date:20120117

The website has been down for some time now.
It keeps returning the message: Bandwidth Exceeded ... try again later.

It sounds like a pretty sophisticated theory that only a few can properly
assess.  Does it make any testable predictions?  Or does it provide any
insights into the CF/LENR results reported so far?




 multielectron catalysis theory A possible theory for rossi reactor

 The situation with the new energy source [1] developed by the Italian
 physicists mainly is
 similar  to  the  situation with HTSP  (high  temperature
 superconductors):  there  is  the  effect, but there are no phenomenon
 physical mechanism explanation and adequate theory.
 A.  Rossis  reactor  theory  suggested  is  based  on  the  developed
  electron-quark  analogy
 method and multielectron theory [2, 3]. The method difference is
 availability of a color charge in
 electrons  analogous  to  the  color  charge  of  quarks  in  quantum
 chromodynamics  (QCD)

 http://www.snapdrive.net/files/658133/Reaktor_Rossi.pdf

RE: [Vo]:Heat Output

No, and she has been asked to provide her name, but she cowardly hides
behind anonymity claiming she fears reprisal from 'true believers'.  She
occasionally adds some useful dialog to The Collective, but 90% of her
barrage of postings are the same thing; suspicions about Rossi and SGT, and
that none of the demos has been completely conclusive - all of which we knew
before she even began posting.  Her lack of respect for the rules and
guidelines of the forum should have barred her, but for some reason The
Collective have just tended to ignore it.

-Mark

 

From: Chemical Engineer [mailto:cheme...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 8:02 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Heat Output

 

Mark,

 

Thanks, I did not know that.  Do you really think Mary's last name is Yugo?

 

I really do appreciate all of the great ideas exchanged in this forum.  The
topic needs the focus.

 

 

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 11:54 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint
zeropo...@charter.net wrote:

ChemE:

This forum really frowns on people who don't use their real names.

snip

-mark

Re: [Vo]:Heat Output

2012-01-17 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence

ChemE:  Not to worry, while real names are preferred, the frown on 
pseudonyms is not especially intense.  If you want to call yourself 
ChemE I dare say nobody's going to care much (unless you start trolling).


We've had people using pseudonyms off and on for as long as I can 
recall; some were contentious and some were not.  As an example, someone 
named Leaky Pen was a regular here for years.


And as to MY, she has stated that her posting name is a pseudonym, so 
chances are she's not named Mary, and also not named Yugo.



On 12-01-17 11:02 AM, Chemical Engineer wrote:

Mark,

Thanks, I did not know that.  Do you really think Mary's last name is 
Yugo?


I really do appreciate all of the great ideas exchanged in this forum. 
 The topic needs the focus.



On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 11:54 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint 
zeropo...@charter.net mailto:zeropo...@charter.net wrote:


ChemE:

This forum really frowns on people who don't use their real names.

snip

-mark

[Vo]:Kullander's detailed isotopic analysis of ash from Rossi's E-Cat?

2012-01-17 Thread John Milstone


Hi everyone!

Last November, Sven Kullander promised a detailed isotopic analysis of the 
ash from Rossi's E-Cat by Christmas.  (http://ecatnews.com/?p=1416)

It's now well past Christmas, and I haven't seen any signs of this report.  
Does anyone know what happened to it?

John

Re: [Vo]:multielectron catalysis theory A possible theory for rossi reactor

2012-01-17 Thread ecat builder

Here is an alternate site for download:

http://ecatplanet.net/downloads/pdf/Reaktor_Rossi.pdf

- Brad

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:23 AM,  pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
 The website has been down for some time now.
 It keeps returning the message: Bandwidth Exceeded ... try again later.

 It sounds like a pretty sophisticated theory that only a few can properly
 assess.  Does it make any testable predictions?  Or does it provide any
 insights into the CF/LENR results reported so far?

