apparently believes himself superior to those. That's his privilege, but forgive me if I don't fall down and worship his superior intellect. That, in fact, is what truly does not exist. and shows what is currently passing peer review, Exactly: obituaries instead of new experimental results. Please show an obituary currently passing peer review. As to new experimental results, current should include the last few years, and there are quite a few of those. But this field learned, for years, to stay away from many of the mainstream journals, because these journals, particularly Nature and Science, established explicit editorial policies, it seems, to reject anything on cold fusion without review. So why should they waste their time? There is new work being done, though Rossi tosses a monkey wrench into the whole shebang. Rossi is a damned nuiscance to me, because if he's for real, most focus will go toward Ni-H, and I'm set up for Pd-D. I won't lose money, I don't think, I should still be able to sell the materials (which are wicked expensive) but ... the interest and demand for the demonstration kits I've designed (and I've sold one) will decline, Ni-H will be the rage. Pd-D is nice, relatively well-behaved, in terms of doing something desktop and manageable for a high school student. I'll still do my own research. I'm in this for the science, not free energy. it is the latest in about seventeen positive reviews of cold fusion to appear in mainstream journals, with no negative reviews. Seventeen reviews and less than a dozen positive experimental papers since 2004. That's pathetic. And who writes negative reviews of moribund fields? No one. Why would they? They do if positive reviews are appearing in mainstream journals and real print encyclopedias are printing articles that are as stupid as Cude thinks. They do if the largest scientific publishers in the world are favoring a moribund field. And whether the field is moribund or not has nothing to do with the basic science. How active is research into muon-catalyzed fusion? This is pure pseudoskepticism, nonscientific arguments marshalled to make a
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it
At 04:29 AM 5/29/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: Lomax As Rothwell said. Cude is simply repeating a common myth. That mainstream science regards CF as a mistake is a fact you have admitted. Not a myth. Cude's understanding of what I say is shallow and biased. There is no mainstream science, so I'd never say that. Mainstream science is an abstraction, not a reality, it's a judgment, not a sentient being that can regard anything. Mainstream science is undefined here. If Cude defines it, we might make some progress and find some agreement. This is what I suspect is the bottom line. Cude imagines that his views and opinions are mainstream. And therefore, what differs from them, what he regards as a mistake, is what mainstream science regards as a mistake. He is, I suspect, a graduate student, and his work is to understand what his peers will accept. Were he to open his mind to cold fusion, he might find, in his field, immediate rejection. Remember, in his field. Not mainstream science, which must include, for example, chemists. cold fusion was a misnomer at the beginning, because, in fact, it was not known to be fusion. That fusion is involved is now a very substantial conclusion, based on the finding of helium correlated with heat. The original question, though, has never been answered with any rigor at all: if the FPHE effect is not fusion, what is it? The chemists say, largely, it's not chemistry, that's impossible, it must a nuclear reaction. The nuclear physicists say, largely, it can't be a nuclear reaction, that's impossible, it must be chemistry. Which one of these factions is mainstream science? My answer is, both are. Cold fusion is, at this point, a set of results in chemistry and thermodynamics. Practically none of the work involves the methods of nuclear physics. Nuclear physicists are, essentially, only competent to comment on *conclusions,* i.e., the conclusion of the chemists that it must be a nuclear reaction, and for the physicists to discount and discredit the competence of the chemists as to work well within their expertise was a major failure of scientific courtesy and process. In the other direction, for the chemists to insist that this was a nuclear reaction without showing direct nuclear evidence was certainly premature. It's possible to assert it, now, because of the helium, because that is, indeed, a nuclear product, but it wasn't at the beginning. Helium was considered a very long shot.
RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
John: I think you will find that many regular contributors on this list are of the same mind, in that they consider as a real possibility the existence of some kind of aether. There are numerous alternative aether-based hypotheses, but the mainstream scientific community doesn't have much interest in them... I have subscribed to a journal called 'Galilean Electrodynamics' for over 15 years, and they have published numerous such articles. Perhaps you should consider submitting an article to them for publication... they focus on experimental papers that contradict relativity theory, but are happy to publish theoretical papers as well. Part of my motivation for posting the original question as to the perpendicularity of E M fields, is to stimulate a little out of the box thinking, as the vast majority of postings since Jan 14 have been Rossi-related or debating a pathological skeptic who speaks in generalities and doesn't have the guts to use his real name... -Mark _ From: John Berry [mailto:aethe...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2011 3:00 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular? Ok, as you might guess from my email address I very much disagree that the aether was proven false, nothing of the sort. Only a static Aether was found to have evidence against it. Secondly if you still want to know why Electric and Magnetic fields are perpendicular in an EM wave etc... then you are ignoring the fact that I have already essentially proven that magnetic fields are non-existant and only a convenient was to understand how relativistically distorted electric fields manifest. So it is like asking why I am perpendicular to that dark guy lying on the floor where I am standing by a light at night, how come we are always perpendicular when I am standing on the floor. If I have told you that it just looks like a man but it is just my shadow do you really need to keep on being curious when you now understand precisely how it comes to be that way? I can show you every example where magnetic forces arise are due to electric fields/forces that are distorted by movement that creates precisely the same force we expect and get magnetically. Quite a co-incidence. If you choose to ignore the simple logical truth that makes sense then it is likely you are really just practicing mysticism, and IMO there are plenty of real mysteries to work out, no need to create them where none exists. Electrons spin and orbit, Nucleus's spin, and distort their electric fields doing so and should create the forces that we experience with permanent magnets. Wires attract and repel in theory as experienced.
RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
So you are postulating that: What mainstream calls a magnetic field is really a 'relativistically distorted electric field'. Okay, that's a good start... But then you say, ...ignoring the fact that I have already essentially proven that magnetic fields are non-existant... I'm afraid that simply asserting that you've proven something doesn't fly on this forum... What you have done is postulated an alternative explanation, and that is what I was looking for, and is certainly out the box thinking, however, it is NOT PROOF of what you are postulating. Can you provide some specific examples with calculations??? Are there any examples where your theoretical framework explains aspects of electromagnetics that current theory does not??? -Mark _ From: John Berry [mailto:aethe...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2011 3:00 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular? Ok, as you might guess from my email address I very much disagree that the aether was proven false, nothing of the sort. Only a static Aether was found to have evidence against it. Secondly if you still want to know why Electric and Magnetic fields are perpendicular in an EM wave etc... then you are ignoring the fact that I have already essentially proven that magnetic fields are non-existant and only a convenient was to understand how relativistically distorted electric fields manifest. So it is like asking why I am perpendicular to that dark guy lying on the floor where I am standing by a light at night, how come we are always perpendicular when I am standing on the floor. If I have told you that it just looks like a man but it is just my shadow do you really need to keep on being curious when you now understand precisely how it comes to be that way? I can show you every example where magnetic forces arise are due to electric fields/forces that are distorted by movement that creates precisely the same force we expect and get magnetically. Quite a co-incidence. If you choose to ignore the simple logical truth that makes sense then it is likely you are really just practicing mysticism, and IMO there are plenty of real mysteries to work out, no need to create them where none exists. Electrons spin and orbit, Nucleus's spin, and distort their electric fields doing so and should create the forces that we experience with permanent magnets. Wires attract and repel in theory as experienced. On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: On 05/27/2011 07:50 PM, Charles Hope wrote: I suppose we are all somewhere on the conservative/crank spectrum. I think physics is a difficult place for novel thought because the current models are so excellent. Yet mysteries do remain. However I didn't know that Cooper pairs was one of them. But I see the difficulty in our communication. I take epistemic issue with the idea that there can be a mathematical model without true understanding. If we have a model, it behooves us to twist our minds into understanding that! There is no understanding but the use of a valid model. Exactly. And once you understood it, you stick with it because it just works. You almost never question it at the philosophical or epistemological level. During most of the last century, there was a lot of confusion, introduced by Relativity theory, about the concept of time, by example. The case of the aether is also paradigmatic: when the results of some experiments were not the expected ones, the aether was disregarded, and relativity theories appeared. Nobody, or almost nobody, took the time to reflect at the philosophical level on what had happened, and as a consequence, a lot of confusion ensued. What had happened was that the mechanical model of the aether was found to be false by experiment. As a replacement, purely mathematical models were quickly introduced, which agreed with the experiments. But those models were now devoid of physical meaning. Just the general idea of relativity, and of all is relative popped up, and stuck like a grand revelation. That happened during most of the last century, and is still happening. That philosophical thinking is still lacking, and it's coming from outsiders like me, because real scientists are so busy trying to understand the math first, and to apply for grants and publish later, that they don't have time to really reflect and think. Philosophy was disregarded(a big mistake) in the name of results and predictive power. The other consequence of the increasing complexity and the quest for results was super-specialization. You have to be an expert to be able to talk with authority and understanding about something. And when you finally study to be an expert in one field, you cannot talk about anything else! Moreover: you mostly lost the ability to relate and correlate knowledge from different fields of knowledge. That is an unfortunate state of
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
At 04:31 AM 5/29/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: LomaxThe world is so complex that math can be useless, unless simplifying assumptions are made. It is certain simplifying assumptions that led to the conclusion that QM predicts that LENR is impossible. This was already a problematic assumption, because we already knew of a three-body example where fusion is known to take place, muon-catalyzed fusion, so the question then naturally arises if there might be other exceptions. What? Muons are exceptional in nature, and muonic atoms are exotic, but muon-catalyzed fusion in no way represents an exception to standard QM. Nor did I claim so. It's an exception to the oft-stated claim that fusion at room temperature is impossible. In fact, the phenomenon was predicted theoretically before it was observed. The reaction rates fit the calculations perfectly. Right. That's because it's a very simple reaction, comparatively. The fusion reactions follow expected branches. The production of muons for the purpose is understood. Everything makes sense. This was all understood in the 1950s. The only way this can be bootstrapped to explain CF is if you claim electrolysis, or deuterium absorption in Pd, or hydrogen absorption in Ni produces exotic nuclear particles, a process just as unlikely as any other proposed mechanism for nuclear reactions producing useful heat. I do not cite MCF to explain CF, only to point out the foolishness of blanket impossibility statements. There are exceptions. How many? We knew one in 1989. We also knew other exceptions to the claim that nuclear effects were not possible at room temperature. MCF was proposed as possibly related. That wasn't a tenable idea. The only connection here is that if one form of catalysis is possible, with one catalyst, there might be others, unknown to us. In fact, even if we didn't know about MCF, the principle that there might be something unknown is solid, and is the basis for new research, which, properly, is always looking for anomalies. Physics only uses math in the interpretation of results, in the development of theories, and some of these theories, applied in simplified situations -- such as plasma conditions -- are extraordinarily successful, amazingly accurate. As long as you stay away from messy situations, like the stuff that we live with all the time. Physics is also extraordinarily successful at describing mathematically the properties of materials, crystals, and lattices, just the sort of environment cold fusion is supposed to take place in. Actually, not quite, apparently. But the world moves on and my ideas might become obsolete. Takahashi has proposed that deuterons occasionally would form a tetrahedral symmetric configuration, where four deuterons, with electrons, so this could be considered two D2 molecules, are arranged tetrahedrally. He *calculates* -- math -- that if this configuration arises (and this probably requires that the relative temperature of the four deuterons is close to absolute zero, my guess), it will collapse within a femtosecond and fuse within a femtosecond, to form Be-8. Be-8 normally decays within, as I recall, a femtosecond to form two helium nuclei. However, what happens after collapse and fusion has not been well-described by Takahashi. So there are two big problems with this theory, in spite of the math. 1. How does the TSC condition form? The approach is closer than two molecules will ordinarily manage, because if they approach at the cross-wise configuration that would, if the vectors continued, lead them to TSC, the repulsive forces from the electrons would break apart the molecules. Thus, for TSC to form, there must be some force resisting dissociation. The lattice, I presume. And has anyone calculated all the forces and times involved? Not to my knowledge. The math is very difficult, apparently. 2. What happens inside a Bose Einstein Condensate, if fusion takes place that results in a single excited nucleus? The electrons are part of the BEC, I think? What will that Be-8 nucleus do? Takahashi, at one point, predicted that it would radiate energy in a series of transitions down to the ground state, up until it fissions? Does being inside a BEC change the half-life? Does it change how the energy is distributed? And this is just one theory. Kim has published a different approach, also using BECs. I don't think the math has been done to examine the range of possible behaviors in Pd-D. For one thing, the environment is quite complex. Some think that oxides are involved, and it's a surface effect. It may happen only in lattice defects, not in the lattice itself. I'm not at all convinced that most research in the field is being published; consider that Rossi apparently worked for years. Consider Pons and Fleischmann themselves,
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it
At 04:52 AM 5/29/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: It occurred to me that the Fukushima disaster occurred partly *because* it depended on external power for cooling in the event of an unintentional shut-down. Modern reactors have passive emergency cooling systems that do not depend on power of any kind. Sure. But why didn't they do that in the beginning? Answer that question and you will know why Rossi, if it's a real effect, doesn't have passive control. It's a first-generation, demonstration device.
