[Vo]:NOT: Some catalyst ideas

[Horace Heffner]

Some ideas for catalyst searches seem in order at this point.

Back in the 1950's, when I was a kid, and long before Buckyballs were  
discovered, I used a high voltage neon sign transformer discharge  
under carbon tetrachloride to create very chunky and hard (for  
carbon), but very light, granules of black material.  It was like  
coal cinders. It probably had Bucky balls and nanotubes mixed with  
miscellaneous other things, including some attached Cl and metal  
atoms.  I of course had no idea that the lightweight black hard stuff  
might contain very special carbon structures.  I have since wondered  
though, after the Buckyball announcement, etc.


I would just touch a metal wire to a metal plate, or draw it across,  
to draw short arcs.  The arcs popped like sparging steam.  I thought  
the material creation rate was surprisingly fast, given the low  
current involved.  Chlorine gas evolves, but that is a small problem  
to handle.  I just used a long plastic rod with a big alligator clip  
on the end to manipulate the wire.  I did this in my small bedroom,  
with no ventilation, when my parents were not aware of what I was  
doing. Not such a great approach.  At least three modes of harm at once!


This might have been creating a metal loaded carbon catalyst, similar  
to what Les Case used, and patented in WO 97/43768 (20 November  
1997).  His claims included catalysts Pd, Pt, Rh, Ru, Ir, Re, Ni, Ti,  
and the rare earths. His support media included carbon, graphite,  
silica, alumina, kieselguhy, zeolite, and clay.


At any rate, this technique, using Pt, and maybe even Pd and/or Ni,  
wire and plate, or just wires, might produce something of interest,  
either to use directly, or to load using chlorides  It should not  
take long to create a few ml.  Making large amounts would make a  
simple automation of the process worthwhile.


The neon sign transformer used was 7500 V at 30 mA. The various  
metals specified by Case in his patent would be worthy of testing as  
electrode material.


Also, mu metal might be worth testing to see the effect in H2  
(protium) vs D2. The reason for this was discussed in the vortex  
thread "Cu isotopes, nanopores, mu metal, deflation fusion" here:


http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44662.html

and here:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NiProtonRiddle.pdf

A mu metal wire source of possible interest is here:

http://www.bloc   kemf.com/catalog/product_info.php? 
cPath=763&products_id=5101


http://tiny   url.com/3smxtlb

(space added to avoid censoring)

When using mu metal the use of a strong magnetic field in addition is  
obviously implied.


In all cases, use of HF HV stimulation is possibly useful, given the  
small metal particles enclosed in dielectric or semiconducting  
support material permits inducement of strong surface currents and  
charges having a high volume density.  Microwave stimulation might be  
effective.


I've written much here about the prospective use of nanopore  
material, zeolites and clays as prospective loaded nanoparticle  
isolation materials to permit formation of large gradient fields and  
surface charges.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]: NOT = NOT off topic, 2.188 = 2*1.094

[Horace Heffner]

Robin,

I think I pointed out a similar relation a while back.  My memory is  
not very good though. It had to do with the speed of thermal pulses  
though very fine metal whiskers.  Heat pulses were measured at the  
mean speed of the conduction band electrons, which is about 2x10^6 m/ 
s, which is about twice Frank's constant.  I never did find that  
article though.



On Dec 21, 2011, at 4:54 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

In reply to  Mark Iverson's message of Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:34:04  
-0800:

Hi,

alpha*c is the speed you get for the electron in a Bohr orbit,  
utilizing the De
Broglie wavelength. What is not apparent from the snippet quoted is  
why this

velocity follows from a "screw type of motion".

Might I suggest all Not Off Topic (i.e., technical, aka, ‘signal’)  
postings use NOT in the subject line to make them more obvious to  
those who care not to waste bandwidth on the personal aspects of  
the Rossi saga…


In my latest session of ‘serendipitous surfing’, I was scanning a  
PDF of the document in the Ref: section below, and noticed this  
little bit of text and the accompanying calculation:

==
“This screw type of motion obviously is optional and let us  
suppose that it corresponds to the electron motion in Bohr atom at  
orbit a0 with energy of 13.6 eV. Then the axial velocity is:


   v = (e^2)  /  ( 2*h*epsilon_sub_0 )
 = alpha*c
 = 2.18769e6 m/s  (3)

where:
e = charge of electron,
h = Planck constant,
c = speed of light,
alpha = fine structure constant
==

Now what struck me was the result, 2.188e6 m/s.
This is exactly twice the constant in Znidarsic’s work, 1.094e6 Hz.m
Any connection?

Frank, does this make sense to you?

-Mark

Ref:
Theoretical Feasibility of Cold Fusion According to the BSM -  
Supergravitation Unified Theory

Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev
York University, Toronto, Canada
E-mail: stoy...@yorku.ca


Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html



Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]: Cosmic Trigger?

[Horace Heffner]

Cosmic ray triggers have been discussed since early on as cold fusion  
triggers.  This is not a novel idea.  I have even suggested this  
myself.  See page 2 ff of:


http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/BoseHyp.pdf

Page 4 and 9 of:

http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/PartOrb.pdf

Page 18 and 25 of:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf

my similar comments earlier:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg58166.html

The following post made last January in regard to Rossi may be of  
interest.


http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg41599.html

As Robin states, the problem is the reaction mechanism after the  
triggering.  A huge number of nuclear reactions per cosmic ray have  
to occur.


A typical muon secondary can be expected to produce only about 30  
fusions (i.e. that is about the number expected in pure liquid  
deuterium.)


The problem with the triggering idea is the number of cosmic rays  
required to trigger enough reactions to produce measurable heat  
(unless of course an extensive chain reaction is involved.)  Suppose  
1 watt of heat is produced, and the reaction involved releases on the  
order of 10 MeV energy (it is probably way less if it is a Ni  
transmutaion.)  Each second a J of energy has to be produced.  A J is  
6.24x10^18 eV, or 6.24x10^12 MeV. At 10 MeV per reaction, that is  
6.24x10^11 reactions, requiring 6.24x10^11/30 = 2.08x10^10 muons for  
that second.   That is a way above background. Alternatively, at 1  
cosmic ray per second in a small area, the cosimic ray would have to  
produce about 10^10 reactions to produce the 1 watt.  Rossi's small 4  
kW reactors would have a cross section with only about 100 muons per  
second. To produce Rossi's 4 kW then would require about 40 *  
2.08x10^10 = 8x10^11 reactions per second, each and every second.   
This is not a viable explanation.


However, as I noted here in an above reference post, if energetic  
alphas or betas can trigger even small reaction chains, then doping a  
lattice with radioactive material, e.g. 137Cs (beta), or 241Am  
(alpha), can have a signifiant effect.


On a related note, following is a post I made in 2009, which points  
out that cosmic ray muons may trigger much larger amounts of fusions  
than what was measured for pure liquid hydrogen (i.e. about 30 per  
muon, as measured by Jones et al.) This implies perhaps some muon  
studies should be conducted with appropriately loaded lattices. There  
are other Rossi related tidbits too.


NAS, hot spots, and electromigration

I have noticed a surprising similarity between infra-red photos of  
loaded cathodes showing small hot spots and my observations of  
clearly visible bright spots on high voltage anodes in electrospark  
or electroluminescence experiments. For example, one similarity that  
was surprising to me is the tendency for such spots to be located  
interior to the edges of plate electrodes.  Before gaining some  
experience, I thought the edges, having higher field intensities,  
would have more hot spots.


Looking at former sites of electrospark anode hot spots under a  
microscope, on dried anodes post run, I noticed they were  
indentations, small holes in the somewhat dull anodized surface, with  
highly reflective interior surfaces. Again, it may seem surprising  
such holes tended to reside away from the anode edges - unless one  
considers the anodization process tends to produce thinner  
anodization away from the edges.  Thinner pacification layers means  
easier layer penetration, easier formation of low resistance short  
circuits between the anode interior and the electrolyte. This is  
exactly what the hot spots appeared to be, small short circuited  
wells in a partially insulating surface.


Once an anode hot spot was initiated, it tended to flash or  
periodically glow when operated at just above the anodization  
voltage.  I think this was probably due to bubble formation and  
release and periodic thin anodizations followed by breakdowns.  When  
operated at the elevated voltage the electrospark spots diminished,  
probably due to anodization.  However, when the voltage was pushed  
substantially, say doubled, all the previously existing glow spots  
would reappear.  When foil electrodes were used, the hot spots would  
deepen all the way through the foil and then expand radially,  
eventually consuming large amounts of foil.


Higher intensity glow spots can also be observed on both anodes and  
cathodes when operated in low voltage luminescence experiments on  
aluminum or tantalum electrodes operated in oxygen rich electrolytes,  
e.g. hydrogen peroxide containing electrolytes.


All this may seem irrelevant, but perhaps there is some significance  
to all this in regards to NAS formation. Perhaps the NAS, at least in  
some cases, is not strictly a localized lattice state, but rather a  
location of unusually high current density.  Such high current  
density spots may take a whi

[Vo]: FYI: The onset of electrical resistance

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

Just some interesting news from PhysOrg.com

 

The onset of electrical resistance

 

"Motion of electrons (blue) and holes (red) in an electric field (video)

This is exactly what scientists at the Max-Born-Institute in Berlin recently
did in a semiconductor material and report in the current issue of the
journal Physical Review Letters [volume 107, 256602 (2011)]. Extremely short
bursts of terahertz light (1 terahertz = 1012 Hz, 1 trillion oscillations
per second) were used instead of the battery (light has an electric field,
just like a battery) to accelerate optically generated free electrons in a
piece of gallium arsenide. The accelerated electrons generate another
electric field, which, if measured with femtosecond time resolution,
indicates exactly what they are doing. The researchers saw that the
electrons travelled unperturbed in the direction of the electric field when
the battery was first turned on. About 300 femtoseconds later, their
velocity slowed down due to collisions."

 

Note the statement, ".indicates exactly what they are doing".  So
determining exactly what the electrons are doing, which I assume means
location (and velocity?) should give Heisenberg heartburn?  Or are they only
obtaining position info?

 

-Mark

 

Re: [Vo]: NOT = NOT off topic, 2.188 = 2*1.094

[Jeff Driscoll]

You can learn more about Randell Mills's (of Blacklight Power) theory
on my website - in particular I'm including some text from it as shown
below which can also be seen at this link:

http://zhydrogen.com/?page_id=350/#FineStrucPart2-rmenu

My goal from the website was to explain some of the basics of Mill's
theory - I think eventually it will be accepted as fact.

I'm also setting up an experiment to verify Mills's claims as can be seen here:

http://zhydrogen.com/?page_id=620

Basically a high energy photon's first step towards becoming matter
happens at orbitstate n = 1/137.05999679 which Mills terms the
"transition state orbitsphere".  There is a connection between
potential energy, the rest mass of the electron, the speed of light
and Einsteins mass/energy equation E = mc^2:

==
The following three questions are based on an initially stationary
electron at an infinite distance from a proton that is then captured
by the proton (because objects with opposite charges attract each
other) and ends up at orbit state n = 1/137.05999679  (i.e.  n =
alpha where alpha equals the fine structure constant which also equals
0.007296 )

Question 1:  What is the electron's orbit velocity when it reaches
orbit state  n = 1/137.05999679 ?
Answer:  The electron’s orbit velocity v equals c, the speed of light
(299792458 m/s).

Question 2:  What is the change in potential energy of the electron as
it “falls” from n = infinity to  n = 1/137.05999679  ?

Answer:  -510998.896  eV, which is exactly equal to the negative
of the rest mass of the electron in terms of electron volt (eV) units.

Question 3:  What is the sum of the following two energies when the
electron falls from orbit state n = infinity to  n = 1/137.05999679 ?
1.  energy radiated by the electron as it spirals down to n =
1/137.05999679
plus
2.  kinetic energy of electron at n = 1/137.05999679

Answer:  The sum of these two energies equals 510998.896 eV (because
both components are equal to 255499.448 eV) which is exactly equal to
the known rest mass of the electron.


On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 8:54 PM,   wrote:
> In reply to  Mark Iverson's message of Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:34:04 -0800:
> Hi,
>
> alpha*c is the speed you get for the electron in a Bohr orbit, utilizing the 
> De
> Broglie wavelength. What is not apparent from the snippet quoted is why this
> velocity follows from a "screw type of motion".
>
>>Might I suggest all Not Off Topic (i.e., technical, aka, ‘signal’) postings 
>>use NOT in the subject line to make them more obvious to those who care not 
>>to waste bandwidth on the personal aspects of the Rossi saga…
>>
>>In my latest session of ‘serendipitous surfing’, I was scanning a PDF of the 
>>document in the Ref: section below, and noticed this little bit of text and 
>>the accompanying calculation:
>>==
>>“This screw type of motion obviously is optional and let us suppose that it 
>>corresponds to the electron motion in Bohr atom at orbit a0 with energy of 
>>13.6 eV. Then the axial velocity is:
>>
>>    v = (e^2)  /  ( 2*h*epsilon_sub_0 )
>>      = alpha*c
>>      = 2.18769e6 m/s                                  (3)
>>
>>where:
>>e = charge of electron,
>>h = Planck constant,
>>c = speed of light,
>>alpha = fine structure constant
>>==
>>
>>Now what struck me was the result, 2.188e6 m/s.
>>This is exactly twice the constant in Znidarsic’s work, 1.094e6 Hz.m
>>Any connection?
>>
>>Frank, does this make sense to you?
>>
>>-Mark
>>
>>Ref:
>>Theoretical Feasibility of Cold Fusion According to the BSM - 
>>Supergravitation Unified Theory
>>Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev
>>York University, Toronto, Canada
>>E-mail: stoy...@yorku.ca
>>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>

Re: [Vo]: Cosmic Trigger?

[mixent]

In reply to  David Roberson's message of Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:41:59 -0500 (EST):
Hi,

The trigger isn't the problem. The problem is the necessary chain reaction
mechanism after the trigger is applied.

>On an earlier post I suggested that the LENR reactions such as those exhibited 
>by Rossi could have been triggered by cosmic rays.  I was a little 
>disappointed by the few comments that were generated and I was hoping to 
>further study this possibility.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]: NOT = NOT off topic, 2.188 = 2*1.094

[mixent]

In reply to  Mark Iverson's message of Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:34:04 -0800:
Hi,

alpha*c is the speed you get for the electron in a Bohr orbit, utilizing the De
Broglie wavelength. What is not apparent from the snippet quoted is why this
velocity follows from a "screw type of motion". 

>Might I suggest all Not Off Topic (i.e., technical, aka, ‘signal’) postings 
>use NOT in the subject line to make them more obvious to those who care not to 
>waste bandwidth on the personal aspects of the Rossi saga…
>
>In my latest session of ‘serendipitous surfing’, I was scanning a PDF of the 
>document in the Ref: section below, and noticed this little bit of text and 
>the accompanying calculation:
>==
>“This screw type of motion obviously is optional and let us suppose that it 
>corresponds to the electron motion in Bohr atom at orbit a0 with energy of 
>13.6 eV. Then the axial velocity is:
>
>v = (e^2)  /  ( 2*h*epsilon_sub_0 )
>  = alpha*c
>  = 2.18769e6 m/s  (3)
> 
>where: 
>e = charge of electron, 
>h = Planck constant, 
>c = speed of light, 
>alpha = fine structure constant
>==
>
>Now what struck me was the result, 2.188e6 m/s.
>This is exactly twice the constant in Znidarsic’s work, 1.094e6 Hz.m
>Any connection?
>
>Frank, does this make sense to you?
>
>-Mark
>
>Ref:
>Theoretical Feasibility of Cold Fusion According to the BSM - Supergravitation 
>Unified Theory 
>Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev 
>York University, Toronto, Canada
>E-mail: stoy...@yorku.ca
>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 04:54 PM 12/21/2011, you wrote:

What makes Rossi's better than a good science amateur?