Re: [Vo]:oilprice.com: Are we on the Brink of an Energy Revolution? Andrea Rossi to Build 1MW Power Plant

2012-01-17 Thread Mary Yugo

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 11:35 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson 
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:

 The article might be of some interest.

 Titled: Are we on the Brink of an Energy Revolution? Andrea Rossi to
 Build 1MW Power Plant

 Dated: Tue, 17 January 2012


 http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Are-We-On-The-Brink-Of-An-Energy-Revolution-Andrea-Rossi-To-Build-1MW-Power-Plant.html

 http://tinyurl.com/84kvzy2



Something is really screwed up with this article.  It's dated Jan 17, 2012
but the comments are disjointed and carry October 2011 dates.  I see bits
and pieces of stuff I've written included in comments with bad BB code
markup and other strange things.  Perhaps the publication is nothing but an
attempt to eke out a few extra dollars from an ad farm sort of site.   If
not, something else is messed up with it.

Re: [Vo]:multielectron catalysis theory A possible theory for rossi reactor

Thanks, Brad

That link works.

However, the theory rests on QCD (quantum chromodynamics) which I do not
understand.  For those trained in QCD, it might be worth
google-translating the more detailed Russian web page:
http://viktor19451.narod.ru/
Aside from the diagrams, the translation looks pretty good.

 Here is an alternate site for download:

 http://ecatplanet.net/downloads/pdf/Reaktor_Rossi.pdf

 - Brad

 On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:23 AM,  pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
 The website has been down for some time now.
 It keeps returning the message: Bandwidth Exceeded ... try again later.

 It sounds like a pretty sophisticated theory that only a few can
 properly
 assess.  Does it make any testable predictions?  Or does it provide any
 insights into the CF/LENR results reported so far?

RE: [Vo]:Heat Output

Yes, as Mr. Lawrence noted, aliases are sometimes used, with little or no
comments from the Collective.  However, those contributors usually provide a
high signal-to-noise in their postings, for example, Axil Axil.  He has 129
postings since 8/18/2011 (5 months), and nearly all of them are signal,
heavy on technical content, links to interesting technical papers or
original thought.  Yugo, on the other hand, has 835 postings since only
11/10/2011 (2 months)!  Nearly all of them are noise - she is 'only
responding to the believers continued misinformation'; her points can be
summarized thus:

 

- None of the e-Cat demos have been incontrovertible (most here agree).  MY
has provided some useful comment/data, but most is simply the repetition
about inconclusiveness, and how easy it would be for Rossi to allow
independent test that would satisfy skeptics. All these are points made long
before she arrived.

- Contradictions in statements made by Rossi or DGT over time (these *prove*
nothing, and most were also noticed prior to MY's arrival).

- Rossi's 'checkered' past (which the Collective had ferreted out by April,
long before MY arrived on the scene).

- Her personal suspicions based on the previous points. we all have these,
but they prove nothing unless its first-hand, and/or there is factual info
to back them up.

 

This forum was primarily formed to allow people to ask themselves, *what if*
some person's wild-ass claims are real. and to then discuss the technical
aspects without it digressing into the true believers vs pathological
skeptics.  It therefore tries to NOT focus on the person, as Jed has pointed
out, even a notorious murderer (the Birdman of Alcatraz) can have novel
insights which would be of interest to this forum. There is plenty of
skepticism even without MY, and seldom do the 'regulars' ever reach
consensus when discussing an issue.  See:

 http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html

 

 http://amasci.com/weird/vmore.html

 

===

The Vortex-L list was originally created for discussions of professional
research into fluid vortex/cavitation devices which exhibit anomalous energy
effects (ie: the inventions of Schaeffer, Huffman, Griggs, and Potapov among
others.) Currently it has evolved into a discussion on taboo physics
reports and research. SKEPTICS BEWARE, the topics wander from Cold Fusion,
to reports of excess energy in Free Energy devices, gravity generation and
detection, reports of theoretically impossible phenomena, and all sorts of
supposedly crackpot claims. Before you subscribe, please see the rules
below. This is a public, lightly- moderated smartlist list. There is no
charge, but donations towards expenses are recommended.