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude at it
At 05:18 AM 5/29/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: 1. First and foremost, the device must be completely and obviously standalone. So, disconnect the hydrogen bottle, and the mains power input. - The hydrogen bottle should be easy because they claim so little hydrogen is consumed, and in some experiments they claim the valve was closed, and in at least one, it is disconnected. Given that, it is completely baffling that in the only somewhat public display they have had, the bottle was left connected, with the valve open. Yes. This one is easy. Not so the electricity. As Joshua notes, it could be done. But this is the problem, and it's an engineering and economic problem. To design and build and test the demonstration device would take months, perhaps many months. Engineering isn't free. So what's the value in this? If Rossi doesn't need it to accomplish selling the 1 MW plant to Defkalion, it's a fish bicycle. You want to build this, you pay for it. There is *nothing* in this for him. There could be something in it, if for some reason Defkalion falls through. If he needs to raise more capital, then he might need such a bulletproof demonstration. However, assuming that he's not a fraud, he has no reason to do this at this time, and it would actually harm his plans. One more point: Rossi claims the thing has run without power, but that it's dangerous, although he doesn't explain why. The speculation is that an input control is needed to prevent some sort of runaway condition, but it seems counter-intuitive to use additional heat input to prevent runaway. That depends on how the device is operating. Let's assume that the only control variable is the temperature of the reaction chamber. There are two controls on that chamber, heating by resistor(s) and cooling by water and boiling water. In particular, it is implausible that cutting the power by 10% or less would stop a runaway condition, when the variation in claimed output levels is far greater than 10%. I don't want to get far into details, and I am -- as I often am -- disappointed by how little is reported, and I even find this in experiments reported in peer-reviewed journals. If you really want to replicate, or just to independently analyze the data, what is needed is often missing. This is merely an idea of what Rossi might be doing. The device, if water is present in the cooling jacket, and with no power, will cool below the temperature at which the heat effect appears. Thus turning off the power will turn off the reaction. The power raises the temperature to the point where the heat effect starts up and becomes reasonably strong, but only to that point. Water will still quench it. What has been done in designing the E-Cat is to engineer the reaction chamber so that it heats and cools in this way. If the operating temperature is 450 C, then the thermal resistance must be such as to allow this heat, only if there is supplemental heat from electrical heating. There may be other effects operating, and some of them are worrisome, as to commercial application. What if the heat is variable, or if it fairly rapidly declines with time? We don't have experimental data, and a rapid decline effect could blow this out of the water commercially, even if it's real. But Rossi is claiming six months of operation before refueling is necessary. (Refueling, here, means more nickel, it's not clear if hydrogen refueling is needed, will that be supplied during operation from an included reservior? What?) Still, the heat might vary, and how this thing is engineered could get quite tricky, but, yes, it's possible that heat could be controlled by heat, as long as you understand that this is extra heat added to keep the temperature to a value above what the reaction itself would sustain, if there is no extra heat. There is a bottom line here: wait for Rossi's E-Cats to appear on sale, look at the performance specifications and costs, and *then* make a decision about this. Or, if he gets his full patent protection, try independent replication. If the E-Cats work, even most of the time, this is real, I assume, unless the specifications have evaporated to practically nothing. I think he's only guaranteeing 6 to 1. Given the high initial numbers, what's going on? This is all fluff, I don't trust any of it. Rossi can legally lie about what he's doing, as long as he does not lie to investors and customers. He can lie to everyone else to throw them off the track. It's completely legal.
RE: [Vo]:The Summer of ECat
At 08:53 PM 5/27/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: At 04:52 PM 5/27/2011, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Cost to refuel is crucial. $5000 for 4800 hours run time is $1.04 per hour, or $0.41 per kWh, compared to $0.15 from my local power company. Is Defkalion losing money on every E-Cat but making up for it with volume? This cost was, of course, based on the $5000 estimated for an E-Cat, as if refueling were at maximum cost. It looks like refueling consists of replacing the core of the thing, the rest is just a piece of plumbing with, perhaps, some heating elements. Rossi said (extracted from multiple posts): 3) do you know, approximately, how much will cost the recharge of the module after the 6 month of working ? 3- 100 $ == $0.02/hr = $0.0087 / kWH (at 2.4kW) Okay. What's the life time of the E-Cat? It may become obsolete, rapidly, by better units, but let's give it five years just for grins. The investment is somewhat speculative in certain ways. Installation will cost money. I'm thinking of an amortization at about $1800 per year. Let's assume continuous power generation: That's $0.20 per hour for the device. Not counting refueling. If it can be refueled for $100, then why does the E-Cat itself, which is not a lot more than plumbing and some heating elements and control circuits, so expensive? At 2.4 kW, it looks like the cost per kWh is roughly $0.10, plus at 6:1, I'd have to pay maybe $0.03 for the control power at 15 cents per kWh. While decent, that's not spectacular, by any means. Not enough to move me to buy one and use it. Besides, I rent my apartment. But I'd suppose that one could make a portable E-Cat installation.