Well, he hired Focardi to check on the radiation. So it WAS done 
under adult supervision. 

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Giovanni Santostasi]

What makes Rossi's better than a good science amateur?

Giovanni


On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Alan J Fletcher  wrote:

> At 02:45 PM 12/21/2011, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
>
>> If LENR is real it would be a perfect ground for citizen scientists.
>>
>
> Lets see ... poisonous nano-nickel powder, explosive high-temperature
> hydrogen, gamma rays (are you sure that you'll get eCat-level 500KEV, and
> not Celani's needle-pegging bursts), possible radioactive products ...
>

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Giovanni Santostasi]

No, it is not necessary but I'm saying that to claim I have nothing against
LENR per se. I was ecstatic when the F&P announcement came out for the fist
time. I was at my first year in Physics in Bologna and I thought I lived in
an amazing time. The entire thing turned out to be pretty disappointing.

I'm trying to look at the evidence that was built in these 22 years and so
far doesn't look amazingly convincing.
But I did it in a superficial way so I will continue to look at it and
trying to understand it.
My interest was raised again by Rossi's claim but again I feel extremely
disappointed by what is happening with this saga.

Experience should teach us to be careful. That is healthy and not something
that needs therapy.

Giovanni


On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

> It isn't necessary to to have "a  strong desire for LENR to be true".
> You only need a desire to seriously examine the evidence, and if it
> isn't satisfactory to YOU, then move on to something else.
> What else do you want? If you need help processing your past
> disappointments then seek therapy.
> I have and it helped me.
>
>
> Harry
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
>  wrote:
> > Harry,
> > I cannot talk for all the other skeptics but in my case I can assure you
> > that my skepticism comes from a strong desire for LENR to be true. But
> true
> > is not wishful thinking (in fact it is the opposite).
> > I have been disappointed so much in my professional and personal life
> from
> > people making claims that were not followed by real actions and delivery
> > that at this point yes, being skeptical is a default mechanism for me.
> > It suits me also in terms of what I have learned from doing science. It
> is
> > easy to be believe you are on something when you actually have nothing.
> > Skepticism is a form of discipline that every rational mind should have.
> > While it can have its pitfalls and become excessive, real skepticism is
> not
> > being close minded.
> > Often, skeptics mention exactly what it will take for them to change
> their
> > mind on a particular matter.
> > It has been done in this forum many times by various skeptics and the
> > "demands" are usually very reasonable.
> > I think zealous skeptics are extremely rare and even in that case it is
> easy
> > to reason with them. No skeptics would ever deny real evidence.
> > Unfortunately my experience with believers of any kind is that it is
> almost
> > impossible to convince them of anything and no amount of proof or
> reasoning
> > would make change their stance on a subject. They always find a way out,
> no
> > matter how many mental summersaults they need to do to justify their
> > claims.
> >
> > Giovanni
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Harry Veeder 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Plausible deniability is the 'modus operandi' of the zealous skeptic.
> >>
> >> Harry
> >>
> >> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
> >>  wrote:
> >> > With meteorite sightings you have many witnesses in many countries.
> The
> >> > path
> >> > of the meteorite can be traced sometime (if the witness knows a little
> >> > about
> >> > constellations and cardinal directions). Only collecting a lot of this
> >> > information one can apply it for useful science.
> >> >
> >> > I think in general the main problem with these LENR claims (not just
> >> > the anecdotal ones describing the actions of people and organizations
> >> > but
> >> > also the more scientific, phenomenon oriented ones) is the lack
> >> > of repeatability and  the absence of large number of widespread,
> >> > reliable
> >> > witnesses. Until LENR is something that every amateur enthusiast can
> >> > reproduce and post on youtube, it will remain in the realm of
> >> > pseudoscience.
> >> >
> >> > Giovanni
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Giovanni Santostasi  wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> All the other statements you make are based on your witness's report
> >> >>> to
> >> >>> you. I want to give the benefit of doubt to that but I don't
> consider
> >> >>> it
> >> >>> factual evidence at this point.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Why not?
> >> >>
> >> >> Do you think I am making it up? Do you think my informant is crazy?
> >> >>
> >> >> This resembles an observational science claim, such as birdwatcher
> >> >> sighting, or meteorite. All such claims can be faked. They are always
> >> >> dependent upon the credibility of the person making the report. It
> >> >> resembles
> >> >> Mizuno's claim that his cell produced massive anomalous heat over
> five
> >> >> days,
> >> >> evaporating 17.5 L of water. It was witnessed only by Mizuno and
> >> >> Akimoto.
> >> >> you have to depend upon their honesty.
> >> >>
> >> >> I will grant this case is a unusual because my contact must remain
> >> >> anonymous for a while. Anyone familiar with the politics of cold
> fusion
> >> >> will
> >> >> know that people 

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Harry Veeder]

 The staff?

http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.1684.1323189515!/image/ehrsson.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/ehrsson.jpg

harry

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Robert,
According to Newtonian gravity the unwarping would happen instantaneously
(Newton of course didn't think of warping, he said "I will not make any
hypothesis about gravity's nature but only on how it works"). But the
unwarping happening in a finite time is one and the same with gravitational
waves. When a mass distribution changes, it changes the curvature of space
and time and it is this unwarping that causes the waves. It is the result
of the fabric of space-time bouncing back to its original flat default
state that causes near by deformations that want eventually spring back
causing further disturbance in space-time. The entire sequence therefore
creates a wave. This is how the information that the sun is missing is
transmitted. But any other change in the mass distribution would do the
trick. If the sun would expand or contract very fast or flatten also these
changes would cause gravitational waves. The main caveat that the changes
in mass distribution need to be spherically asymetric (this is a
consequence of the fact that there is just one gravitational charge, in
other words you have to have a changing quadrupole for GW emission, while a
dipole is enough for EM waves ).

Giovanni


On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Robert Leguillon <
robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>  The biggest problem with the early P&F replication attempts was the lack
> of respect given to the reactants.  People trying to replicate did not
> understand that it was a surface phenomenon.  They did not understand that
> the cathode could be easily poisoned.  They did not understand that the
> surface structures mattered at a microscopic level.  They only knew that if
> one of the cathodes in a batch failed to produce excess heat, then the
> whole batch would.
>
> Rossi's claims are contrary to all before, though.  He is claiming
> repeatable, controlled excesses, so far above the noise level as to be
> unmistakable. So:
>
> Really, the early Rossi-reactor is simple enough for an amateur to
> duplicate.  It's the processing of the nickel, and the "secret sauce"
> that's the rub.  Anyone can put together his early reactors.  Sure, his new
> ones are larger and may seem more complicated, but he claimed MUCH higher
> COPs with the early ones (Up to 200x!!!).
>
> All a garage hobby-tech needs is the pre-sealed cylinder, with the
> properly-formed nickel, hydrogen, and catalyst pre-loaded, and the rest is
> a cake-walk.
>
> Wrapping a heating element, a bit of waterproofing, coolant-in,
> coolant-out.  It's easy to experiment with assorted voltages, waveforms,
> frequencies, etc.  -- 3mm of lead shielding, right?  Heck, it looks like a
> VHF/UHF radio, opened up, fed into a linear, would do just fine as a
> variable RFG for all of the specified frequency range. Sure, you'll burn up
> a lot of finals in the process due to the VSWR (depending on the coupling
> method), but just keep lots of extras on-hand.
> Place an empty cylinder inside the coil for some "dry runs", to ensure
> that your process is in place, and then substitute the live cylinder.  Find
> the "sweet spot" where "P_out >> P_in" by varying coil and RFG.
>
> Then call up MaryYugo, and invite her to dinner and a show.  Show her it
> works, and serve up some crow.
>
> Of course, this is under the assumption that:
> A) there really is a "secret sauce" that produces high overunity
> and 2) The layman could really get his hands on some.
>
>  _
> BTW, Giovanni:
>
> Gravitational waves are theoretically fascinating.  Where do you stand on
> the underlying gravitational question?  If the sun were to be plucked
> completely from existance right now, would the Earth continue on a curved
> trajectory for the next 8 minutes (or more), or *immediately* careen off
> course?  Even if there are no GW, and we are simply traveling in a straight
> line through warped space-time, how long would it take space-time to
> un-warp in the sudden absence of the causal body?
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 02:45 PM 12/21/2011, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

If LENR is real it would be a perfect ground for citizen scientists.


Lets see ... poisonous nano-nickel powder, explosive high-temperature 
hydrogen, gamma rays (are you sure that you'll get eCat-level 500KEV, 
and not Celani's needle-pegging bursts), possible radioactive products ...  

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Joshua Cude]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Joshua Cude  wrote a message that I happened to
> notice:
>
>
>> Cold fusion is a simple experiment, and anyone should be able to follow
>> the recipe, even if not from scratch. If the material is tricky, get it
>> from someone who claims to be able to make it reproducibly.
>>
>
> This is one of the most incorrect statements I have ever seen in this
> forum.
>
> Every electrochemist I know says this is one of the hardest experiment
> they ever attempted. Richard Oriani said it was the hardest he did in his
> 50-year career. He is one of the world's top electrochemists.
>
> Every book and every major paper about this subject says the experiment is
> very difficult.
>
>
>
Here's you responding in the comments on a columbia tribune article at
http://www.columbiatribune.com/users/kemosabe/comments/


rothwell> "And if you think the method used at Energetics Technology is not
simple, then you do not understand calorimetry. Or heat. Or junior high
school physics. This method is simple. It is irrefutable. "


And the Energetics setup is about as complicated as cold fusion experiments
get.


Here's what you said in 1994 in a paper with Mallove:


"Cold fusion, in contrast to hot fusion, occurs in relatively simple
apparatus, albeit not yet without some difficulties."


"Probably the most difficult hurdle in trying to come to terms with cold
fusion is that is seems too fantastic scientifically, and "too good to be
true" economically and socially [...] We believe that before the year 2000
there will be cold fusion powered autmobiles, home heating systems, small
compact electrical generating units, and aerospace applications."


It can't have been all that difficult if you were expecting cars by 2000.



Here's Fleischmann from the original news conference:


"this is, on the one hand, a scaled-up test tube, with which you might be
familiar from your high school background, and on the other hand it’s also
a Dewar flask, something perhaps which Stan should have referred to so that
we can monitor the release of heat very accurately and he has really
described the experiment. It is very simple, you drive the deuterons into
the lattice, you compress the deuterons in the lattice and under those
circumstances we have found the conditions where fusion takes place and can
be sustained indefinitely."



>From the Macneil Lehrer interview in 1989 (in which "simple" occurs
countless times):


Pons: " It's the simplest of electrochemical cells: [usual (simple)
description] ... and you simply pass a current between the two electrodes."


Fleischmann: "[energy production] could, in this embodiment, be carried
out, we think, in a very simple manner."


>From Fleischmann et al (JEC 1990): "It is shown that accurate values of the
rates of enthalpy generation in the electrolysis of light and heavy water
can be obtained from measurements in simple, single compartment Dewar type
calorimeter cells."


and so on...

RE: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Robert Leguillon]

 The first time that I saw it referenced was for the first "Ottoman" E-Cat 
demonstration in September.  
 
To be honest, I assumed that the RFG was the "Defkalion-designed proprietary 
equipment" of lore.  In further reading, though, Stremmenos indicated that the 
"fins" on top of the individual E-Cat core wafers were the "Defkalion-designed 
proprietary equipment" in question.
 
I can't believe that in the January demo, or the E&K demo, or the Krivit demo, 
nobody would have noticed this "device that produces frequencies."  It was 
certainly never mentioned in the many power calculations.  OTOH, I believe that 
Rossi had, in one of his blog posts, claimed that he'd always used it.
 
 
 



Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:40:18 -0800
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion
From: maryyu...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com





On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Robert Leguillon 
 wrote:







Then call up MaryYugo, and invite her to dinner and a show.  Show her it works, 
and serve up some crow.

I prefer civet de lapin.

Just out of curiosity, was there an RFG involved in the early experiments?  
Those prior to October 6?   If so, Lewan, Kullander, Essen and Krivit all 
missed it or the connection to it when they inspected the small E-cats.
  

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Mary Yugo]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Robert Leguillon <
robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Then call up MaryYugo, and invite her to dinner and a show.  Show her it
> works, and serve up some crow.
>

I prefer civet de lapin.

Just out of curiosity, was there an RFG involved in the early experiments?
Those prior to October 6?   If so, Lewan, Kullander, Essen and Krivit all
missed it or the connection to it when they inspected the small E-cats.

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Harry Veeder]

It isn't necessary to to have "a  strong desire for LENR to be true".
You only need a desire to seriously examine the evidence, and if it
isn't satisfactory to YOU, then move on to something else.
What else do you want? If you need help processing your past
disappointments then seek therapy.
I have and it helped me.


Harry

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
 wrote:
> Harry,
> I cannot talk for all the other skeptics but in my case I can assure you
> that my skepticism comes from a strong desire for LENR to be true. But true
> is not wishful thinking (in fact it is the opposite).
> I have been disappointed so much in my professional and personal life from
> people making claims that were not followed by real actions and delivery
> that at this point yes, being skeptical is a default mechanism for me.
> It suits me also in terms of what I have learned from doing science. It is
> easy to be believe you are on something when you actually have nothing.
> Skepticism is a form of discipline that every rational mind should have.
> While it can have its pitfalls and become excessive, real skepticism is not
> being close minded.
> Often, skeptics mention exactly what it will take for them to change their
> mind on a particular matter.
> It has been done in this forum many times by various skeptics and the
> "demands" are usually very reasonable.
> I think zealous skeptics are extremely rare and even in that case it is easy
> to reason with them. No skeptics would ever deny real evidence.
> Unfortunately my experience with believers of any kind is that it is almost
> impossible to convince them of anything and no amount of proof or reasoning
> would make change their stance on a subject. They always find a way out, no
> matter how many mental summersaults they need to do to justify their
> claims.
>
> Giovanni
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:
>>
>> Plausible deniability is the 'modus operandi' of the zealous skeptic.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
>>  wrote:
>> > With meteorite sightings you have many witnesses in many countries. The
>> > path
>> > of the meteorite can be traced sometime (if the witness knows a little
>> > about
>> > constellations and cardinal directions). Only collecting a lot of this
>> > information one can apply it for useful science.
>> >
>> > I think in general the main problem with these LENR claims (not just
>> > the anecdotal ones describing the actions of people and organizations
>> > but
>> > also the more scientific, phenomenon oriented ones) is the lack
>> > of repeatability and  the absence of large number of widespread,
>> > reliable
>> > witnesses. Until LENR is something that every amateur enthusiast can
>> > reproduce and post on youtube, it will remain in the realm of
>> > pseudoscience.
>> >
>> > Giovanni
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Jed Rothwell 
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Giovanni Santostasi  wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> All the other statements you make are based on your witness's report
>> >>> to
>> >>> you. I want to give the benefit of doubt to that but I don't consider
>> >>> it
>> >>> factual evidence at this point.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Why not?
>> >>
>> >> Do you think I am making it up? Do you think my informant is crazy?
>> >>
>> >> This resembles an observational science claim, such as birdwatcher
>> >> sighting, or meteorite. All such claims can be faked. They are always
>> >> dependent upon the credibility of the person making the report. It
>> >> resembles
>> >> Mizuno's claim that his cell produced massive anomalous heat over five
>> >> days,
>> >> evaporating 17.5 L of water. It was witnessed only by Mizuno and
>> >> Akimoto.
>> >> you have to depend upon their honesty.
>> >>
>> >> I will grant this case is a unusual because my contact must remain
>> >> anonymous for a while. Anyone familiar with the politics of cold fusion
>> >> will
>> >> know that people often keep a low profile for good reasons. That is
>> >> regrettable, but it is entirely the fault of the opposition.
>> >>
>> >> - Jed
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

RE: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Robert Leguillon]

The biggest problem with the early P&F replication attempts was the lack of 
respect given to the reactants.  People trying to replicate did not understand 
that it was a surface phenomenon.  They did not understand that the cathode 
could be easily poisoned.  They did not understand that the surface structures 
mattered at a microscopic level.  They only knew that if one of the cathodes in 
a batch failed to produce excess heat, then the whole batch would.
 