===

 

If you haven't already, please make sure to read the Rules:

   http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html#rules

 

So, remain anonymous if you wish, but please try to avoid endless repetition
of non-technical aspects and your 'suspicions', unless you have factual data
to back them up.  Realize that this forum has been around for over 15 years,
and has followed LENR and the E-Cat very closely. there is little that has
NOT been discussed and analyzed to death.  If keenly interested, then please
take time to read thru the archives starting from last January, which was
Rossi's first 'demo'.  If interested in LENR, then visit lenr.org, Jed
Rothwell's site, which is a repository of all LENR/CF material,
good/bad/ugly, that the authors have agreed to its being available.  Before
you hit the 'Send' button, ask yourself, is this posting signal or noise?

 

Looking forward to your thoughtful analyses.

 

-Mark

 

From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:sa...@pobox.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 10:31 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Heat Output

 

ChemE:  Not to worry, while real names are preferred, the frown on
pseudonyms is not especially intense.  If you want to call yourself ChemE I
dare say nobody's going to care much (unless you start trolling).

We've had people using pseudonyms off and on for as long as I can recall;
some were contentious and some were not.  As an example, someone named
Leaky Pen was a regular here for years.

And as to MY, she has stated that her posting name is a pseudonym, so
chances are she's not named Mary, and also not named Yugo.


On 12-01-17 11:02 AM, Chemical Engineer wrote: 

Mark, 

 

Thanks, I did not know that.  Do you really think Mary's last name is Yugo?

 

I really do appreciate all of the great ideas exchanged in this forum.  The
topic needs the focus.

 

 

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 11:54 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint
zeropo...@charter.net wrote:

ChemE:

This forum really frowns on people who don't use their real names.

snip

-mark

Re: [Vo]:LENR G Silver Currency

2012-01-17 Thread mixent

In reply to  Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint's message of Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:29:56
-0800:
Hi,
[snip]
In addition, if currencies are based on the petro$, then that's going to
collapse like a tons of bricks when the financial industry realizes that
LENR just made petroleum obsolete.  Then, currencies will be Nickel-based?
Or what?

...there is really only one thing that all humans agree is valuable: human
effort. Everyone values their own time. It may be the only resource that will
remain scarce.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi on the Smart Scarecrow Show



At 03:34 PM 1/15/2012, Alan Fletcher wrote:
Heck --- At $500 + $20/year I'm
going to increase my order to FOUR units.
Last I heard, Rossi was still saying you need a WATER line to the eCat. I
hope that's changed.
A few more AR blog clarifications (MY ..ok,ok : no need to respond)

1. Interface specifications will be released in September.
2. $500 is circulating-water (I think) heat only, not AC, which is an
option
 ie Just water pumped through a core, no heat exchanger
or anything : plus control system/frequency generator
 Makes the price much more reasonable.
3. Stand-alone space heater 
 Christopher

January 16th, 2012 at 4:32 PM 
 Could you produce a simple E-Cat space heater that anyone
could plug into a wall? ...
 AR : Do you know? Your is a very good idea. We gotta study
it. 
 (A few others, including Hank Mills chime in. Also a
suggestion that it should be less than 10 kW)
4. He's considering domestic hot water. (Probably complicates
certification if it's in the potable loop). 
 AR: The principle is this, yes, but it will be
simplyfied.
5 He answered some questions on safety/shut-down ... but his numbered
answers don't correspond to the question marks in the original post
 eg : AR: ... in case of black out the safety control system
will switch off the E-Cat and will switch on it wnen the power will
return

RE: [Vo]:Forbes and Gibbs Garbage: NASA says Cold Fusion is Nothing Useful

2012-01-17 Thread *** Craig Brown ***

I think the question here is WHY?  Why release a video saying LENR is
looking good as a powerful replacement for conventional fossil fuels, then
when questioned about it, Zawodny tells everyone, that it's not useful and
that he's sceptical about it.