Re: [Vo]:in Rossi reactor demos, electric input power boils away some of the cooling water: Rich Murray 2011.05.26
Rich Murray: Clearly, the simple evidence so far made available shows that the input electric heater power is enough to raise the water flow to boiling. The Rossi reactor is a scam. I congratulate Joshua Cude on his outstanding clarity and attention to significant details. It remains to be demonstrated. I have not reviewed all of the various analyses that have been presented, but I wasn't terribly impressed by the January demonstration, for lots of reasons. Lots of details circulated that may later have been shown to be false. There are some difficult factors here. The first and perhaps the most important is that Rossi has no natural reason to put on totally convincing demonstrations, and possible some financial incentive to allow some to think that this is totally bogus. We really don't know why Rossi even scheduled the demos; the rumor is that it was a personal favor, and certainly it wasn't to establish this as science. It simply wasn't done that way. I've concluded, as have a lot of others, that this is unlikely to be a scam. However, that's far from considering it proven to be, not only real, but also commercially viable. We simply have not seen enough. Nowhere near enough.
RE: [Vo]:Blondlot on observing N-rays with the naked eye.
At 02:16 PM 5/28/2011, Mark Iverson wrote: It is widely known that the 'rod' cells in the retina, which are responsible for seeing in low light levels, are more concentrated just outside the center of focus, and the 'cone' cells primarily responsible for color vision, are more concentrated in the center of the retina. Thus, one can better see faint objects at night by looking slightly off center... How many reading here have used a spinthariscope? In setting myself up to do a little work, I bought some odds and ends, cheap stuff, and one of the things I bought was a piece of CdS-coated plastic, which, with an 8X hand microscope, which I have, makes a handy spinthariscope, and I've spent some time at night looking at the flashes of light from an Am-241 source ripped from the guts of an old smoke detector. I've spent a fair amount of time experimenting with dark-adaptation. Yes, the effect described is well-known. I've also found something that others might want to look for, I've found it documented nowhere. If I'm, say, lying in bed looking at the ceiling, and my eyes are dark-adapted, and there is a low level of illumination on the ceiling -- which is painted white, and if I close my eyes, and then flash the image of the ceiling by opening and closing my eyes once, very rapidly, I find that I see what appears to be a dark object around the center of my vision. This is almost certainly the central scotoma, being directly observed. It's known to be there. If you arrange an image so that a small object is entirely enclosed within the central scotoma, viewing with one eye, the object will disappear. Obviously, the seeing mechanism fills in the scotoma, so that we don't notice it, apparently it fills it in with whatever surrounds it. Otherwise the scotoma, if we were to see what our eyes were actually detecting, would be quite distracting! However, under the conditions I describe, I think, the filling-in can actually be observed. When the eye first opens, there is no information on which to fill in the scotoma, so it appears, but just for a flash. Once I knew what to look for, I could, if I quickly opened my eyes, paying close attention, see the scotoma appear and fill in, within a fraction of a second. It looked like it was collapsing. With the flashing, the scotoma is visible for a very brief time as an after-image, it seems, but I'm not sure.
Re: [Vo]:The Summer of ECat
At 06:29 PM 5/28/2011, you wrote: Perhaps more important is the fact that a working E-cat means confirmation of a new source of energy. Once that is accepted many more people will start working on improving the output, as Jed has often said. The interesting thing to me is that this argument would apply to the original cold fusion work. If so many people are *independently* reporting anomalous energy from palladium deuteride, under reasonably reproducible conditions, then surely this would have been worth a ver substantial investment to really nail it down and understand it. Thus, from a neutral perspective, just looking at the game theory of it, there should have been at least enough allocated to this project to determine the origin of this apparent heat, one way or another. Instead, what happened was that a faction among scientists was allowed to dominate, to receive all the funding, and to practically demolish routine research for the dissenters, those who had seen the beast. It doesn't matter, from this perspective, if cold fusion is real or not. Answering the questions, determining the source of this confirmed observation, would, in a sane society, have been collectively very important. I'm seeing some similarities with N-rays, though they didn't have the enormous implications that cold fusion had and has. Wood allegedly did several surreptitious experiments. Only he observed them, and these were, by definition, not replicable. Why did it happen that Wood's report almost single-handedly, if we believe the popular interpretations, demolished the idea of N-rays, which had been seen by many people? With our hindsight, it's quite easy to devise and determine experiments that would have resolved the issue. But it was already considered resolved, if we accept the standard story, by Wood's tricks. Turning Wood's tricks into controllable and replicable experiments would have been a scientific approach. Was that followed? My guess is that it was, and that the results were negative. So, if that's true, what really killed N-rays was that once the possible causes of the observations were understood, and experimenters designed experiments to rule them out, the effect did disappear. Human eyesight is a totally amazing and sensitive instrument, and it would have been difficult, in those days, to do better. But human eyesight could still have been used, in spite of the obvious problems with it, i.e., the dependence upon a human observer, whose expectations can affect what is observed and reported. All that was necessary was to, so to speak, run the experiments totally blind, to not only rule out observer expectation bias, but also subtle bias through unconciously communicated bias. That may not have been much in people's minds in those days, they had other things to worry about! But we can now see how to proceed. It's more difficlt, and once one is convinced, one way or another, one isn't likely to go to the trouble. What is interesting is that the matter, in both cases, came to be considered closed without adequate evidence! In both cases, some researchers worked on, but there is a huge difference between what happened with N-rays and what happened with cold fusion. The issue was enormously confused by differences in the disciplines of chemistry and physics. Chemists are accustomed to complex experiments where the results might not be so accurately predicted from theory. An electrochemical cell, it turns out, is far from a simple environment. Cold fusion has been shown to be a surface effect, it does not happen, it appears, in the bulk of the palladium, it happens at or very near the surface. What is that surface? An electrolytic cathode attracts every impurity in the electrolyte, elements that might be found, say, in a rubber seal used with the cell, will show up there, plated on the surface by the current. Even though oxygen is being evolved at the other electrode, there is oxygen dissolved in the electrolyte that will nevertheless react, to some degree, with the palladium surface. Palladium metal, depending on its microstructure, may very greatly in its ability to be loaded with a high percentage of deuterium. I have read old sources that, as I recall, claimed that 70% was the maximum. Apparently not. CF researchers who were successful often monitored the loading ratio in various ways. One of the characteristics later found to be consistent with replication failure was lack of attention to loading ratio. Apparently, the effect only appears at around 90%, which obviously was pushing the state of the art at the time. (In gas-loading experiments, my understanding is that ratios above 100% are sometimes obtained. My own understanding of CF theories leads me to think that CF doesn't happen until a locale actually has what would be 400% loading! But it might happen in enlarged defects, of just a certain size, so that ratio would