Rossi's claims are contrary to all before, though.  He is claiming repeatable, 
controlled excesses, so far above the noise level as to be unmistakable. So:
 
Really, the early Rossi-reactor is simple enough for an amateur to duplicate.  
It's the processing of the nickel, and the "secret sauce" that's the rub.  
Anyone can put together his early reactors.  Sure, his new ones are larger and 
may seem more complicated, but he claimed MUCH higher COPs with the early ones 
(Up to 200x!!!).
 

All a garage hobby-tech needs is the pre-sealed cylinder, with the 
properly-formed nickel, hydrogen, and catalyst pre-loaded, and the rest is a 
cake-walk. 
 
Wrapping a heating element, a bit of waterproofing, coolant-in, coolant-out.  
It's easy to experiment with assorted voltages, waveforms, frequencies, etc.  
-- 3mm of lead shielding, right?  Heck, it looks like a VHF/UHF radio, opened 
up, fed into a linear, would do just fine as a variable RFG for all of the 
specified frequency range. Sure, you'll burn up a lot of finals in the process 
due to the VSWR (depending on the coupling method), but just keep lots of 
extras on-hand.
Place an empty cylinder inside the coil for some "dry runs", to ensure that 
your process is in place, and then substitute the live cylinder.  Find the 
"sweet spot" where "P_out >> P_in" by varying coil and RFG.
 
Then call up MaryYugo, and invite her to dinner and a show.  Show her it works, 
and serve up some crow.
 
Of course, this is under the assumption that:
A) there really is a "secret sauce" that produces high overunity
and 2) The layman could really get his hands on some.

 _
BTW, Giovanni:

Gravitational waves are theoretically fascinating.  Where do you stand on the 
underlying gravitational question?  If the sun were to be plucked completely 
from existance right now, would the Earth continue on a curved trajectory for 
the next 8 minutes (or more), or immediately careen off course?  Even if there 
are no GW, and we are simply traveling in a straight line through warped 
space-time, how long would it take space-time to un-warp in the sudden absence 
of the causal body?
  

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Giovanni Santostasi]

I agree with Joshua well explained arguments. In particular I don't believe
for a second that there is a overall scientist conspiracy against LENR.
Maybe some strong skepticism due to the past of the field and the nature of
the claims made that go beyond known physics but not outright close
mindedness.

As I said, nobody would be believe a claim of gravitational wave detection
unless it was triple checked, present in multiple detectors and verified by
different groups and maybe coincidental electromagnetic counterpart (a
supernova explosion, gamma ray burst and so on).

And we are not talking about a humanity saving device here but a pretty
subtle astrophysical phenomenon.

There have been people claiming possible applications for gravitational
waves (the speculative high frequency type) but while theoretically
possible until I see a working gravitational wave cell phone I would
consider this aspect of gravitational wave science belonging to the
fringe together with LENR and other very speculative scientific
enterprises.

Giovanni


On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> Giovanni Santostasi  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I didn't say that being reproducible by amateurs would be the only way I
>>> would take LENR seriously.
>>> Multiple tests done by respectable scientists, with high sigmas, and
>>> blind methods would be acceptable.
>>>
>>
>> This has been done for 22 years. High sigma data has been reported by
>> hundreds of researchers.
>>
>
> You've often said that Rossi's results are the best so far, and most
> people don't even believe Rossi's results, so that says that all the
> previous results are even less convincing.
>
>
>> If any other claim were so widely replicated with so much high-sigma
>> data, every scientist on Earth would believe it. They would be no
>> controversy. This is only controversial because it is cold fusion, and
>> people ignore the usual standards of science and invent countless reasons
>> to deny the facts.
>>
>
>
> And what is it about cold fusion that it gets treated differently from
> every other claim? The fact that no one wants cheap, clean, and abundant
> energy?
>
> The response in 1989 proves that everyone is desperate for what cold
> fusion claims to offer. The experiments all over the world, the standing
> ovations for Pons, the crowded theaters, the front-page coverage, all show
> that the world would love nothing more than for the cold fusion claims to
> be valid. They just didn't hold up to scrutiny. And there is no other claim
> with similar dubious and marginal results that have been widely accepted as
> valid. At least not claims that stood the test of time.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> That is what you are doing, now.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Joshua Cude]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Joshua Cude  wrote a message that I happened to
> notice:
>
>
>> Cold fusion is a simple experiment, and anyone should be able to follow
>> the recipe, even if not from scratch. If the material is tricky, get it
>> from someone who claims to be able to make it reproducibly.
>>
>
> This is one of the most incorrect statements I have ever seen in this
> forum.
>
> Every electrochemist I know says this is one of the hardest experiment
> they ever attempted. Richard Oriani said it was the hardest he did in his
> 50-year career. He is one of the world's top electrochemists.
>

That's because they can't get it to work. You can't get much more difficult
than impossible.

But, just because it rarely, if ever, works, doesn't mean the experiment is
difficult.

What's difficult about it? Mixing up the electrolyte? Connecting them?
Turning on the power? Measuring voltage, current or temperature. What is
hard? Nothing.

The only thing that could be difficult about it is preparing the material.
But with all the claims of high reproducibility, the material could be
obtained from the experts who make it. Simple.


> Every book and every major paper about this subject says the experiment is
> very difficult.
>
>
Nonsense. Listen to P&F after their press conference. The repeated over and
over how simple it was. That's the whole point of it. That it's simple.

If Oriani is right and it is actually more difficult than plasma fusion,
then we should abandon it and work on plasma fusion instead.

Even if the material prep is difficult, surely until it becomes
reproducible enough so that anyone can do it, it will remain a
pseudo-science, because the

experiment

is

easy.

Anyone can do it, if they have the material.

 How could anyone contribute to this forum as much as he has, and not
> notice that people are discussing the difficulties?
>
>
>

Oh, I agree actually producing cold fusion is difficult. It's probably
impossible. But the experiment is simple. I have that on the authority of
Pons and Fleischmann. That's what makes it so attractive: its simplicity.

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Joshua Cude]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Giovanni Santostasi  wrote:
>
>
>> I didn't say that being reproducible by amateurs would be the only way I
>> would take LENR seriously.
>> Multiple tests done by respectable scientists, with high sigmas, and
>> blind methods would be acceptable.
>>
>
> This has been done for 22 years. High sigma data has been reported by
> hundreds of researchers.
>

You've often said that Rossi's results are the best so far, and most people
don't even believe Rossi's results, so that says that all the previous
results are even less convincing.


> If any other claim were so widely replicated with so much high-sigma data,
> every scientist on Earth would believe it. They would be no controversy.
> This is only controversial because it is cold fusion, and people ignore the
> usual standards of science and invent countless reasons to deny the facts.
>


And what is it about cold fusion that it gets treated differently from
every other claim? The fact that no one wants cheap, clean, and abundant
energy?

The response in 1989 proves that everyone is desperate for what cold fusion
claims to offer. The experiments all over the world, the standing ovations
for Pons, the crowded theaters, the front-page coverage, all show that the
world would love nothing more than for the cold fusion claims to be valid.
They just didn't hold up to scrutiny. And there is no other claim with
similar dubious and marginal results that have been widely accepted as
valid. At least not claims that stood the test of time.








> That is what you are doing, now.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Joshua Cude]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

> Are you kidding, or what?
>
>
>
> On 11-12-21 04:33 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
>
>> I didn't say that being reproducible by amateurs would be the only way I
>> would take LENR seriously.
>> Multiple tests done by respectable scientists, with high sigmas, and
>> blind methods
>>
>
> "blind methods" ???
>
> What, you think LENR should be treated as some kind of drug?
>
> Blind testing is done in the social sciences and in medicine but not in
> physics.  It's nutty to even suggest it.
>


Not true. It is quite common in physics. Here's an excerpt from wikipedia:

"To remove this bias, the experimenters (nuclear physicists) devise blind
analysis techniques, where the experimental result is hidden from the
analysts until they've agreed—based on properties of the data set *other
than* the final value—that the analysis techniques are fixed.

"One example of a blind analysis occurs in
neutrino experiments,
like the Sudbury Neutrino
Observatory,
where the experimenters wish to report the total number *N* of neutrinos
seen. ..."


It is actually surprising that blind tests are not used more in cold fusion
where cognitive bias is surely a problem. The only case I've seen is in
Miley's helium vs heat experiments, and those results were still marginal,
and have not been reproduced in refereed literature in  more than 15 years,
even though the experiment should be the most discriminating possible in
the field.


But really, believable blind tests have not been done on the hundreds of
excess heat claims. In Rossi's case, with his many ecats, that turn on on
demand, it should be pretty easy. Charge some with hydrogen, and not
others, and don't tell Rossi which, and then compare the heat.

>
> "And in flask A, we have EITHER D20 OR H20, but the researcher *doesn't*
> *know* *which*.  At the end of the experiment, the sealed files will be
> retrieved from the vault and opened and we'll find out what flask A really
> contained!"
>
> What a bizarre suggestion.


Sounds like a good idea to me. Only problem is it's too easy to tell the
difference between D2O and H2O, from the density. So some additional
controls would be needed. And anyway, some people claim H2O works too.


>
>  would be acceptable. But in the end the acceptance of this phenomenon as
>> a practical approach to energy production would have to be reproducible not
>> just by amateurs but by EVERYBODY.
>>
>
> This is rank lunacy.
>
>
Why? Anyone can buy an ecat from Rossi and see if it gives more heat out
than in.



> Heck, I can't even reliably trigger a uranium fission chain reaction in my
> kitchen, and that's apparently a lot easier to obtain than a LENR OU result!
>
>
First, it's easier *now*, because no one has convincingly succeeded in LENR
OU. Possible is always easier than impossible.

Second, if LENR OU were to be cracked, as Rossi claims to have done, then
it will immediately be vastly easier than a fission reactor. You don't need
shielding, you don't need enriched uranium or heavy water, you don't need
control rods and moderators etc etc.

So the claim stands: if cold fusion is real and practical, everyone
*should* be able to do it in their kitchen, no sweat. That's the whole
advantage of it. If it stays as hard as fission, then what's it good for?

Third, you could, at least in principle, get your hands on a slowpoke
reactor and operate it in your kitchen. They're pretty much turn-key. But
no matter how you slice it, the fission experiment is much more complicated
than the claimed cold fusion experiment, which is the latter's attraction.

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Mary Yugo]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
wrote:

>
> People are fooling around with genetics in their home labs.
> This is actually pretty cool and I support the emergence of these citizen
> scientists.
>
>
Sorry- not cool: terrifying.  How soon we forget the legend of
Frankenstein.   Some genies need to stay in the bottle as far as lay people
are concerned.   Even the experts can make a mess.  Can you imagine some
crazy teenager making a virulent virus because he's angry at his father?
Shudder at the thought.

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Giovanni Santostasi]

That would not stop amateurs from trying to reproduce the results and even
improving on design, fuel and so on.
Are you aware of the phenomenon of biohacking?
People are fooling around with genetics in their home labs.
This is actually pretty cool and I support the emergence of these citizen
scientists.
If LENR is real it would be a perfect ground for citizen scientists.
There are already a lot of people that try to reproduce the e-cat for
example, I believe even in this forum.
But so far nobody has claimed to have a working device.

Giovanni


On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Mary Yugo  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Maybe I'm missing something but it is not claimed over and over that LENR
>> are tabletop experiments that are achieved with relatively simple
>> equipment? Is not the incredible interest in LENR by supporters due to the
>> fact that it could change energy production in such way that every
>> household could have a relatively small machine that could supply all the
>> energetic needs of a house? Is not this what is claimed at least for the
>> Rossi's type of LENR?
>>
>> Then it is self evident that everybody could reproduce the results at
>> home. I don't see what is crazy about this statement.
>>
>
> Let's be fair.  I don't think anyone says it's "easy" or that anyone can
> put together a cold fusion cell.  If they do, it doesn't make sense.   And
> whether or not you can reproduce it at home depends on what starting
> materials you are given.  Sure, one can make a kit that would allow someone
> to test a purported cold fusion device at home because it's small and
> requires modest power in.   That's in contrast to say, a Tokomak or a large
> laser installation.  That would tax a home lab a lot more, LOL.  But even
> the cold fusion cell shouldn't be tested in homes -- if it worked, it could
> pack a powerful punch and a mistake could cause a sizable explosion.   One
> needs to have respect for large amounts of power provided into small,
> confined spaces.
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Nigel Dyer]

As far as I am concerned, I am looking for information that I would be happy
to present to a 'friendly' member of staff in our Physics dept as reasonable
evidence that there is something interesting going on that might be worth
looking at.

The reports of someone having visited Defkalion is something that is of
interest to me, as I have spent a lot of time getting to know the various
people involved and the background, but it is not information that I feel I
could use to convince anyone else.

I hope, and indeed expect, that there will be more concrete information
which I will be happy to present to others.

Nigel D.

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Mary Yugo]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
wrote:

> Maybe I'm missing something but it is not claimed over and over that LENR
> are tabletop experiments that are achieved with relatively simple
> equipment? Is not the incredible interest in LENR by supporters due to the
> fact that it could change energy production in such way that every
> household could have a relatively small machine that could supply all the
> energetic needs of a house? Is not this what is claimed at least for the
> Rossi's type of LENR?
>
> Then it is self evident that everybody could reproduce the results at
> home. I don't see what is crazy about this statement.
>

Let's be fair.  I don't think anyone says it's "easy" or that anyone can
put together a cold fusion cell.  If they do, it doesn't make sense.   And
whether or not you can reproduce it at home depends on what starting
materials you are given.  Sure, one can make a kit that would allow someone
to test a purported cold fusion device at home because it's small and
requires modest power in.   That's in contrast to say, a Tokomak or a large
laser installation.  That would tax a home lab a lot more, LOL.  But even
the cold fusion cell shouldn't be tested in homes -- if it worked, it could
pack a powerful punch and a mistake could cause a sizable explosion.   One
needs to have respect for large amounts of power provided into small,
confined spaces.