Seriously, WTF is going on at NASA?

-Original Message-
From: Ron Kita [mailto:chiralex.k...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2012 1:57 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:Forbes and Gibbs Garbage: NASA says Cold Fusion is Nothing
Useful

Greetings Vortex:

More Gibbs Garbage:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/01/16/cold-fusion-nasa-says-nothi
ng-useful/

Gibb is not useful.
Respectfully,
Ron Kita, Chiralex

RE: [Vo]:Forbes and Gibbs Garbage: NASA says Cold Fusion is Nothing Useful


At 01:12 PM 1/17/2012, ***  Craig Brown *** wrote:

I think the question here is WHY?  Why release a video saying LENR is
looking good as a powerful replacement for conventional fossil fuels, then
when questioned about it, Zawodny tells everyone, that it's not useful and
that he's sceptical about it.

Seriously, WTF is going on at NASA?


You need to re-read Zawodny's blog : 
http://joe.zawodny.com/index.php/2012/01/14/technology-gateway-video/


a) They're required to publicize any patent, and a layman's video is 
one way of doing it.


b) Zawodny says that he believes there IS credible evidence for LENR

c) Zawodny says that he has NOT seen credible scientific evidence for 
any clear and convincing demonstrations of any viable **commercial** 
device producing useful amounts of net energy (and then clarifies 
what he means by scientific evidence -- and I think everyone here 
agrees that Rossi's tests didn't amount to that, and that Defkalion 
have showed nothing.)  It's Rossi (and Defkalion) he's skeptical of.


d) The subject heading is a mis-statement of what Gibbs said (ie that 
NASA's statement added nothing useful). Neither Zawodny or Gibbs said 
that LENR couldn't be useful.

Re: [Vo]:Hank Mills: NASA, MIT, and the DOE have blood on their hands.



At 01:37 PM 1/17/2012, Robert Leguillon wrote:
From Hank Mills - Pure Energy
Systems News:
Original Source:

http://pesn.com/2012/01/15/9602013_138_Million_Cold_Fusion_Holocaust/

Good grief : 
Just imagine that if cold fusion had not been suppressed, there could be
138 million individuals alive today. What if
-- One of these individuals would have been the next Tesla?
But he doesn't offer the other side of the balance sheet :
-- One of these individuals would have been the next nuclear-armed
H*

Re: [Vo]:Hank Mills: NASA, MIT, and the DOE have blood on their hands.

2012-01-17 Thread James Bowery

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

  At 01:37 PM 1/17/2012, Robert Leguillon wrote:

 From Hank Mills - *Pure Energy Systems News*:
 Original Source:
 http://pesn.com/2012/01/15/9602013_138_Million_Cold_Fusion_Holocaust/


 Good grief :

 Just imagine that if cold fusion had not been suppressed, there could be
 138 million individuals alive today. What if

 -- One of these individuals would have been the next Tesla?

 But he doesn't offer the other side of the balance sheet :

 -- One of these individuals would have been the next nuclear-armed  H*


We can't risk it!!!  Abort all babies!!

Re: [Vo]:Hank Mills: NASA, MIT, and the DOE have blood on their hands.

2012-01-17 Thread Vorl Bek

Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
 
 -- One of these individuals would have been the next
 nuclear-armed  H*
 

Is Hitler's name still so painful to contemplate that it can't be
spelt out 68 years after the war ended?

Maybe we should start writing S* and M** T** T*** as well.

RE: [Vo]:multielectron catalysis theory A possible theory for rossi reactor

2012-01-17 Thread Jones Beene

Thanks for posting this - and it is intriguing in one way but flawed in
another - certainly in the suggested binding energy. If it were true, the
nickel active material would be completely unmeltable, for one thing. There
is no basis for going to that extreme.