Re: [Vo]:The Summer of ECat
At 06:33 PM 5/28/2011, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Fri, 27 May 2011 20:59:34 -0400: Hi, [snip] Not being a mills expert, how do we know the Mills effect is not nuclear? No radiation and/or transmustation? If the Mills effect is nuclear, then it also has to function in a gas/plasma (see some of Mills' early experiments with e.g. Sr, Ar.) Aw, geez, folks. No, CF doesn't function in a plasma. Period. (Okay, okay, I shouldn't be so damned certain, but if it happened in a plasma, it would be very visible and easily detectable. CF appears to depend on quantum phenomena that are based on common influences from many atoms, acting together. There are a number of well-known nuclear effects that don't happen in plasmas. For example, muon-catalyzed fusion, while it might *happen* would be undetectable, the rates would be so low, and certain nuclei are stable in a plasma, and become unstable when in the solid state. And then, of course, there is this cold fusion thingie, whatever it is. Making helium, it must be nuclear.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi on Gamma
At 12:12 AM 5/29/2011, Terry Blanton wrote: That's one heck of a frequency conversion! No, it simply requires that the gammas be absorbed by the apparatus. That, I believe, places an upper limit on the gamma energies, but I'm not about to calculate it, and this would also depend on the shielding thickness and the shielding material. He implies that there is gamma radiation generated during the reaction, which would point, by the way, to a scientific demonstration, showing a nuclear reaction, but it's one he does not want to do, because all that has to happen is for someone to measure the energy of those gammas, and the E-Cat could be out of the bag. Note that this demonstration would not rule out fraud. Fraud is very difficult to rule out by any sort of supervised demonstration, which is why I don't expect it to be ruled out until Rossi gets his patent protection. It's really weird. If Rossi is a scammer, he is being *protected* by US patent office refusal to grant patents, because it gives him a complete excuse to not disclose what he's doing, completely. Patents for something considered impossible should be issued. The patent applicant pays all the cost of the examination, and the patent (all patents) should clearly state that the practical operation of the device is not guaranteed by the patent office. The argument that issuance of a patent is some sort of seal of approval is preposterous, as to substance. All kinds of patented stuff has been completely useless.
Re: [Vo]:The Summer of ECat
Is setting up a tinier Pt wire anode for your DPd codeposition going to delay your first attempt to try out your kit cell -- I am keenly interested in what turns up -- will you have a simultaneous control cell? -- there is a minute possibility that the cell could interact with neutral dark matter particles in orbit with the Earth around the Sun -- meaning that no nuclear physics experiment can so far be completely isolated from unexpected interactions -- can you set up a webcam to show you real-time doing your first runs? -- hey, ask for donations! Rich
Re: [Vo]:The Summer of ECat
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Sun, 29 May 2011 18:23:51 -0400: Hi, [snip] If the Mills effect is nuclear, then it also has to function in a gas/plasma (see some of Mills' early experiments with e.g. Sr, Ar.) Aw, geez, folks. No, CF doesn't function in a plasma. Period. My point was that Mills' effect does function in a gas/plasma. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:ZHydrogen.com
Jeff Driscoll has put up a website that introduces himself to alternative energy enthusiasts - and helps the layperson understand Randell Mills' CQM theory. http://zhydrogen.com/ The goal of the website is to find funding for both initial experiments and eventually to start a company and license and possible improve the technology from BLP and Randell Mills. He may have to wait until BLP becomes better known, or more publicity oriented - unless he is lucky enough to find a common denominator between Mills and Rossi. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:in Rossi reactor demos, electric input power boils away some of the cooling water: Rich Murray 2011.05.26
Hi Abd, I notice also since Jan 14, 4 months later, that AFAIK, no one else has set up and run and reported any kind of HNi gas cells that show any level of anomalies -- maybe there are teams that you know about that aren't publicly disclosing interesting results -- can you confirm or discomfirm any such? The slightest anomaly that can be replicated would suggest unknown nuclear physics -- which has, for world security purposes, to be publicly explored immediately, in case of possible quantum jumps in the capabilities of terrorists, gangs, and disfunctional governments. In mutual service, Rich
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
Sorry, I was away during the weekend. I think the same as you about the electric and magnetic fields(they both are aspects of the same thing). And I have stated it clearly in other mails, by the way. I just wanted to hear, and was trying to understand, the standard explanation. If you think that that is beating a dead horse, I disagree. The fact that you have an explanation, and that it seems to coincide with my ideas about both, the electric and magnetic fields, and the aether, does not mean that that explanation is accepted and mainstream. Regards, Mauro On 05/29/2011 07:00 AM, John Berry wrote: Ok, as you might guess from my email address I very much disagree that the aether was proven false, nothing of the sort. Only a static Aether was found to have evidence against it. Secondly if you still want to know why Electric and Magnetic fields are perpendicular in an EM wave etc... then you are ignoring the fact that I have already essentially proven that magnetic fields are non-existant and only a convenient was to understand how relativistically distorted electric fields manifest. So it is like asking why I am perpendicular to that dark guy lying on the floor where I am standing by a light at night, how come we are always perpendicular when I am standing on the floor. If I have told you that it just looks like a man but it is just my shadow do you really need to keep on being curious when you now understand precisely how it comes to be that way? I can show you every example where magnetic forces arise are due to electric fields/forces that are distorted by movement that creates precisely the same force we expect and get magnetically. Quite a co-incidence. If you choose to ignore the simple logical truth that makes sense then it is likely you are really just practicing mysticism, and IMO there are plenty of real mysteries to work out, no need to create them where none exists. Electrons spin and orbit, Nucleus's spin, and distort their electric fields doing so and should create the forces that we experience with