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Mary Yugo]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Joshua Cude  wrote a message that I happened to
> notice:
>
>
>> Cold fusion is a simple experiment, and anyone should be able to follow
>> the recipe, even if not from scratch. If the material is tricky, get it
>> from someone who claims to be able to make it reproducibly.
>>
>
> This is one of the most incorrect statements I have ever seen in this
> forum.
>
> Every electrochemist I know says this is one of the hardest experiment
> they ever attempted. Richard Oriani said it was the hardest he did in his
> 50-year career. He is one of the world's top electrochemists.
>
> Every book and every major paper about this subject says the experiment is
> very difficult.
>
> The depths of Cude's ignorance are beyond belief. He knows NOTHING about
> this subject. NOTHING!!! How could anyone contribute to this forum as much
> as he has, and not notice that people are discussing the difficulties?
>
>
You two are arguing different issues.  It may be hard to make a cold fusion
cell but it's hardly necessary.  Given that someone hands you a "core"
device such as one of Rossi's small early E-cats, it is simplicity itself
to hook it up and test it.  yes, you have to be careful to avoid some
obvious sources of calorimetry error instead of doing like Rossi and making
those errors into features, LOL!

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 11-12-21 05:10 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
"They have many highly qualified professional scientists" --> "They 
had at least two people who said they were scientists, and sounded 
technically reasonable"


Who told you there are only two?!? Where did you get that information?


Jed, read what I wrote!  I said *at _least_//*two, /not/ *at _most_* 
two!  I'm trying to get the core of truth out of some rather vague 
hearsay testimony here, OK?


/You/ said /somebody else/ said "many".  That's hearsay, but it surely 
contains some truth.  From it, we can reasonably conclude with some 
certainty that he observed /multiple/ scientists there, but we can't 
conclude much beyond that.  So, we should replace the subjective and 
imprecise statement that there "_*are**many*_ scientists" with the far 
more solidly grounded one that there are "_*were at least two*_ 
scientists" on site.


There could have been fifty, for all I know, but the vague statement 
that there were "many" doesn't let me conclude anything like that.





I know more than two people there myself. 


AH HA!  That's starting to sound like first person testimony!   I had no 
idea *you* *personally know more than two people* at Defkalion!


Keep making statements like that, rather than citing vague claims by 
friends of yours, and I may start believing in DGT.



I know several people who have visited Defkalion and met more than two 
tech people. I do not know how many, but it is at least a dozen. I 
have not asked how many people they have. I never anticipated this . . 
. line of questioning, or the notion that there might be only two.


Sorry, but hearsay evidence that there are "many" of something is really 
worth nothing more than a strong assertion that there is a "plural" 
number .. i.e., at least two.





"They purchased millions of dollars of equipment" --> We don't have a 
precise number, we need to remove the mantissa --> "They had some 
dollars worth of equipment"


It is not hard to estimate the cost of equipment.


Perhaps.

But a casual statement that "they purchased millions of dollars of 
equipment" doesn't sound like an estimate to me, it just sounds like a 
vague statement that they had some stuff in a room.  It's like "seven 
times seventy" or "40 days" in the Bible.  It means "lots", it doesn't 
really mean "between 1,000,000 and 9,999,999".


In any case, "they purchased" is *not* an observation!  I simply 
don't believe he *watched them purchase* millions of dollars in 
equipment.  Rather, he observed that the equipment was there, and 
assumed (or was told) that they had purchased it.








You get the point.


No, I do not. Do you know any place that rents out SEMs and mass 
spectrometers?


Aha!  So we know a little more about what kind of equipment they have 
than what was posted to start with!


Did he actually */see/* one or more SEMs and one or more mass spectrometers?

That's a lot more convincing than a simple assertion that he said "I 
know what a lab looks like and it looked like a lab".


This is far more information than you posted earlier, and it's starting 
to sound more solid by the minute.


And by the way, WRT SEM rental...

CBS Imaging Center says:


Hitachi S3500N Scanning Electron Microscope $37.50/Hour



SEMTech Solutions says:

An outright purchase of an SEM can be cost prohibitive for some 
companies. In that case, a *Lease-to-own* solution, may be a better 
choice if you need a SEM for 2-3 years for a project, and then have 
option at the end of the contract to buy the SEM. 


So, the answer is *Yes/,/* I know of at least one or two places which 
will rent SEMs.  I didn't look up mass spec equipment but I suspect you 
can rent that, too.






Oh, yes, I particularly liked this one:  "He can easily tell they are 
qualified."  Darn, we could use a guy like that!  To tell if 
someone's qualified, it takes *us* a couple days of interviews, time 
spent poring over their resume . . .


He spend several days interviewing them! They discussed the technical 
issues in depth. A person cannot fake that.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Giovanni Santostasi]

And this is why LENR is on the edge of pseudoscience. Because it is so damn
difficult to do and when it happens (often randomly) it is not certain what
really happened if anything.

Giovanni


On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Joshua Cude  wrote a message that I happened to
> notice:
>
>
>> Cold fusion is a simple experiment, and anyone should be able to follow
>> the recipe, even if not from scratch. If the material is tricky, get it
>> from someone who claims to be able to make it reproducibly.
>>
>
> This is one of the most incorrect statements I have ever seen in this
> forum.
>
> Every electrochemist I know says this is one of the hardest experiment
> they ever attempted. Richard Oriani said it was the hardest he did in his
> 50-year career. He is one of the world's top electrochemists.
>
> Every book and every major paper about this subject says the experiment is
> very difficult.
>
> The depths of Cude's ignorance are beyond belief. He knows NOTHING about
> this subject. NOTHING!!! How could anyone contribute to this forum as much
> as he has, and not notice that people are discussing the difficulties?
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Mary Yugo]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

>
> Doesn't matter. Heat stored in water is useless to keep water boiling.
> Heat stored in steel at a much higher temperature can keep water boiling
> until it cools down to the boiling point of water. Don't you now anything?
>
> The comparison of heat capacity to water is irrelevant. What matters is
> only whether you can store enough heat in the steel at a much higher
> temperature to account for the observations. It seems, you can.
>

Once again, for an illustration of that, in the case of a steel mass,
modeled in an October 6 configuration as a store for heat, please see this
figure resulting from modelling of the October 6 experiment by an anonymous
source:

http://i.imgur.com/o7soB.jpg

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Jed Rothwell]

Joshua Cude  wrote a message that I happened to
notice:


> Cold fusion is a simple experiment, and anyone should be able to follow
> the recipe, even if not from scratch. If the material is tricky, get it
> from someone who claims to be able to make it reproducibly.
>

This is one of the most incorrect statements I have ever seen in this forum.

Every electrochemist I know says this is one of the hardest experiment they
ever attempted. Richard Oriani said it was the hardest he did in his
50-year career. He is one of the world's top electrochemists.

Every book and every major paper about this subject says the experiment is
very difficult.

The depths of Cude's ignorance are beyond belief. He knows NOTHING about
this subject. NOTHING!!! How could anyone contribute to this forum as much
as he has, and not notice that people are discussing the difficulties?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Joshua Cude]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:13 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson <
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> From Giovanni:
>
> > Until LENR is something that every amateur enthusiast can
> > reproduce and post on youtube, it will remain in the realm
> > of pseudoscience.
>
> I disagree with that assumption. What the hell do amateur enthusiasts
> have to do with validation?
>

For a simple experiment, like cold fusion, if the critical components were
made available, anyone should be able to validate. It doesn't apply to all
phenomena, or all claims.


> Assuming the technology is valid, all I think that would be necessary
> for "LENR" to escape the realm of pseudoscience is for products that
> exploit the technology to be sold off the shelves of Home Depot and
> Wall Mart.
>

When that happens, amateurs will be able to buy them and validate the
claims. So you agree after all.

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Maybe I'm missing something but it is not claimed over and over that LENR
are tabletop experiments that are achieved with relatively simple
equipment? Is not the incredible interest in LENR by supporters due to the
fact that it could change energy production in such way that every
household could have a relatively small machine that could supply all the
energetic needs of a house? Is not this what is claimed at least for the
Rossi's type of LENR?

Then it is self evident that everybody could reproduce the results at home.
I don't see what is crazy about this statement.

Giovanni


On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Mary Yugo  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>>
>> Iron has 10 times lower specific heat than water. It would store less
>> heat, not more. It could not be heated more than a few hundred degrees with
>> this equipment, so total heat storage would be less than it would with a
>> pot of water.
>>
>
> Am I to assume you examined the mathematical modeling and resulting curves
> in the links I provided and have analyzed and rejected them for some good
> reason?
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Mary Yugo]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:13 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson <
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Assuming the technology is valid, all I think that would be necessary
> for "LENR" to escape the realm of pseudoscience is for products that
> exploit the technology to be sold off the shelves of Home Depot and
> Wall Mart.


Actually, it's vastly simpler than that.  All that is needed, with a robust
claim such as Rossi or Defkalion who are talking in the tens of kilowatts
sustained for MONTHS, all you need is an independent test properly done by
a reliable and credible source such as a national lab or major university
department under their official sanction.  Yes, folks, I am repeating
myself but OBVIOUSLY there are many people who think the dumb thing has to
be sold at Walmart and made in China like everything else in Walmart,
before anyone will believe it's real!

INDEPENDENT is not a vague concept.  It means Rossi and/or Defkalion has to
provide ONLY the device and that they have to keep their grubby little
hands off the measuring and power providing and cooling equipment!

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Joshua Cude]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
>
>
>> And remember, ... you're the person who thought the Rossi demo of October
>> 6 was iron clad.
>
>
> I still do. So do many others.
>
>
>
>>   It probably did involve some iron (or steel) but hardly was conclusive.
>>
>
> Iron has 10 times lower specific heat than water. It would store less
> heat, not more. It could not be heated more than a few hundred degrees with
> this equipment, so total heat storage would be less than it would with a
> pot of water.
>
>
>
Doesn't matter. Heat stored in water is useless to keep water boiling. Heat
stored in steel at a much higher temperature can keep water boiling until
it cools down to the boiling point of water. Don't you now anything?

The comparison of heat capacity to water is irrelevant. What matters is
only whether you can store enough heat in the steel at a much higher
temperature to account for the observations. It seems, you can.

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Mary Yugo]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
> Iron has 10 times lower specific heat than water. It would store less
> heat, not more. It could not be heated more than a few hundred degrees with
> this equipment, so total heat storage would be less than it would with a
> pot of water.
>

Am I to assume you examined the mathematical modeling and resulting curves
in the links I provided and have analyzed and rejected them for some good
reason?

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Jed Rothwell]

Alan J Fletcher wrote:

ps : On the demonstration front -- I once demonstrated a new 
Engineering Workstation --- schematic entry, logic simulation
We were still coding the night before the exhibition floor opened (DAC 
1983).


Nobody noticed that after issuing a "redraw" of a complicated 
schematic or layout I held the mouse perfectly still. If I didn't, the 
system would freeze and we'd have to reboot (which took about 15 
minutes those days).


It was real, of course ... just not quite customer-ready.


Yes . . . yes . . . I have sweated through similar experiences.

If you were Microsoft you would have sold that product as is. You would 
call that a feature. The, umm, "instant hold option." You would charge 
extra to make it go away! That's why Bill Gates is the richest guy in 
the world, and you aren't.


It is called "recognizing the opportunity" or "making lemonade when your 
product is a lemon." See Dilbert for details.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Joshua Cude]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Giovanni Santostasi  wrote:
>
>> Until LENR is something that every amateur enthusiast can reproduce and
>> post on youtube, it will remain in the realm of pseudoscience.
>>
>
> That will never happen. But tell me something. As you know, amateur
> enthusiasts are not capable of reproducing the top quark, or cloning a
> mammal, or performing open-heart surgery. Amateur enthusiasts cannot launch
> robotic probes to Mars. They cannot build tokamak plasma fusion reactors.
> There are thousands of other experiments and procedures they cannot do. Do
> you say these are all in the realm of pseudoscience?
>
>
>
That statement didn't look like a general statement to me. Phenomena are
not all alike. If someone claims that wearing a certain glove allows anyone
to golf like Tiger Woods, then anyone should be able to test it. On the
other hand, walking on the moon requires expensive rockets.

Not everyone is Julia Child, but just about anyone can cook her beef
bourguignon by following her recipe. And absolutely anyone can get a high
Tc superconductor, some liquid nitrogen, and a magnet, and demonstrate the
Meissner effect with levitation.

Cold fusion is a simple experiment, and anyone should be able to follow the
recipe, even if not from scratch. If the material is tricky, get it from
someone who claims to be able to make it reproducibly.

In the case of cold fusion, with the scale and simplicity of the
experiment, the fact that it can't be done by just about anybody really
does put it in the realm of pseudoscience. That criterion doesn't apply to
large-scale science, like the top quark or plasma fusion.

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Blind tests are not done just in the social sciences.

I work in the field of gravitational waves that coincidentally is another
somehow controversial field. Just because it is controversial, just because
it has a history of past false claims the almost 700 scientists, working in
the scientific collaboration I belong to ( the LIGO Scientific
Collaboration, LSC), have established very high standards for any eventual
public declaration of detection of gravitational waves.

One of the things we do routinely to test if our search algorithms are
working properly and what would be required in terms of consensus to decide
we have detected something is for some higher up in the LSC to inject
blindly (having the computer randomize time and parameters of the
injection) artificial signals in the LIGO detector and let the other
scientists "discover" the signal. Only after long debates on the
probability and plausibility of the signal are done at the collaboration
level for several days it is revealed if the signal was an artificial
injection or a real detection.
We have done this exercise many times and so far nothing real has been
detected but all the injections have been accounted for.

Blind experiments could be easily set up for the Rossi's e-cat.
In fact, Rossi's himself could set up such an experiment. For example, he
could reveal that one e-cat has the secret sauce and another has not (the
two would have to be exact copies of course). A mark could be made on the
sauced up apparatus. Then the mark is covered with tape and the other e-cat
would also have a similar tape in the same spot. Then the e-cat are moved
around while Rossi is not watching. Then Rossi could perform his experiment
and we would see what happens.

Or maybe the sauce is put in a fuel box that is randomly inserted inside
one of several e-cat. Or one can randomize several other inputs like the
electrical or the hydrogen supply and so on.

All kind of tests can be imagined of course. But Rossi doesn't want to do
any more demonstrations as we know.

Blind experiments are fundamental in science.

Jed, is there even one LENR experiment that can be reproduced every single
time when a switch is turned on (besides Rossi's I mean) ?
Just one, please.