The most obvious flaw in this theory goes back to the vagaries of the QM
species called a multiparticle, which is theorized as an variety of
entangled species but otherwise is imaginary. Of course, the neutrino was
also imaginary at one early stage. OTOH, the part about entanglement is
possibly the best feature, in explaining E-Cat/Hyperion - because the sudden
loss of entanglement is the elegant way to explain the huge problem of
periodic quiescence. And the appearance of entanglement explains how the
strong force can be used for gain without fusion or fission. And the
re-emergence of entanglement explains why the reactor can be started up
again easily but with a time delay.

In Rossis reactor, these Russian theorists say the multiparticle is created
by the color interaction of molecular hydrogen H2 electrons and Ni crystal
lattice atoms valence electrons. This kind of sounds like
spintronics/excitonics - and it should. The more you think about it, the
more sense it makes.

But there are two big problems before moving forward - first, multiparticles
have not been documented as real AFAIK - and second, certainly not detected
with anything close to this binding energy (~300 keV). They need to get
realistic on the binding energy. Spintronics/excitonic potential energy is
far less. 

Of course, the proof could be E-cat/Hyperion and even Thermacore. We have
talked about entanglement before - and this is the second best way to
realize how it would work in practice. The best way is still to suggest that
the nickel is responsible for spillover and surface pitting provides the
rigidity. Proton entanglement of dense surface hydrogen (2D) makes sense as
it is already bound in 5 or 6 atoms, according to Holmlid, and certain kinds
of surface crystals makes sense too - especially since one particular paper
can explain the earlier Thermacore work with Potassium catalyst. See
Macroscopic quantum entanglement and super-rigidity of protons in the
KHCO3 crystal Abstract here:

http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-8984/18/12/006

If we find out that either Rossi or DGT did copy Thermacore's use of
potassium carbonate as the so called secret then the entanglement
hypothesis will vault ahead of all the others as the most likely
explanation.

Please post the news - if anyone finds reference or evidence to potassium
carbonate in either of these newer devices. It will definitely be the
smoking gun. 

BTW hydrogen potassium carbonate is expected from the dehydrogenated
molecule, in the presence of spillover, and the initial entanglement could
be a nano-magnetic phenomenon of the adjoining nickel.


-Original Message-
From: ecat builder 

Here is an alternate site for download:

http://ecatplanet.net/downloads/pdf/Reaktor_Rossi.pdf

- Brad

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:23 AM,  pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
 The website has been down for some time now.
 It keeps returning the message: Bandwidth Exceeded ... try again later.

 It sounds like a pretty sophisticated theory that only a few can properly
 assess.  Does it make any testable predictions?  Or does it provide any
 insights into the CF/LENR results reported so far?

Re: [Vo]:Hank Mills: NASA, MIT, and the DOE have blood on their hands.


At 02:18 PM 1/17/2012, Vorl Bek wrote:

Is Hitler's name still so painful to contemplate that it can't be
spelt out 68 years after the war ended?


I was trying to avoid the corollary to Godwin's Law : As well as the 
descriptive form, it can be used prescriptively: so if any poster 
does mention the Nazis in a discussion thread, Godwin's Law can be 
invoked, they instantly lose the argument and the thread can be ended.

Re: [Vo]:Hank Mills: NASA, MIT, and the DOE have blood on their hands.

2012-01-17 Thread Mary Yugo

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

  At 01:37 PM 1/17/2012, Robert Leguillon wrote:

 From Hank Mills - *Pure Energy Systems News*:
 Original Source:
 http://pesn.com/2012/01/15/9602013_138_Million_Cold_Fusion_Holocaust/


 Good grief :

 Just imagine that if cold fusion had not been suppressed, there could be
 138 million individuals alive today. What if

 -- One of these individuals would have been the next Tesla?