permanent magnets. Wires attract and repel in theory as experienced. On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Mauro Lacyma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: On 05/27/2011 07:50 PM, Charles Hope wrote: I suppose we are all somewhere on the conservative/crank spectrum. I think physics is a difficult place for novel thought because the current models are so excellent. Yet mysteries do remain. However I didn't know that Cooper pairs was one of them. But I see the difficulty in our communication. I take epistemic issue with the idea that there can be a mathematical model without true understanding. If we have a model, it behooves us to twist our minds into understanding that! There is no understanding but the use of a valid model. Exactly. And once you understood it, you stick with it because it just works. You almost never question it at the philosophical or epistemological level. During most of the last century, there was a lot of confusion, introduced by Relativity theory, about the concept of time, by example. The case of the aether is also paradigmatic: when the results of some experiments were not the expected ones, the aether was disregarded, and relativity theories appeared. Nobody, or almost nobody, took the time to reflect at the philosophical level on what had happened, and as a consequence, a lot of confusion ensued. What had happened was that the mechanical model of the aether was found to be false by experiment. As a replacement, purely mathematical models were quickly introduced, which agreed with the experiments. But those models were now devoid of physical meaning. Just the general idea of relativity, and of all is relative popped up, and stuck like a grand revelation. That happened during most of the last century, and is still happening. That philosophical thinking is still lacking, and it's coming from outsiders like me, because real scientists are so busy trying to understand the math first, and to apply for grants and publish later, that they don't have time to really reflect and think. Philosophy was disregarded(a big mistake) in the name of results and predictive power. The other consequence of the increasing complexity and the quest for results was super-specialization. You have to be an expert to be able to talk with authority and understanding about something. And when you finally study to be an expert in one field, you cannot talk about anything else! Moreover: you mostly lost the ability to relate and correlate knowledge from different fields of knowledge. That is an unfortunate state of affairs, and we can say that a great part of the decadence of the western culture we experience today is related to our urge for control only from the mechanistic perspective. Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: The fact that you have an explanation, and that it seems to coincide with my ideas about both, the electric and magnetic fields, and the aether, does not mean that that explanation is accepted and mainstream. You might consider studying Don Hotson and his idea of the epo field relating to PAM Dirac and the sea of negative energy to find some insight. T
Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
I know the calculations exist, but that is not my forte. What can we detect from the magnetic component of an EM wave? What we detect is the electric force it places of charges, this force is orthogonal to the magnetic field and is identical to the electric component. In other words the only way we can detect the magnetic component is from detecting the electric component. And if the magnetic component was not present, how would you know? Everything would be the same, for instance if you had just the electric component of an EM wave (transmitted from a wire antenna) and you had a magnetic particle such as a tiny permanent magnet which creates a magnetic field in the same way as a tiny electromagnet would. (only the size of an electron orbit) Then you would expect to notice a force on this tiny magnet, however the force you get would infact be manifested as an electric force on the electrons. And if you looked as it, the electric force on the electrons would make sense as the force on the electrons that are moving toward the source would be forced up while the ones moving away would be forced down. And if we were to look at what happens when we thrust a wire towards one carrying a current we would find a voltage induced into it, that is how generators work and why motors have back EMF. If we move the wire away the electrons would be induced in the opposite direction. Ok, so why is this electric force created? Well the distortion of the electric field of the electrons in the wire is complex as they are moving and you are moving toward them, if you look at the path they take you are closer to each electron as it moves away. Ok, so now I can explain this however it just occurred to me how this could be explained. Imagine you are approaching a train, the train is spraying water from several hoses straight out and you are walking towards this. The water hits you, first from your left then the right as the train is moving by, because you are approaching the train you get more wet on your right side because when each hose passes by your right side you are closer than when it was spraying at your left side. This means that if the train was negatively charged these negative charges would have more effect on your right side, this would induce a current in you that would push electrons to your left side. This is the same direction you would expect a current to be induced. Now I'll admit, I have no equations on any of this. I thought of all this myself thinking I had made a breakthrough only to learn that this has been known for a very long time and apparently the equations have been done. Maybe the equations wouldn't add up? At any rate I'm not the person to find out. But I would think it very strange that they didn't, seriously what are the odds of the same (except in magnitude) electric forces being created by Magnetism and by motion distorted electric fields being a coincidence? I'll admit I could be wrong, but you really must weigh up the evidence... All sources of magnetic fields are moving charges/electric fields. Magnetic fields are only felt as an orthogonal electric field, which is to say it only effects charges and the direction is Dependant on their sign motion. Analysis of how motion should distort electric fields creates predictions of forces the same as those expected from magnetic analysis and according to those who are able to calculate these the magnitude is the same. You and I should be able to come to agreement on all but the issue of magnitude which I can't hope to work out and will just take the word of those who apparently can and have said it adds up. Sure, when you hold a magnet and a piece of iron it takes some effort to do away with the illusion of a magnetic field and it is far easier than trying to work it out electrically. But if you want to you can explain it all based on electric fields being distorted. On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: So you are postulating that: What mainstream calls a magnetic field is really a 'relativistically distorted electric field'. Okay, that's a good start... But then you say, ...ignoring the fact that I have already essentially proven that magnetic fields are non-existant... I'm afraid that simply asserting that you've proven something doesn't fly on this forum... What you have done is postulated an alternative explanation, and that is what I was looking for, and is certainly out the box thinking, however, it is NOT PROOF of what you are postulating. Can you provide some specific examples with calculations??? Are there any examples where your theoretical framework explains aspects of electromagnetics that current theory does not??? -Mark -- *From:* John Berry [mailto:aethe...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, May 29, 2011 3:00 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular? Ok, as you