Giovanni



On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

> Are you kidding, or what?
>
>
>
> On 11-12-21 04:33 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
>
>> I didn't say that being reproducible by amateurs would be the only way I
>> would take LENR seriously.
>> Multiple tests done by respectable scientists, with high sigmas, and
>> blind methods
>>
>
> "blind methods" ???
>
> What, you think LENR should be treated as some kind of drug?
>
> Blind testing is done in the social sciences and in medicine but not in
> physics.  It's nutty to even suggest it.
>
> "And in flask A, we have EITHER D20 OR H20, but the researcher *doesn't*
> *know* *which*.  At the end of the experiment, the sealed files will be
> retrieved from the vault and opened and we'll find out what flask A really
> contained!"
>
> What a bizarre suggestion.
>
>
>
>  would be acceptable. But in the end the acceptance of this phenomenon as
>> a practical approach to energy production would have to be reproducible not
>> just by amateurs but by EVERYBODY.
>>
>
> This is rank lunacy.
>
> Heck, I can't even reliably trigger a uranium fission chain reaction in my
> kitchen, and that's apparently a lot easier to obtain than a LENR OU result!
>
>
>
>  It would have to be reproducible as easy as we can lit a room, with the
>> turn of a switch. It would have to be easy to see and witness that it would
>> be taken for granted eventually as we do with electricity and light bulbs.
>>
>
> Yeah, and those fission reactors we all have in our basements.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
"They have many highly qualified professional scientists" --> "They 
had at least two people who said they were scientists, and sounded 
technically reasonable"


Who told you there are only two?!? Where did you get that information?

I know more than two people there myself. I know several people who have 
visited Defkalion and met more than two tech people. I do not know how 
many, but it is at least a dozen. I have not asked how many people they 
have. I never anticipated this . . . line of questioning, or the notion 
that there might be only two.



"They purchased millions of dollars of equipment" --> We don't have a 
precise number, we need to remove the mantissa --> "They had some 
dollars worth of equipment"


It is not hard to estimate the cost of equipment.



You get the point.


No, I do not. Do you know any place that rents out SEMs and mass 
spectrometers?



Oh, yes, I particularly liked this one:  "He can easily tell they are 
qualified."  Darn, we could use a guy like that!  To tell if someone's 
qualified, it takes *us* a couple days of interviews, time spent 
poring over their resume . . .


He spend several days interviewing them! They discussed the technical 
issues in depth. A person cannot fake that.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Joshua Cude]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Are you serious? Do you sincerely believe that a professional scientist
> could spend several days in the laboratory talking to people, looking at
> instruments and data, and not recognize that the equipment is fake and the
> researchers are pretending?
>

Wasn't it you that said scientists will believe whatever they're paid to
believe. Where did this newfound respect for scientists suddenly come from?
Maybe the fact that you agree with them? Or they're saying what you want to
hear?

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

  Oh, er, yeah, that kind of blind testing... yes, that makes 
quite a bit of sense, after all, doesn't it.



On 11-12-21 04:49 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Stephen A. Lawrence mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote:

Blind testing is done in the social sciences and in medicine but
not in physics.  It's nutty to even suggest it.


Actually,  Miles, Boss, Mizuno and some others did do blind 
testing. Single blind. That is to say, they knew the history of the 
sample, but the labs they sent samples to for evaluation did not.


Miles sent flasks collected from cells to be tested for helium to 
three different labs. In some cases he sent dummy samples, such as 
room air. In all cases he did not tell the people conducting the tests 
whether the cells produced excess heat or not. This eliminates the 
possibility that wishful thinking biased the measurements.


In one case, my guess is that the person he sent the samples to dearly 
wanted cold fusion not be real, so the wishful thinking might have 
worked in the other direction.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Jed Rothwell]

Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

We don't know who this guy is so for our point of view this is 
completely possible that he is saying things that are not true.


Unless we know more about the witness (and even in that case one 
witness would not be enough) we cannot say for sure what is going on.


You have to trust my judgement of the expert. This is hearsay. It would 
not be admissible in court but it is legitimate in an attempt to 
discover the truth or falsity of a claim.



Jed, as you said, this is interesting preliminary information but not 
evidence at all.


This is not engineering evidence with regard to the claim. It is expert 
testimony evidence that Defkalion's claims at their web site are 
probably legitimate. This is strong evidence that they probably do have 
a lab as claimed, and prototype reactors, and so on.


If you do not think this is evidence that I suggest you drop the subject.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

OK, look, the Paradyne thing wasn't meant to be an exact analogy.  But 
none the less, the thing it's being compared with is a site visit in 
which tests were *not* *performed*.


The visitor supposedly verified that there was lots of nifty equipment 
on site, but didn't see it actually do anything useful.  (Or anyway 
that's what your initial statements led one to believe.)


So, "millions of dollars" of *borrowed* (or rented) equipment in a 
*borrowed* (or rented) lab, along with a few non-functional mockups, 
could certainly have filled the bill ... based on what readers on this 
list can glean from your emails.


If your acquaintance actually saw the things operating and producing 
heat, then that's something else again -- but it's certainly not what I 
understood you to say to start with.


And in point of fact without an exact description, we need to replace a 
number of words throughout your description if we want it to be 
something we can all agree on.


"They have many highly qualified professional scientists" --> "They had 
at least two people who said they were scientists, and sounded 
technically reasonable"


"They purchased millions of dollars of equipment" --> We don't have a 
precise number, we need to remove the mantissa --> "They had some 
dollars worth of equipment"


You get the point.

Oh, yes, I particularly liked this one:  "He can easily tell they are 
qualified."  Darn, we could use a guy like that!  To tell if someone's 
qualified, it takes *us* a couple days of interviews, time spent poring 
over their resume, and a reference check -- and sometimes we still blow 
it and hire somebody who turns out to be a bozo!



On 11-12-21 04:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Stephen A. Lawrence mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote:

Yes.  For long enough to get through the contract awards process,
and, as far as I can tell, for several years after that.

If Paradyne had delivered on time and on budget the fake would
never have been noticed.


The article says:

When Paradyne couldn't develop the computer in time for the 
demonstration, it used one manufactured by another company but 
presented it as its own, the prosecutors said.
In other words, they changed the face plates and logos. That was a 
genuine working computer they showed but it was not their own. The 
person examining this computer was not familiar with the competing 
product. Presumably, this stolen computer processed the Social 
Security data correctly.


This would be analogous to Defkalion demonstrating genuine cold fusion 
reactors to experts, where they did not actually develop these 
reactors. They stole them from Rossi or someone else. I will grant 
that my contact would not be capable of seeing through this ploy.


Demonstrating fake reactors would be analogous to  setting up a 
cardboard box, telling the programmers that it is a computer and 
expecting them to believe it.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 01:38 PM 12/21/2011, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

Simpler explanation:
Jed's witness is not telling the truth.

We don't know who this guy is so for our point of view this is 
completely possible that he is saying things that are not true.
Unless we know more about the witness (and even in that case one 
witness would not be enough) we cannot say for sure what is going on.


Jed, as you said, this is interesting preliminary information but 
not evidence at all.


This was never claimed to be evidence.  It is notable because it is 
the first independent statement that has been issued outside of 
Defkalion which even hints that there is something behind their specification.


As for its validity -- as Jed said, "Take it or Leave it".

ps : On the demonstration front -- I once demonstrated a new 
Engineering Workstation --- schematic entry, logic simulation

We were still coding the night before the exhibition floor opened (DAC 1983).

Nobody noticed that after issuing a "redraw" of a complicated 
schematic or layout I held the mouse perfectly still. If I didn't, 
the system would freeze and we'd have to reboot (which took about 15 
minutes those days).


It was real, of course ... just not quite customer-ready.

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

Giovanni recently expressed the following proclamation:

> Until LENR is something that every amateur enthusiast can
> reproduce and post on youtube, it will remain in the realm
> of pseudoscience.

Soon afterwards, Mr. Rothwell followed up with:

> I suspect you [Giovanni] are making up unreasonable demands
> because at some level you do not want to believe cold fusion
> is real.

Personally, I think the issue Giovanni recently expressed is more
subtle than speculating that he does not believe in cold fusion.
Remember the old saying:

"Fool me one, shame on you,
Fool me twice, shame on me."

When fooled once... When fooled to such a degree that it makes a
strong impression on the psyche, many end up becoming defensive,
permanently defensive. They fear exposing themselves to additional
psychic risk. They do not wish to risk what they perceive as
additional personal humiliation by allowing themselves to succumb to
the possibility believing in an extraordinary claim.

Many end up not wishing to take any risks with their psyches, or
beliefs systems, or personal paradigms at all, and that IMHO is
tragic.

The tragedy behind succumbing to the illusion of maintaining a psychic
buffer zone, of maintaining an intellectual shell filled with all
sorts of checks and balances is that it genuinely hampers the psyche
from investigating the inevitability of change that will happen to our
lives.

Change happens. ...and sometimes we will make mistakes. Sometimes we
may even end up making the wrong assumptions about this or that issue.
Big deal.

Accept it. Live with it.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Stephen,
>From your previous posts I guess you are joking.

But if Rossi's can do it (and he is a clumsy amateur after all, maybe with
some good machinist skills learned as a youth in his father shop) everybody
should be able to do it, right?

Fission is not that difficult to happen, just get a radioactive sample from
one of the scientific supplier company and building a counter is not that
complicated.

Even Sheetrock is slightly radioactive.

Giovanni


On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

> Are you kidding, or what?
>
>
>
> On 11-12-21 04:33 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
>
>> I didn't say that being reproducible by amateurs would be the only way I
>> would take LENR seriously.
>> Multiple tests done by respectable scientists, with high sigmas, and
>> blind methods
>>
>
> "blind methods" ???
>
> What, you think LENR should be treated as some kind of drug?
>
> Blind testing is done in the social sciences and in medicine but not in
> physics.  It's nutty to even suggest it.
>
> "And in flask A, we have EITHER D20 OR H20, but the researcher *doesn't*
> *know* *which*.  At the end of the experiment, the sealed files will be
> retrieved from the vault and opened and we'll find out what flask A really
> contained!"
>
> What a bizarre suggestion.
>
>
>
>  would be acceptable. But in the end the acceptance of this phenomenon as
>> a practical approach to energy production would have to be reproducible not
>> just by amateurs but by EVERYBODY.
>>
>
> This is rank lunacy.
>
> Heck, I can't even reliably trigger a uranium fission chain reaction in my
> kitchen, and that's apparently a lot easier to obtain than a LENR OU result!
>
>
>
>  It would have to be reproducible as easy as we can lit a room, with the
>> turn of a switch. It would have to be easy to see and witness that it would
>> be taken for granted eventually as we do with electricity and light bulbs.
>>
>
> Yeah, and those fission reactors we all have in our basements.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:

>
> Blind testing is done in the social sciences and in medicine but not in
> physics.  It's nutty to even suggest it.
>

Actually,  Miles, Boss, Mizuno and some others did do blind testing.
Single blind. That is to say, they knew the history of the sample, but the
labs they sent samples to for evaluation did not.

Miles sent flasks collected from cells to be tested for helium to three
different labs. In some cases he sent dummy samples, such as room air. In
all cases he did not tell the people conducting the tests whether the cells
produced excess heat or not. This eliminates the possibility that wishful
thinking biased the measurements.

In one case, my guess is that the person he sent the samples to dearly
wanted cold fusion not be real, so the wishful thinking might have worked
in the other direction.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Jed Rothwell]

Giovanni Santostasi  wrote:


> I didn't say that being reproducible by amateurs would be the only way I
> would take LENR seriously.
> Multiple tests done by respectable scientists, with high sigmas, and blind
> methods would be acceptable.
>

This has been done for 22 years. High sigma data has been reported by
hundreds of researchers.

If any other claim were so widely replicated with so much high-sigma data,
every scientist on Earth would believe it. They would be no controversy.
This is only controversial because it is cold fusion, and people ignore the
usual standards of science and invent countless reasons to deny the facts.
That is what you are doing, now.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Are you kidding, or what?


On 11-12-21 04:33 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
I didn't say that being reproducible by amateurs would be the only way 
I would take LENR seriously.
Multiple tests done by respectable scientists, with high sigmas, and 
blind methods


"blind methods" ???

What, you think LENR should be treated as some kind of drug?

Blind testing is done in the social sciences and in medicine but not in 
physics.  It's nutty to even suggest it.


"And in flask A, we have EITHER D20 OR H20, but the researcher *doesn't* 
*know* *which*.  At the end of the experiment, the sealed files will be 
retrieved from the vault and opened and we'll find out what flask A 
really contained!"


What a bizarre suggestion.


would be acceptable. But in the end the acceptance of this phenomenon 
as a practical approach to energy production would have to be 
reproducible not just by amateurs but by EVERYBODY.


This is rank lunacy.

Heck, I can't even reliably trigger a uranium fission chain reaction in 
my kitchen, and that's apparently a lot easier to obtain than a LENR OU 
result!



It would have to be reproducible as easy as we can lit a room, with 
the turn of a switch. It would have to be easy to see and witness that 
it would be taken for granted eventually as we do with electricity and 
light bulbs.


Yeah, and those fission reactors we all have in our basements.

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Simpler explanation:

Jed's witness is not telling the truth.

We don't know who this guy is so for our point of view this is completely
possible that he is saying things that are not true.

Unless we know more about the witness (and even in that case one witness
would not be enough) we cannot say for sure what is going on.

Jed, as you said, this is interesting preliminary information but not
evidence at all.

Giovanni


On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
> > Harry Veeder  wrote:
> >
> >> Plausible deniability is the 'modus operandi' of the zealous skeptic.
> >
> >
> > Ah, but this is implausible deniability. Santostasi will not believe it
> > until "every amateur enthusiast" can reproduce the effect. That is a
> novel
> > standard! I think he made it up on the spur of the moment as a way to
> > dismiss cold fusion. I doubt he would apply it to other claims.
> >
> > Maybe he would. Maybe he will not believe that Boeing 747 airplanes can
> fly
> > until every amateur enthusiast gets a chance to pilot one, and he will
> not
> > believe people went to the moon until every amateur enthusiast gets a
> chance
> > to fly an Apollo rocket.
> >
> > - Jed
>
> That is why I called them _zealous_ skeptics. In their eyes what they
> write is plausible.
> Zealots will use the language of reason to persuade themselves that
> they are reasonable and that their opponents are deluded, quacks,
> scammers, morons etc.
>
> Harry
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:



> Yes.  For long enough to get through the contract awards process, and, as
> far as I can tell, for several years after that.
>
> If Paradyne had delivered on time and on budget the fake would never have
> been noticed.
>

The article says:

When Paradyne couldn't develop the computer in time for the demonstration,
it used one manufactured by another company but presented it as its own,
the prosecutors said.

In other words, they changed the face plates and logos. That was a genuine
working computer they showed but it was not their own. The person examining
this computer was not familiar with the competing product. Presumably, this
stolen computer processed the Social Security data correctly.

This would be analogous to Defkalion demonstrating genuine cold fusion
reactors to experts, where they did not actually develop these reactors.
They stole them from Rossi or someone else. I will grant that my contact
would not be capable of seeing through this ploy.

Demonstrating fake reactors would be analogous to  setting up a cardboard
box, telling the programmers that it is a computer and expecting them to
believe it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Jed,
I do want LENR to be true. I have said that. In fact, because I consider
such possibility so important that I want it to be true and verifiable and
not something we desire to be true. This why my high standards.

I didn't say that being reproducible by amateurs would be the only way I
would take LENR seriously.
Multiple tests done by respectable scientists, with high sigmas, and blind
methods would be acceptable. But in the end the acceptance of this
phenomenon as a practical approach to energy production would have to be
reproducible not just by amateurs but by EVERYBODY.

It would have to be reproducible as easy as we can lit a room, with the
turn of a switch. It would have to be easy to see and witness that it would
be taken for granted eventually as we do with electricity and light bulbs.

This is a self evident statement and nothing controversial or unreasonable.

If LENR can be achieved by some scientists, once in a while, here and there
around the world, with results that can be explained by some observational
uncertainty and so on, the field would remain if not pseudo-science at
least extremely controversial and a curiosity and for sure it would have no
role in helping humanity in solving fundamental practical problems.

Giovanni



On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Giovanni Santostasi  wrote:
>
>
>> I cannot talk for all the other skeptics but in my case I can assure you
>> that my skepticism comes from a strong desire for LENR to be true. But true
>> is not wishful thinking (in fact it is the opposite).
>>
>
>
>> I have been disappointed so much in my professional and personal life
>> from people making claims that were not followed by real actions and
>> delivery that at this point yes, being skeptical is a default mechanism for
>> me.
>>
>
> You are not being skeptical when you demand that "every amateur
> enthusiast" reproduce something before you believe it. This demand is
> unprecedented. It is irrational. It cannot be fulfilled in the case of cold
> fusion.
>
> I suggest you rethink that.
>
> I do not know whether to call that wishful thinking or an absurd fantasy,
> but it is not normal. I suspect you are making up unreasonable demands
> because at some level you do not want to believe cold fusion is real.
> People who have a "strong desire to believe" something to not erect
> barriers to prevent themselves from seeing the data. They do not make up
> nonsensical conditions that must be met before they will believe.
>
> Your standards remind me of a task set by a fairytale king, given to the
> knight errant suitors of his daughter. You want the cold fusion researchers
> to kill the dragon 100 leagues  away and return before nightfall. It is
> lyrical but not science.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Harry Veeder]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Harry Veeder  wrote:
>
>> Plausible deniability is the 'modus operandi' of the zealous skeptic.
>
>
> Ah, but this is implausible deniability. Santostasi will not believe it
> until "every amateur enthusiast" can reproduce the effect. That is a novel
> standard! I think he made it up on the spur of the moment as a way to
> dismiss cold fusion. I doubt he would apply it to other claims.
>
> Maybe he would. Maybe he will not believe that Boeing 747 airplanes can fly
> until every amateur enthusiast gets a chance to pilot one, and he will not
> believe people went to the moon until every amateur enthusiast gets a chance
> to fly an Apollo rocket.
>
> - Jed

That is why I called them _zealous_ skeptics. In their eyes what they
write is plausible.
Zealots will use the language of reason to persuade themselves that
they are reasonable and that their opponents are deluded, quacks,
scammers, morons etc.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Jed Rothwell]

Andrea Selva  wrote:

Jed please, for prcision sake, allow me to make a small correction to one
> of you sentences. You forgot only 2 words
>
> *If this is an elaborate scam, they are creating maximum props for it. *They
> said* they have:
>  * 
>  * 
> and so on.
> *
>

No, my contact said this.

My contact said Defkalion has hired many highly qualified professional
scientists. He can easily tell they are qualified. Therefore, if this a
hoax, they are all part of it. They are all playing along, pretending to be
doing research.

Okay, it is conceivable that they purchased millions of dollars of
equipment just to fool people, and they persuaded these professionals to go
along. Perhaps they paid these people large sums of money. I cannot rule
that out. But I do not take such scenarios seriously. I am a skeptic, after
all. Only a true believer who sees too many movies such as "Mission
Impossible" would believe such nonsense.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 11-12-21 04:09 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Stephen A. Lawrence mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote:

LOL  (well, snickering a little, anyway).  Entertaining thought --
makes it sound like the link I posted earlier on the Paradyne
boondoggle may have been more apposite than I realized at the
time; it bears repeating:


Did a computer expert go to Paradyne for several days and was he or 
she bamboozled? Was the Social Security Agency fooled?


Yes.  For long enough to get through the contract awards process, and, 
as far as I can tell, for several years after that.


If Paradyne had delivered on time and on budget the fake would never 
have been noticed.


I realize a staged demo is not like a lab visit ... but since we don't 
have what I'd call anything approaching a clear report from your 
acquaintance's visit to DGT, attempts to dismiss the comparison out of 
hand fall rather flat.

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Giovanni Santostasi]

I have seen a lot of pseudoscience products in WallMart as healing magnetic
bracelets, shoe soles that can extract toxins from your body and so on.
There is a lot of crap available commercially that makes all kind of claims.

But while some amateurs don't know what they are doing, many of them have a
lot of good practical skills and common sense. Maybe they lack
sophisticated technical and mathematical skills but if any practical LENR
would ever exist it supposed to be easy to achieve, safe and measurable on
its effects by any person with elementary scientific and technical
knowledge, just what an amateur should be able to do.

Giovanni




On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:13 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson <
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> From Giovanni:
>
> > Until LENR is something that every amateur enthusiast can
> > reproduce and post on youtube, it will remain in the realm
> > of pseudoscience.
>
> I disagree with that assumption. What the hell do amateur enthusiasts
> have to do with validation?
>
> Assuming the technology is valid, all I think that would be necessary
> for "LENR" to escape the realm of pseudoscience is for products that
> exploit the technology to be sold off the shelves of Home Depot and
> Wall Mart.
>
> Regards
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> www.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Jed Rothwell]

Giovanni Santostasi  wrote:


> I cannot talk for all the other skeptics but in my case I can assure you
> that my skepticism comes from a strong desire for LENR to be true. But true
> is not wishful thinking (in fact it is the opposite).
>


> I have been disappointed so much in my professional and personal life from
> people making claims that were not followed by real actions and delivery
> that at this point yes, being skeptical is a default mechanism for me.
>

You are not being skeptical when you demand that "every amateur enthusiast"
reproduce something before you believe it. This demand is unprecedented. It
is irrational. It cannot be fulfilled in the case of cold fusion.

I suggest you rethink that.

I do not know whether to call that wishful thinking or an absurd fantasy,
but it is not normal. I suspect you are making up unreasonable demands
because at some level you do not want to believe cold fusion is real.
People who have a "strong desire to believe" something to not erect
barriers to prevent themselves from seeing the data. They do not make up
nonsensical conditions that must be met before they will believe.

Your standards remind me of a task set by a fairytale king, given to the
knight errant suitors of his daughter. You want the cold fusion researchers
to kill the dragon 100 leagues  away and return before nightfall. It is
lyrical but not science.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Jed,
What I meant that you need to accumulate a lot of reports around the world
and over time to infer a pattern and make a useful inference about the
phenomenon. For example, if many witnesses over the years see meteorites
coming from a particular location in the sky and during a particular time
of the year then you can come to the conclusion they are witnessing a
meteor shower associated with a comet trajectory.
Even single observation would be useful but just data points in a overall
pattern.

But this cannot be applied to LENR because the claims of LENR go beyond
well known science.We need much more than anecdotal evidence.
Nobody questions the existence of meteorites or birds.

But even multiple reports of UFO don't convince the scientific community
because there are simpler explanations to account for the observations.
Furthermore when single observations for which there is stronger evidence
as photographs, radar traces and so on usually the UFO hypothesis don't
survive the scrutiny.

I don't want to go all the way to say the LENR in general is close to the
UFO phenomenon in terms of scientific quality but I would not refrain to
say that for what concerns the Rossi's story.

Giovanni


On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Giovanni Santostasi  wrote:
>
> With meteorite sightings you have many witnesses in many countries.
>
>
> Not always. In many cases, only one witness sees them. In all cases of
> birdwatch sightings, or right whale sightings, only one observer sees them.
>
>
>
>> Until LENR is something that every amateur enthusiast can reproduce and
>> post on youtube, it will remain in the realm of pseudoscience.
>>
>
> That will never happen. But tell me something. As you know, amateur
> enthusiasts are not capable of reproducing the top quark, or cloning a
> mammal, or performing open-heart surgery. Amateur enthusiasts cannot launch
> robotic probes to Mars. They cannot build tokamak plasma fusion reactors.
> There are thousands of other experiments and procedures they cannot do. Do
> you say these are all in the realm of pseudoscience?
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Andrea Selva]

Jed please, for prcision sake, allow me to make a small correction to one
of you sentences. You forgot only 2 words

*If this is an elaborate scam, they are creating maximum props for it. *They
said* they have:
 * 
 * 
and so on.
*

2011/12/21 Jed Rothwell 

> Giovanni Santostasi  wrote:
>
>
>> But I agree with you all this doesn't prove that they will.
>> It just shows that if they are creating an elaborate scam they take at
>> least care to have some minimal props for it.
>>
>
> If this is an elaborate scam, they are creating maximum props for it. They
> have:
>
> * Established a large, state-of-the-art research laboratory with millions
> of dollars in equipment.
>
> * Hired many highly qualified professional scientists. They persuaded
> these scientists to go along with the hoax and pretend to be doing research.
>
> * Hired a large number of experienced business managers and persuaded them
> to go along with the hoax.
>
> * Built many fake prototype reactors.
>
> * Modified instruments to give false readings.
>
> * Produce large amounts of coherent fake data.
>
> * Invited experts to see this for days at a time and managed to fool them.
> This alone would be an astounding accomplishment. I doubt anyone is capable
> of it.
>
> I think this scenario is highly improbable.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

>From Giovanni:

> Until LENR is something that every amateur enthusiast can
> reproduce and post on youtube, it will remain in the realm
> of pseudoscience.

I disagree with that assumption. What the hell do amateur enthusiasts
have to do with validation?

Assuming the technology is valid, all I think that would be necessary
for "LENR" to escape the realm of pseudoscience is for products that
exploit the technology to be sold off the shelves of Home Depot and
Wall Mart.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:


> LOL  (well, snickering a little, anyway).  Entertaining thought -- makes
> it sound like the link I posted earlier on the Paradyne boondoggle may have
> been more apposite than I realized at the time; it bears repeating:
>

Did a computer expert go to Paradyne for several days and was he or she
bamboozled? Was the Social Security Agency fooled?

Prosecutors accused Paradyne of faking a computer demonstration during the
> bidding process by showing equipment that was *neither fully developed nor
> Paradyne's**.*
>
>
It is easy to fake one computer demonstration. I have done this myself. Not
with the intent to fool anyone, but only as a simulation, with dummy
program modules and the like. Training modules do this.

You can always fake a demonstration, but if you allow a programmer to
examine the program and test it for several days, there is no chance he or
she will not see through this and realize this is non-working software.

A programmer might not notice if the software is stolen and the screens are
changed to list "Paradyne" instead of the original company name. If the
programmer is unfamiliar with the original company's product he might not
see this. That is a different story.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Harry,
I cannot talk for all the other skeptics but in my case I can assure you
that my skepticism comes from a strong desire for LENR to be true. But true
is not wishful thinking (in fact it is the opposite).
I have been disappointed so much in my professional and personal life from
people making claims that were not followed by real actions and delivery
that at this point yes, being skeptical is a default mechanism for me.
It suits me also in terms of what I have learned from doing science. It is
easy to be believe you are on something when you actually have nothing.
Skepticism is a form of discipline that every rational mind should have.
While it can have its pitfalls and become excessive, real skepticism is not
being close minded.
Often, skeptics mention exactly what it will take for them to change their
mind on a particular matter.
It has been done in this forum many times by various skeptics and the
"demands" are usually very reasonable.
I think zealous skeptics are extremely rare and even in that case it is
easy to reason with them. No skeptics would ever deny real evidence.
Unfortunately my experience with believers of any kind is that it is almost
impossible to convince them of anything and no amount of proof or reasoning
would make change their stance on a subject. They always find a way out, no
matter how many mental summersaults they need to do to justify their
claims.

Giovanni



On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:

> Plausible deniability is the 'modus operandi' of the zealous skeptic.
>
> Harry
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
>  wrote:
> > With meteorite sightings you have many witnesses in many countries. The
> path
> > of the meteorite can be traced sometime (if the witness knows a little
> about
> > constellations and cardinal directions). Only collecting a lot of this
> > information one can apply it for useful science.
> >
> > I think in general the main problem with these LENR claims (not just
> > the anecdotal ones describing the actions of people and organizations but
> > also the more scientific, phenomenon oriented ones) is the lack
> > of repeatability and  the absence of large number of widespread, reliable
> > witnesses. Until LENR is something that every amateur enthusiast can
> > reproduce and post on youtube, it will remain in the realm of
> > pseudoscience.
> >
> > Giovanni
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Giovanni Santostasi  wrote:
> >>
> >>> All the other statements you make are based on your witness's report to
> >>> you. I want to give the benefit of doubt to that but I don't consider
> it
> >>> factual evidence at this point.
> >>
> >>
> >> Why not?
> >>
> >> Do you think I am making it up? Do you think my informant is crazy?
> >>
> >> This resembles an observational science claim, such as birdwatcher
> >> sighting, or meteorite. All such claims can be faked. They are always
> >> dependent upon the credibility of the person making the report. It
> resembles
> >> Mizuno's claim that his cell produced massive anomalous heat over five
> days,
> >> evaporating 17.5 L of water. It was witnessed only by Mizuno and
> Akimoto.
> >> you have to depend upon their honesty.
> >>
> >> I will grant this case is a unusual because my contact must remain
> >> anonymous for a while. Anyone familiar with the politics of cold fusion
> will
> >> know that people often keep a low profile for good reasons. That is
> >> regrettable, but it is entirely the fault of the opposition.
> >>
> >> - Jed
> >>
> >
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Jed Rothwell]

Mary Yugo  wrote:

I remember that Defkalion used someone else's (Piantelli's?) images of high
> vacuum equipment in one of their news releases as if it were their own.
>

No, they did not do that. A news organization did.


I am suggesting your contact may have misconstrued what he saw -- that's
> all.
>

This can only mean the people at Defkalion were lying to him, and he failed
to notice that, or they also has what they have been observing. If you
believe either scenario you are no skeptic.



> And remember, ... you're the person who thought the Rossi demo of October
> 6 was iron clad.


I still do. So do many others.



>   It probably did involve some iron (or steel) but hardly was conclusive.
>

Iron has 10 times lower specific heat than water. It would store less heat,
not more. It could not be heated more than a few hundred degrees with this
equipment, so total heat storage would be less than it would with a pot of
water.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 11-12-21 03:50 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:


On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Jed Rothwell > wrote:


Mary Yugo mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com>> wrote:

. . . but that someone could make inadequate observations and
jump to erroneous conclusions which then they reported to you
-- that's as credible as the proposition that the information
is correct.


Are you serious? Do you sincerely believe that a professional
scientist could spend several days in the laboratory talking to
people, looking at instruments and data, and not recognize that
the equipment is fake and the researchers are pretending? As my
contact put it, "I know a laboratory when I see one."


Uhhun.  I hope he knows whose it is also.