Re: [Vo]:The Summer of ECat
At 06:39 PM 5/29/2011, Rich Murray wrote: Is setting up a tinier Pt wire anode for your DPd codeposition going to delay your first attempt to try out your kit cell -- I am keenly interested in what turns up -- will you have a simultaneous control cell? I originally planned to have a hydrogen control in series, but I abandoned that because it could raise the voltage above my 20 V power supply, given headroom for the current regulator. Then I was going to do a parallel hydrogen control. I may still. It's more urgent to me to simply start varying parameters, I want to get a standard and cheap configuration going that shows *some* effect, the most obvious one is neutron tracks, but I'll be looking for light and ultrasound as well. Heat, only if there is substantial heat, which I don't particularly expect. I've cut the cathode in half from the Galileo protocol, as to length. Same 0.010 inch diameter wire. So, half the surface area, half the current for the same current density. I was going to reduce the palladium in the electrolyte by half as well, but talking with Dr. Storms, he said that the concentration during initial plating would be important, so what I'm doing is cutting the total electrolyte volume in half. It gets cheaper. The biggest problem I've run into is that the wires are fragile, both the gold and platinum wires break easily. There are lots of ways to do this wrong, and I may stumble across many of them Anyway, I can't see how shortening the anode will do anything except raise the voltage a bit, due to the voltage between the anode and the electrolyte being higher. Given constant current, I'd expect that the cathode won't see that difference at all. The cathode also won't see the total electrolyte volume, so this smaller cathode should be just as happy as a longer one in a larger bath. Conceptually, this is like having two cathode sections in parallel. Only we just toss one -- there is a minute possibility that the cell could interact with neutral dark matter particles in orbit with the Earth around the Sun -- meaning that no nuclear physics experiment can so far be completely isolated from unexpected interactions -- can you set up a webcam to show you real-time doing your first runs? -- hey, ask for donations! Rich Donations welcome. However, given how distracted I get, and how long this is taking me, I'm embarrassed to ask. The purpose of this is not to prove anything, it's to explore, and, if possible, to replicate the so-far-unreplicated finding of neutrons from SPAWAR. I'm using different detectors, but the LR-115 that I have is recommended for fast neutron detection through proton knock-on. I do have some Boron-10 converter screen, I could detect slow neutrons, but I'm not going there first.
Re: [Vo]:in Rossi reactor demos, electric input power boils away some of the cooling water: Rich Murray 2011.05.26
At 07:01 PM 5/29/2011, Rich Murray wrote: Hi Abd, I notice also since Jan 14, 4 months later, that AFAIK, no one else has set up and run and reported any kind of HNi gas cells that show any level of anomalies -- maybe there are teams that you know about that aren't publicly disclosing interesting results -- can you confirm or discomfirm any such? I will report that I know that people are looking, but that is nowhere near long enough time for research reports to start appearing. I hope to be at the LANR conference in Boston, coming up, maybe there will be some news there. No, I know of no new Ni-H results. The slightest anomaly that can be replicated would suggest unknown nuclear physics -- which has, for world security purposes, to be publicly explored immediately, in case of possible quantum jumps in the capabilities of terrorists, gangs, and disfunctional governments. As I've mentioned, I'd expect that military intelligence is already all over Rossi, checking out what they can. They would need to know, immediately, if this is fraud or not. But we won't necessarily know anything about that.
Re: [Vo]:in Rossi reactor demos, electric input power boils away some of the cooling water: Rich Murray 2011.05.26
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/05/06/nasa-working-on-lenr-replication-and-theory-confirmation/#comments NASA Working on LENR Replication and Theory ConfirmationPosted on May 6, 2011 by Steven B. Krivit Dr Dennis Bushnell, chief scientist at NASA’s Langley research center told New Energy Times today that NASA is attempting a low-energy nuclear reaction replication. Photo: Aaron M. Cohen “Our experiments are based upon the earlier Piantelli-Focardi work, which were some of the better bits extant,” Bushnell wrote. “But we are trying to core down on the theory, as well as utilize it for system optimization. We are not trying to do a net energy demo at all, we are simply trying to make sure there is a valid theoretical understanding.” Bushnell told New Energy Times that their LENR experimental approach is based on the nickel-hydrogen research of Francesco Piantelli, retired from the University of Siena, and Sergio Focardi, retired from the University of Bologna. The theory NASA is evaluating is the “Ultra-Low-Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Theory of LENRs” developed by Allan Widom and Lewis Larsen. New Energy Times has a dedicated “portal” page for information about this theory. [ http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheory.shtml ] NASA researcher Joseph. M. Zawodny, along with this writer, have contributed the chapter “Widom-Larsen Theory: Possible Explanation of LENRs in the forthcoming Wiley Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia. New Energy Times published two articles on the Piantelli work in 2008. The second article has an extensive list of references and downloadable papers. [ http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET29-8dd54geg.shtml#pf ] According to Bushnell, NASA is not working on a replication of Andrea Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer device. “We do not have enough details, by far, to even start to think of a replication of Rossi,” Bushnell wrote.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi on Gamma
Here is “Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems” http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSevidenceof.pdf Emissions derived from undefined nuclear reactions were detected in three successive experiments in a temperature range between 350 and 750 K. On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 12:12 AM 5/29/2011, Terry Blanton wrote: That's one heck of a frequency conversion! No, it simply requires that the gammas be absorbed by the apparatus. That, I believe, places an upper limit on the gamma energies, but I'm not about to calculate it, and this would also depend on the shielding thickness and the shielding material. He implies that there is gamma radiation generated during the reaction, which would point, by the way, to a scientific demonstration, showing a nuclear reaction, but it's one he does not want to do, because all that has to happen is for someone to measure the energy of those gammas, and the E-Cat could be out of the bag. Note that this demonstration would not rule out fraud. Fraud is very difficult to rule out by any sort of supervised demonstration, which is why I don't expect it to be ruled out until Rossi gets his patent protection. It's really weird. If Rossi is a scammer, he is being *protected* by US patent office refusal to grant patents, because it gives him a complete excuse to not disclose what he's doing, completely. Patents for something considered impossible should be issued. The patent applicant pays all the cost of the examination, and the patent (all patents) should clearly state that the practical operation of the device is not guaranteed by the patent office. The argument that issuance of a patent is some sort of seal of approval is preposterous, as to substance. All kinds of patented stuff has been completely useless.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi on Gamma