LOL  (well, snickering a little, anyway).  Entertaining thought -- makes 
it sound like the link I posted earlier on the Paradyne boondoggle may 
have been more apposite than I realized at the time; it bears repeating:


http://articles.latimes.com/1985-12-13/business/fi-16784_1_indictment

A relevant quote:

Prosecutors accused Paradyne of faking a computer demonstration during 
the bidding process by showing equipment that was *neither fully 
developed _nor Paradyne's_*_._

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Jed Rothwell]

Harry Veeder  wrote:

Plausible deniability is the 'modus operandi' of the zealous skeptic.
>

Ah, but this is *im*plausible deniability. Santostasi will not believe it
until "every amateur enthusiast" can reproduce the effect. That is a novel
standard! I think he made it up on the spur of the moment as a way to
dismiss cold fusion. I doubt he would apply it to other claims.

Maybe he would. Maybe he will not believe that Boeing 747 airplanes can fly
until every amateur enthusiast gets a chance to pilot one, and he will not
believe people went to the moon until every amateur enthusiast gets a
chance to fly an Apollo rocket.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Mary Yugo]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Mary Yugo  wrote:
>
>
>> . . . but that someone could make inadequate observations and jump to
>> erroneous conclusions which then they reported to you -- that's as credible
>> as the proposition that the information is correct.
>>
>
> Are you serious? Do you sincerely believe that a professional scientist
> could spend several days in the laboratory talking to people, looking at
> instruments and data, and not recognize that the equipment is fake and the
> researchers are pretending? As my contact put it, "I know a laboratory when
> I see one."
>

Uhhun.  I hope he knows whose it is also.  I remember that Defkalion used
someone else's (Piantelli's?) images of high vacuum equipment in one of
their news releases as if it were their own.



> ...
>
> Perhaps when you say people made "inadequate observations and jumped to
> conclusions" you meant the Defkalion researchers did. After all, we are
> talking about their conclusions, which you can read at their website. My
> contact is only confirming their conclusions. He did not make them. If that
> is what you mean, you are suggesting that a large group of professional
> scientists might make inadequate observations and jump to conclusions
> continuously for years, without ever discovering their mistakes.
>

I am suggesting your contact may have misconstrued what he saw -- that's
all.  Since we have no idea what he saw, it's sort of premature to make
conjectures about it.



> That is not possible. The scientific method works. Engineering and
> instruments work.
>

Yup.  But we see nothing about any science or instruments here.  It's all
hearsay and claims thus far.


And remember, ... you're the person who thought the Rossi demo of October 6
was iron clad.  It probably did involve some iron (or steel) but hardly was
conclusive.

Please the links about that which I provided about that issue
here:  http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg59525.html

Or here they are directly (translation required):

http://imgur.com/o7soB

http://www.energeticambiente.it/sistemi-idrogeno-nikel/14728165-apparato-rossi-focardi-verita-o-bufala-135.html#post119275652

http://www.energeticambiente.it/sistemi-idrogeno-nikel/

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

When the technology gets to that stage, it will be powering your home. 
Amazing that you suggest successful replication by amateurs is needed 
before main stream science acceptance. Oh BTW that happened in 2002: 
http://www.lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm#HighSchoolStudents They saw 
excess heat and transmutations. Where is the mainstream science acceptance?


There are none so blind as those who will not see.


On 12/22/2011 7:10 AM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
With meteorite sightings you have many witnesses in many countries. 
The path of the meteorite can be traced sometime (if the witness knows 
a little about constellations and cardinal directions). Only 
collecting a lot of this information one can apply it for useful science.


I think in general the main problem with these LENR claims (not just 
the anecdotal ones describing the actions of people and organizations 
but also the more scientific, phenomenon oriented ones) is the lack 
of repeatability and  the absence of large number of widespread, 
reliable witnesses. Until LENR is something that every amateur 
enthusiast can reproduce and post on youtube, it will remain in the 
realm of pseudoscience.


Giovanni

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Jed Rothwell]

Giovanni Santostasi  wrote:

With meteorite sightings you have many witnesses in many countries.


Not always. In many cases, only one witness sees them. In all cases of
birdwatch sightings, or right whale sightings, only one observer sees them.



> Until LENR is something that every amateur enthusiast can reproduce and
> post on youtube, it will remain in the realm of pseudoscience.
>

That will never happen. But tell me something. As you know, amateur
enthusiasts are not capable of reproducing the top quark, or cloning a
mammal, or performing open-heart surgery. Amateur enthusiasts cannot launch
robotic probes to Mars. They cannot build tokamak plasma fusion reactors.
There are thousands of other experiments and procedures they cannot do. Do
you say these are all in the realm of pseudoscience?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Harry Veeder]

Plausible deniability is the 'modus operandi' of the zealous skeptic.

Harry

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
 wrote:
> With meteorite sightings you have many witnesses in many countries. The path
> of the meteorite can be traced sometime (if the witness knows a little about
> constellations and cardinal directions). Only collecting a lot of this
> information one can apply it for useful science.
>
> I think in general the main problem with these LENR claims (not just
> the anecdotal ones describing the actions of people and organizations but
> also the more scientific, phenomenon oriented ones) is the lack
> of repeatability and  the absence of large number of widespread, reliable
> witnesses. Until LENR is something that every amateur enthusiast can
> reproduce and post on youtube, it will remain in the realm of
> pseudoscience.
>
> Giovanni
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>>
>> Giovanni Santostasi  wrote:
>>
>>> All the other statements you make are based on your witness's report to
>>> you. I want to give the benefit of doubt to that but I don't consider it
>>> factual evidence at this point.
>>
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>> Do you think I am making it up? Do you think my informant is crazy?
>>
>> This resembles an observational science claim, such as birdwatcher
>> sighting, or meteorite. All such claims can be faked. They are always
>> dependent upon the credibility of the person making the report. It resembles
>> Mizuno's claim that his cell produced massive anomalous heat over five days,
>> evaporating 17.5 L of water. It was witnessed only by Mizuno and Akimoto.
>> you have to depend upon their honesty.
>>
>> I will grant this case is a unusual because my contact must remain
>> anonymous for a while. Anyone familiar with the politics of cold fusion will
>> know that people often keep a low profile for good reasons. That is
>> regrettable, but it is entirely the fault of the opposition.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Giovanni Santostasi]

But there is also scientific fraud, Unfortunately it happens everywhere
even in prestigious institutions. There are even Science and Nature
articles that have been retracted because the results described were shown
later to be fraudulent.

Scientists that have put a lot of stakes in a line of research can feel
pressured in making up results. It is abhorrent because as a scientist I
want to believe that science teaches respect for truth above anything else
but scientists are also humans and they do mistakes and they can fall to
temptation to fame, money and other recognition.

Giovanni

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Mary Yugo  wrote:
>
>
>> . . . but that someone could make inadequate observations and jump to
>> erroneous conclusions which then they reported to you -- that's as credible
>> as the proposition that the information is correct.
>>
>
> Are you serious? Do you sincerely believe that a professional scientist
> could spend several days in the laboratory talking to people, looking at
> instruments and data, and not recognize that the equipment is fake and the
> researchers are pretending? As my contact put it, "I know a laboratory when
> I see one."
>
> If you sincerely believe this scenario is possible you have a vivid
> imagination and you have been reading too many pulp thrillers. You should
> not call yourself a "skeptic" if you believe such improbabilities.
>
> This is like asserting that Mizuno's cell was actually stone cold and he
> only thought it was too hot to touch. The bucket was leaking but he did not
> notice the floor was wet, so he filled it up every morning, and thought the
> water was evaporating. Such implausible notions are not serious hypotheses,
> and they are not worth considering.
>
> Perhaps when you say people made "inadequate observations and jumped to
> conclusions" you meant the Defkalion researchers did. After all, we are
> talking about their conclusions, which you can read at their website. My
> contact is only confirming their conclusions. He did not make them. If that
> is what you mean, you are suggesting that a large group of professional
> scientists might make inadequate observations and jump to conclusions
> continuously for years, without ever discovering their mistakes.
>
> That is not possible. The scientific method works. Engineering and
> instruments work.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 11-12-21 03:22 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Giovanni Santostasi > wrote:


All the other statements you make are based on your witness's
report to you. I want to give the benefit of doubt to that but I
don't consider it factual evidence at this point.


Why not?

Do you think I am making it up? Do you think my informant is crazy?


Why do you ask that?  We've been over this, and it's completely 
reasonable for Giovanni to dismiss your report.  From where everybody on 
this list except you is sitting, it's a FOAF story.   (As I've already 
pointed out.)


Its accuracy cannot be assessed by any of us, and consequently it 
doesn't count for diddly.


What's worse, the statements you've actually relayed are so vague and 
open to interpretation that even if they're all true it's inconclusive.




This resembles an observational science claim, such as birdwatcher 
sighting, or meteorite.


No it doesn't.  Such a claim generally has a person's name attached 
(this doesn't), a precise date (this doesn't), a precise location (this 
doesn't), and a precise description (this doesn't).



 All such claims can be faked. They are always dependent upon the 
credibility of the person making the report. It resembles Mizuno's 
claim that his cell produced massive anomalous heat over five days, 
evaporating 17.5 L of water.


No, it doesn't, for the reasons I just gave.



I will grant this case is a unusual because my contact must remain 
anonymous for a while. Anyone familiar with the politics of cold 
fusion will know that people often keep a low profile for good 
reasons. That is regrettable, but it is entirely the fault of the 
opposition.




Yes, of course, the snakes and the clowns.  It's all their fault that 
everything surrounding Rossi is so vague, for sure.

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Jed Rothwell]

Mary Yugo  wrote:


> . . . but that someone could make inadequate observations and jump to
> erroneous conclusions which then they reported to you -- that's as credible
> as the proposition that the information is correct.
>

Are you serious? Do you sincerely believe that a professional scientist
could spend several days in the laboratory talking to people, looking at
instruments and data, and not recognize that the equipment is fake and the
researchers are pretending? As my contact put it, "I know a laboratory when
I see one."

If you sincerely believe this scenario is possible you have a vivid
imagination and you have been reading too many pulp thrillers. You should
not call yourself a "skeptic" if you believe such improbabilities.

This is like asserting that Mizuno's cell was actually stone cold and he
only thought it was too hot to touch. The bucket was leaking but he did not
notice the floor was wet, so he filled it up every morning, and thought the
water was evaporating. Such implausible notions are not serious hypotheses,
and they are not worth considering.

Perhaps when you say people made "inadequate observations and jumped to
conclusions" you meant the Defkalion researchers did. After all, we are
talking about their conclusions, which you can read at their website. My
contact is only confirming their conclusions. He did not make them. If that
is what you mean, you are suggesting that a large group of professional
scientists might make inadequate observations and jump to conclusions
continuously for years, without ever discovering their mistakes.

That is not possible. The scientific method works. Engineering and
instruments work.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Giovanni Santostasi]

With meteorite sightings you have many witnesses in many countries. The
path of the meteorite can be traced sometime (if the witness knows a little
about constellations and cardinal directions). Only collecting a lot of
this information one can apply it for useful science.

I think in general the main problem with these LENR claims (not just
the anecdotal ones describing the actions of people and organizations but
also the more scientific, phenomenon oriented ones) is the lack
of repeatability and  the absence of large number of widespread, reliable
witnesses. Until LENR is something that every amateur enthusiast can
reproduce and post on youtube, it will remain in the realm of
pseudoscience.

Giovanni




On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Giovanni Santostasi  wrote:
>
> All the other statements you make are based on your witness's report to
>> you. I want to give the benefit of doubt to that but I don't consider it
>> factual evidence at this point.
>>
>
> Why not?
>
> Do you think I am making it up? Do you think my informant is crazy?
>
> This resembles an observational science claim, such as birdwatcher
> sighting, or meteorite. All such claims can be faked. They are always
> dependent upon the credibility of the person making the report. It
> resembles Mizuno's claim that his cell produced massive anomalous heat over
> five days, evaporating 17.5 L of water. It was witnessed only by Mizuno and
> Akimoto. you have to depend upon their honesty.
>
> I will grant this case is a unusual because my contact must remain
> anonymous for a while. Anyone familiar with the politics of cold fusion
> will know that people often keep a low profile for good reasons. That is
> regrettable, but it is entirely the fault of the opposition.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Mary Yugo]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

>
> Do you think I am making it up? Do you think my informant is crazy?
>

The thing is we don't know.  I doubt your above rather extreme propositions
but that someone could make inadequate observations and jump to erroneous
conclusions which then they reported to you -- that's as credible as the
proposition that the information is correct.

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:

Didn't you say before that they were there just to check the reactors and
> not do testings? Wouldn't days count as a test? I don't get it.


No, I said "No tests were done by this observer" (actually observers)
meaning they did not bring their own instruments and conduct their own
tests. That is the next step. This was preparation for that.

I do not know what tests or procedures they witnessed.

I hope to learn more. However, I told them I do not wish to hear anything
that Defkalion wants to keep confidential, so there were gaps in the
conversation.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Celani's Coherence 2011 PowerPoint slides (in Italian)

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Thanks, Jed.  Interesting slide set.  Google Translate does a sort of 
legible job on it, too (download it and then use 'translate document' 
... awkward but it works).


That presentation seems to be WRT work done early last year.  Is there 
an actual paper by any chance, or was this only presented at a poster 
session or equiv?  It would be interesting to read a little more about 
how they measured the 10W excess.


The most encouraging thing about this (and similar results) is that it 
suggests that the direction Rossi is leading a lot of people in may 
prove fruitful, whether or not he himself is a phony.  (Not a huge 
coincidence -- if he's not for real, then we can none the less guess 
that he picked his claims with knowledge that they'd sound believable to 
a lot of people.)


I would still be very pleased if you would post a link to a paper 
showing usable amounts of heat generated from H2 gas + Ni metal + heat.  
(If you can't name one then I doubt that I'll find one via random 
digging in the LENR-CANR library!)


Unfortunately, the Celani slide set doesn't fill the bill, since (a) it 
isn't a paper, (b) it is hardly detailed enough to draw any conclusions 
from, and (c) it was probably not a usable amount of excess heat (but 
one would need more information about the setup to be sure).



On 11-12-21 02:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

See:

Celani, F., et al. Sviluppo di catalizzatore ternario, skeleton type, 
per studi su anomalie termiche
nei sistemi Metallo-Idrogeno ad alta temperatura (PowerPoint slides). 
in Coherence 2011. 2011.

Ministero dell'Aereonautica, Italy.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CelaniFsviluppodi.pdf

First page introduction in English.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Mary Yugo]

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
wrote:

> Article on Defkalion from a local Xanthi newpaper:
>
>
> http://www.xanthipress.gr/eidiseis/politiki/8221-o-antiktipos-gia-ti-defkalion-stin-xanthi-i-epomeni-parousiasi.html
>


That was from June 28, 2011 and IIRC was based on interviews given by
Defkalion and nothing else.  So it's analogous to "Rossi says" and
prominently features the word "soon".

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Jed Rothwell]

Giovanni Santostasi  wrote:

All the other statements you make are based on your witness's report to
> you. I want to give the benefit of doubt to that but I don't consider it
> factual evidence at this point.
>

Why not?

Do you think I am making it up? Do you think my informant is crazy?

This resembles an observational science claim, such as birdwatcher
sighting, or meteorite. All such claims can be faked. They are always
dependent upon the credibility of the person making the report. It
resembles Mizuno's claim that his cell produced massive anomalous heat over
five days, evaporating 17.5 L of water. It was witnessed only by Mizuno and
Akimoto. you have to depend upon their honesty.

I will grant this case is a unusual because my contact must remain
anonymous for a while. Anyone familiar with the politics of cold fusion
will know that people often keep a low profile for good reasons. That is
regrettable, but it is entirely the fault of the opposition.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Daniel Rocha]

Didn't you say before that they were there just to check the reactors and
not do testings? Wouldn't days count as a test? I don't get it.

2011/12/21 Jed Rothwell 

> * Invited experts to see this for days at a time and managed to fool them.
> This alone would be an astounding accomplishment. I doubt anyone is capable
> of it.
>



-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Happy Solstice

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:14 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
 wrote:

> Drat! Blocked! Will have to view this at home tonight.

Merry Christmas, just for you:

http://i.imgur.com/8ADIg.jpg

Caption:

"December 20, 2011 – ALABAMA – For a morning, the sky looked like a
surfer’s dream: A series of huge breaking waves lined the horizon in
Birmingham, Ala., on Friday (Dec. 16), their crests surging forward in
slow motion. Amazed Alabamans took photos of the clouds and sent them
to their local weather station, wondering, “What are these tsunamis in
the sky?” Experts say the clouds were pristine examples of
“Kelvin-Helmholtz waves.” Whether seen in the sky or in the ocean,
this type of turbulence always forms when a fast-moving layer of fluid
slides on top of a slower, thicker layer, dragging its surface. Water
waves, for example, form when the layer of fluid above them (i.e., the
air) is moving faster than the layer of fluid below (i.e., the water).
When the difference between the wind and water speed increases to a
certain point, the waves “break” — their crests lurch forward — and
they take on the telltale Kelvin-Helmholtz shape. According to Chris
Walcek, a meteorologist at the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center at
the State University of New York, Albany, fast-moving air high in the
sky can drag the top of slow-moving, thick clouds underneath it in
much the same way. –Live Science"



T

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Jed,
My assessment was based on what I found on the web about some of the
factual evidence as the existence of the Police Academy, industrial
buildings near by, local newspaper article and so on.
The article also mentioned the intention of the company to hire scientists
and other personnel. Defkalion website has a page about hiring that says
they will keep people posted on hiring opportunities. But not active hiring
is happening at least online.

All the other statements you make are based on your witness's report to
you. I want to give the benefit of doubt to that but I don't consider it
factual evidence at this point.

What is damn frustrating about all this is how certain pieces of the puzzle
fit together and other seem not to make sense at all.

Giovanni



On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Giovanni Santostasi  wrote:
>
>
>> But I agree with you all this doesn't prove that they will.
>> It just shows that if they are creating an elaborate scam they take at
>> least care to have some minimal props for it.
>>
>
> If this is an elaborate scam, they are creating maximum props for it. They
> have:
>
> * Established a large, state-of-the-art research laboratory with millions
> of dollars in equipment.
>
> * Hired many highly qualified professional scientists. They persuaded
> these scientists to go along with the hoax and pretend to be doing research.
>
> * Hired a large number of experienced business managers and persuaded them
> to go along with the hoax.
>
> * Built many fake prototype reactors.
>
> * Modified instruments to give false readings.
>
> * Produce large amounts of coherent fake data.
>
> * Invited experts to see this for days at a time and managed to fool them.
> This alone would be an astounding accomplishment. I doubt anyone is capable
> of it.
>
> I think this scenario is highly improbable.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Celani's Coherence 2011 PowerPoint slides (in Italian)

[Akira Shirakawa]

On 2011-12-21 20:48, Jed Rothwell wrote:


http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CelaniFsviluppodi.pdf


Thanks. This has also been posted on 22passi blog some time ago, but 
it's good to see it on lenr-canr.org as well. By the way, in the last page:



Ahern e Rossi lavorano insieme in USA, DoD, progetto FT, dal 2008


"[Brian] Ahern and Rossi work together in the USA, DoD, project FT, 
since 2008"


Leaving aside that Rossi denied having worked together with Ahern, what 
is this "FT project" ?


Cheers,
S.A.

RE: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

It's humor, Mary, not endless repetition... humor is most welcome.

Next to Terry, I think I try to lighten the mood a fair amount too...
Do you remember the Danny Kaye movie, "The Court Jester"?  Classic humor...

And did you know that there is a fraternal organization affiliated with
Freemasonry and the Shriners called the "Royal Order of Jesters"?
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Order_of_Jesters

No snow on the ground here in Reno this Christmas... bummer.

-Mark

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 10:20 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Mary Yugo  wrote:

> Careful Terry.  Mark will complain you're wasting precious Vort
bandwidth...
> or S/N ... or some such.  Or maybe he only chases after me?

No, he knows I am the jester -- the doty old fool.

Jes doin' my yob mon.

T

[Vo]:Celani's Coherence 2011 PowerPoint slides (in Italian)

[Jed Rothwell]

See:

Celani, F., et al. Sviluppo di catalizzatore ternario, skeleton type, per
studi su anomalie termiche
nei sistemi Metallo-Idrogeno ad alta temperatura (PowerPoint slides).
in Coherence 2011. 2011.
Ministero dell'Aereonautica, Italy.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CelaniFsviluppodi.pdf

First page introduction in English.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Jed Rothwell]

Giovanni Santostasi  wrote:


> But I agree with you all this doesn't prove that they will.
> It just shows that if they are creating an elaborate scam they take at
> least care to have some minimal props for it.
>

If this is an elaborate scam, they are creating maximum props for it. They
have:

* Established a large, state-of-the-art research laboratory with millions
of dollars in equipment.

* Hired many highly qualified professional scientists. They persuaded these
scientists to go along with the hoax and pretend to be doing research.

* Hired a large number of experienced business managers and persuaded them
to go along with the hoax.

* Built many fake prototype reactors.

* Modified instruments to give false readings.

* Produce large amounts of coherent fake data.

* Invited experts to see this for days at a time and managed to fool them.
This alone would be an astounding accomplishment. I doubt anyone is capable
of it.

I think this scenario is highly improbable.

- Jed

[Vo]:Slightly off topic: The Future of Public Libraries

[Harry Veeder]

Are Maker Spaces the Future of Public Libraries?

When was the last time you went to the library looking for a book? How
about a 3D printer? The Fayetteville Free Library, a public library in
upstate New York, plans to offer its community both options: A
traditional, book-filled library, and a Fab Lab to learn new
technologies and build new projects.

In recent years, the FFL’s Executive Director Susan Considine has been
pushing for a reinterpretation of libraries’ role.

“Libraries exist to provide access to opportunities for people to come
together to learn, discuss, discover, test, create. Transformation
happens when people have free access to powerful information, and new
and advanced technology."

http://shareable.net/blog/the-future-of-public-libraries-maker-spaces

Harry

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Happy Solstice / Let it Snow

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

>From Alan,

> Try typing "let it snow" into google.

Glad they included a "DEFROST" button. ;-)

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Happy Solstice / Let it Snow

[Daniel Rocha]

I saw that! But it won't help the weather. Traffic today was too jammed
because many cars stopped due to overheated motors.

2011/12/21 Alan J Fletcher 

> At 11:27 AM 12/21/2011, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
>> Happy Solstice! Too hot in here! Damn it! S
>>
>
> Try typing "let it snow" into google.
>



-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Happy Solstice / Let it Snow

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 11:27 AM 12/21/2011, Daniel Rocha wrote:

Happy Solstice! Too hot in here! Damn it! S


Try typing "let it snow" into google.  

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Happy Solstice

[Daniel Rocha]

Happy Solstice! Too hot in here! Damn it! S

2011/12/21 OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson 

> Terry sez:
>
> > At 11:30 tonight the countdown clock begins.  Will the
> > chaos erupt suddenly or become asymptotic?
> > It appears to have begun:
> >
> >
> http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/atmosphere-becoming-more-turbulent-unusual-cloud-patterns-seen-in-skies-over-alabama/
>
> > Cool clouds; but, after all it's Alabama.
> >
>
> Drat! Blocked! Will have to view this at home tonight.
>
> ...
>
> > Either way, Happy Winter!
> > Cool clouds; but, after all it's Alabama.
>
> You too, Sir Jester Terry.
>
> There exists folklore that claims that the planetary nexus occurring
> at the winter and summer solstice is prime time to contact the dead,
> particularly relatives.
>
> So, go outside tonight at 11:30 PM (EST), light a candle and ask Uncle
> Ralph... "Where in the backyard did you bury that pickle jar
> containing a role of hundred dollar bills worth twenty grand."
>
> If Ralph isn't too busy sipping tea with Eleanor Roosevelt, he might
> get around to responding. But don't count on it.
>
> Regards
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> www.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:"Private information" about Rossi was the Ampernergo tests described by McKubre

[Jed Rothwell]

Mary Yugo  wrote:


> Getting information from cold fusion researchers is like pulling teeth.
>> You have to beg and plead and wait and wait.
>>
>
> Yet they call you a Luddite or worse if you don't believe their claims.
>

That is a dicto simpliciter fallacy (sweeping generalization). Many
researchers do not accuse people of being Luddites. Some are pleased with
this state of affairs. They prefer that people not believe them, because
they want keep a low profile. Ampenergo does not want me to upload this
paper for that reason.

Researchers do not hand over papers for a variety of reasons such as:

* They do not want to, as I said, because they are keeping a low profile,
they do not want to tip off the competition, or for some other reason.

* They forget to.

* They know little about the Internet and see no advantage to uploading
papers.

* They think serious scientists only publish on paper.

Researchers who want to be believed, or who would accuse you of being a
Luddite, generally do hand over papers. My statement was also a sweeping
generalization. It does not apply to all.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:[OT] Happy Solstice

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

Terry sez:

> At 11:30 tonight the countdown clock begins.  Will the
> chaos erupt suddenly or become asymptotic?
> It appears to have begun:
>
> http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/atmosphere-becoming-more-turbulent-unusual-cloud-patterns-seen-in-skies-over-alabama/

> Cool clouds; but, after all it's Alabama.
>

Drat! Blocked! Will have to view this at home tonight.

...

> Either way, Happy Winter!
> Cool clouds; but, after all it's Alabama.

You too, Sir Jester Terry.

There exists folklore that claims that the planetary nexus occurring
at the winter and summer solstice is prime time to contact the dead,
particularly relatives.

So, go outside tonight at 11:30 PM (EST), light a candle and ask Uncle
Ralph... "Where in the backyard did you bury that pickle jar
containing a role of hundred dollar bills worth twenty grand."

If Ralph isn't too busy sipping tea with Eleanor Roosevelt, he might
get around to responding. But don't count on it.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Well, this is what we know at this point: there is a Police Academy in
Xanthi, there is a building that is an industrial facility at a reasonable
distance near by, somebody labeled the factory as associated with
Defkalion.
Also the article from a local Xanthi newspaper I have indicated mentions
that Defkalion would use the ex Atmatzidi's factory and that it will give
heat from free to the Academy and other neighbors.
But I agree with you all this doesn't prove that they will.
It just shows that if they are creating an elaborate scam they take at
least care to have some minimal props for it.
Also, because we have a physical location for the plant (the one that is
supposed to give heat to the academy) if one had the resources to visit the
location it could be verified if there is any activity associated with
production of the devices.
Anybody willing to travel to Greece?
Giovanni



On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Mary Yugo  wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> AND HERE IT IS !
>> Go on the left of the academy and you see a symbol of a factory. If you
>> translate from Greek this what you get:
>>
>> Former Factory Atmatzidis
>>
>>   It will house the 1 of the 3 plants of the company power Defkalion.
>> Also there have been some installation work.
>>
>
> Hi Giovanni.
>
> Good job finding the Police Academy.  At least it exists.  I guess the
> next step is to get someone who speaks Greek to ask them if they have made
> arrangements to get steam or heat from Defkalion any time soon.
>
> As for the Wikimapia entry, if I understand correctly what Wikimapia is,
> any subscriber can enter any information on the map that they wish and
> anyone else could edit it.  I suppose I could write "Mickey Mouse's Rum
> Factory" there if I wanted to and it would remain until someone was
> motivated to change it.
>
> Perhaps that is a bit of evidence that Defkalion is planning to build a
> factory but it is not support for their claims that they will make and
> market 300,000 Hyperion reactors in calendar year 2012!  Anyway, thanks.
> We know a little more now than we did before.
>
>
>
>

[Vo]:[OT] Happy Solstice

[Terry Blanton]

At 11:30 tonight the countdown clock begins.  Will the chaos erupt
suddenly or become asymptotic?  It appears to have begun:

http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/atmosphere-becoming-more-turbulent-unusual-cloud-patterns-seen-in-skies-over-alabama/

Cool clouds; but, after all it's Alabama.

Or, you could take advantage of the endtimes and have some fun:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LT_MEXICO_APOCALYPSE_2012?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-12-20-15-15-48

Either way, Happy Winter!

T

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Mary Yugo  wrote:

> Careful Terry.  Mark will complain you're wasting precious Vort bandwidth...
> or S/N ... or some such.  Or maybe he only chases after me?

No, he knows I am the jester -- the doty old fool.

Jes doin' my yob mon.

T

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Mary Yugo]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Mary Yugo  wrote:
>
> > I think you're being pedantic here.
>
> I love this urban dictionary definition:
>
> 3.   pedantic   76 up, 45 down
> Ostentatious regarding one's intelligence. Using this word also makes
> you this word.
>


Careful Terry.  Mark will complain you're wasting precious Vort
bandwidth... or S/N ... or some such.  Or maybe he only chases after me?

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Mary Yugo  wrote:

> I think you're being pedantic here.

I love this urban dictionary definition:

3.   pedantic   76 up, 45 down
Ostentatious regarding one's intelligence. Using this word also makes
you this word.

T

Re: [Vo]:Temperture below absolute temperature

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> If the Calvet paper below is accurate, among other 'miracles' energy can be
> cohered from ambient conditions by the lower temperature of a QM "heat
> sink"...

You should forward that to donhotson at yahoodotcom.  I think it would
make his day. . . if he has days still.

T

Re: [Vo]:A competent observer's assessment of Defkalion

[Mary Yugo]

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
wrote:

> AND HERE IT IS !
> Go on the left of the academy and you see a symbol of a factory. If you
> translate from Greek this what you get:
>
> Former Factory Atmatzidis
>
>   It will house the 1 of the 3 plants of the company power Defkalion.
> Also there have been some installation work.
>

Hi Giovanni.

Good job finding the Police Academy.  At least it exists.  I guess the next
step is to get someone who speaks Greek to ask them if they have made
arrangements to get steam or heat from Defkalion any time soon.

As for the Wikimapia entry, if I understand correctly what Wikimapia is,
any subscriber can enter any information on the map that they wish and
anyone else could edit it.  I suppose I could write "Mickey Mouse's Rum
Factory" there if I wanted to and it would remain until someone was
motivated to change it.

Perhaps that is a bit of evidence that Defkalion is planning to build a
factory but it is not support for their claims that they will make and
market 300,000 Hyperion reactors in calendar year 2012!  Anyway, thanks.
We know a little more now than we did before.