Let's suppose that 100% of what Rossi tells is 105% true. 100% of the time. Then what about this: My process has nothing to do with the process of Piantelli,” Rossi wrote. “The proof is that I am making operating reactors; he is not.” (New Energy Times) In this case it is an error to use the data of the old Piantelli-Focardi cells for the E-cats. Deep mystery- a a patent can be captured in it. Peter On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Here is “Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems” http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSevidenceof.pdf Emissions derived from undefined nuclear reactions were detected in three successive experiments in a temperature range between 350 and 750 K. On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 12:12 AM 5/29/2011, Terry Blanton wrote: That's one heck of a frequency conversion! No, it simply requires that the gammas be absorbed by the apparatus. That, I believe, places an upper limit on the gamma energies, but I'm not about to calculate it, and this would also depend on the shielding thickness and the shielding material. He implies that there is gamma radiation generated during the reaction, which would point, by the way, to a scientific demonstration, showing a nuclear reaction, but it's one he does not want to do, because all that has to happen is for someone to measure the energy of those gammas, and the E-Cat could be out of the bag. Note that this demonstration would not rule out fraud. Fraud is very difficult to rule out by any sort of supervised demonstration, which is why I don't expect it to be ruled out until Rossi gets his patent protection. It's really weird. If Rossi is a scammer, he is being *protected* by US patent office refusal to grant patents, because it gives him a complete excuse to not disclose what he's doing, completely. Patents for something considered impossible should be issued. The patent applicant pays all the cost of the examination, and the patent (all patents) should clearly state that the practical operation of the device is not guaranteed by the patent office. The argument that issuance of a patent is some sort of seal of approval is preposterous, as to substance. All kinds of patented stuff has been completely useless. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:4 recent long slide shows re many lines of nanoscale research relevant to Widom-Larsen LENR theory: Rich Murray 2011.05.29
4 recent long slide shows re many lines of nanoscale research relevant to Widom-Larsen LENR theory: Rich Murray 2011.05.29 This is my first exploration of the extremely complex and fertile realm of Widom-Larsen low energy nuclear reaction theory, which often involves 10E11 ev/m electric fields [ 100 v/nm ], which are actually commonly available in a variety of fractal nanostructures, such as sparks at nanoscale features -- their July 16, 2011 68-page slide show reveals many remarkable results of rapidly evolving fields of research -- including new possibilities for the interpretation of very small, deep craters on metals found in a variety of electrolytic CF devices, by researchers like Pam Boss, John Dash, and T. Mizuno. In the period 1996 to about 2000, I zeroxed at LANL library many reports from about 1920 to 1950 on high voltage spark experiments in vacuum or in argon that gave UV spectra that, when I checked more modern archives of data, included many spectral lines from heavier noble gases such as krypton and zenon -- but I didn't have the time, skill, and confidence to attempt my own report, and recently donated a box of all these reports to Michael H. Barron of Santa Fe... Rich Murray 505-819-7388 rmfor...@gmail.com http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheory.shtml .Lattice Energy Slide Presentations . http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/slides/2010July16LatticeEnergySlides.pdf #8- July 16, 2010 - 68 pages Low Energy Neutron Reactions (LENRs) in Advanced Batteries and Other Condensed Matter Environments. Li-Ion Battery Fires. Early LENR transmutation experimentsin 1920s. High-current exploding wires. http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/thoriumseed-lenr-networkfigslattice-energydec-7-2010-6177745 #9 - Dec. 9, 2010 - 4 pages Fissionless ULM neutron-catalyzed LENR transmutation network starting with neutron capture on thorium. http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llcnickel-seed-wl-lenr-nucleosynthetic-networkmarch-24-2011 #10 - March 24, 2011 - 25 pages Nucleosynthetic networks beginning with Nickel ‘seed’ nuclei --- why cascades of fast Beta-decays are important and why end-products of LENR networks are mostly stable isotopes http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llcnickelseed-lenr-networksapril-20-2011 #11 - April 20, 2011 - 61 pages Experimental examples: gas-phase Nickel-seed Hydrogen systems and their measured transmutation products; ‘hard‘ radiation is absent. What products might be found if Fe, Cr, Pd seeds were also present? fromRich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com to vortex-l@eskimo.com, michael barron mhbar...@gmail.com, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com dateSun, May 29, 2011 at 9:22 PM subject Re: [Vo]:in Rossi reactor demos, electric input power boils away some of the cooling water: Rich Murray 2011.05.26 9:22 PM (2 hours ago) http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/05/06/nasa-working-on-lenr-replication-and-theory-confirmation/#comments NASA Working on LENR Replication and Theory Confirmation Posted on May 6, 2011 by Steven B. Krivit Dr Dennis Bushnell, chief scientist at NASA’s Langley research center told New Energy Times today that NASA is attempting a low-energy nuclear reaction replication. Photo: Aaron M. Cohen “Our experiments are based upon the earlier Piantelli-Focardi work, which were some of the better bits extant,” Bushnell wrote. “But we are trying to core down on the theory, as well as utilize it for system optimization. We are not trying to do a net energy demo at all, we are simply trying to make sure there is a valid theoretical understanding.” Bushnell told New Energy Times that their LENR experimental approach is based on the nickel-hydrogen research of Francesco Piantelli, retired from the University of Siena, and Sergio Focardi, retired from the University of Bologna. The theory NASA is evaluating is the “Ultra-Low-Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Theory of LENRs” developed by Allan Widom and Lewis Larsen. New Energy Times has a dedicated “portal” page for information about this theory. [ http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheory.shtml ] NASA researcher Joseph. M. Zawodny, along with this writer, have contributed the chapter “Widom-Larsen Theory: Possible Explanation of LENRs in the forthcoming Wiley Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia. New Energy Times published two articles on the Piantelli work in 2008. The second article has an extensive list of references and downloadable papers. [ http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET29-8dd54geg.shtml#pf ] According to Bushnell, NASA is not working on a replication of Andrea Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer device. “We do not have enough details, by far, to even start to think of a replication of Rossi,” Bushnell wrote.