Or the next Jeffrey Dahmer

[Vo]:Rossi and Italy



john46blog 

January 17th, 2012 at 11:02 AM 
Dear Andrea,
I saw your recent interview with Sterling Allan. I discover a bunch of
good news about your progress on e.cat development and Im very happy for
you. One thing I dont like about your plans, its the decision to start
the series production in Florida and possibly also in Massachusetts. You
also mentioned that you prefer that e.cat technology became American! You
are Italian my friend, as I am, and you know very well in which bad
situation our country is at the moment. A revolutionary technology like
your, could be very useful for our renascence; there is a fresh air now
in our new government. Why you did not consider to start production in
Italy instead? I understand of your old problems you had in the past
here, this cannot be a justification for a strong man like you are. Just
image the good contribution you could bring to the unemployment reduction
in our country.
Please reconsider your plans and include in them also Italy.
Thanks for your attention
Giovanni
Andrea Rossi 

January 17th, 2012 at 4:57 PM 
Dear john46blog:
If we want to help Italy with this technology, we must develope it in the
USA before. If we start in Italy, we will be stopped before beginning. If
you want to understand what I am saying, please go to
http://www.ingandrearossi.com

Nevertheless, we will maintain in Italy the RD stronghold we already
have and will develope it; actually, we ARE developing it.
Besides, this will become a world diffused tech, therefore production
sites will be born around the World, Italy enclosed.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

(lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- Hi,
google!)

[Vo]:More home E-Cat data announced

2012-01-17 Thread Aussie Guy E-Cat


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=563cpage=14#comment-171562

 *
   Andrea Rossi
   January 17th, 2012 at 4:41 PM
   http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=563cpage=14#comment-171562


   Dear Mark Szlazak:
   It will be cm 30 x 30 x 12 circa. Not able to make electricity yet.
   Able to make heat and sanitary water ( this is a new of today:
   resolved also this problem).
   Warm Regards,
   A.R.


http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473cpage=17#comment-171368

 *
   Andrea Rossi
   January 17th, 2012 at 10:04 AM
   http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473cpage=17#comment-171368


   Dear Christian Scholl:
   The principle is this, yes, but it will be simplyfied.
   Warm Regards,
   A.R.

 *
   Christian SCHOLL http://www.cem-expert.fr/index.cfm
   January 16th, 2012 at 11:19 PM
   http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473cpage=17#comment-171038


   Dear Andrea Rossi,

   Domestic E-Cat will be delivered with differents heat exchanger:
   boiler for hot water, heat exchanger for hot air, full cupper
   electrode to replace steatite water heater ?
   Best regards,

   C.SCHOLL

Re: [Vo]:LENR G Silver Currency

2012-01-17 Thread Bruno Santos

At last a theme where I can contribute, being an economist. :-)

Money today is Fiat money. There is no correlation between the dollar and
the oil. Oil has its price on dollar, not the other way around.

Currencies have their value based on several things, amongst which:
government credibility, inflation expectations, public debt, interests,
etc...

There would be significant changes in currencies exchange prices if the oil
economy should collapse. But that is not because the oil backup today's
currencies, but because some of those things that holds some currencies
values worldwide would change significantly. I mean, lending money to
Venezuela or Russia could be a bad idea, since these countries currencies
value depends a lot on oil/gas exports. People would sell bolivares and
rublos because their perception of these currencies risk would increase
overnight. America would have a smaller trade deficit and China would have
an even larger trade surplus.

What would happen to the financial markets wordwide? Nobody knows...
Oil/Gas companies are either first or second largest companies in some very
large markets like USA, China, Brazil, Great Britain, France and Russia
stock exchanges...

The electricity generation and distribution companies are also very
important for the financial markets, as those companies usually are blue
chips and long term safe houses.

Best regards,

Bruno

2012/1/17 mix...@bigpond.com

 In reply to  Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint's message of Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:29:56
 -0800:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 In addition, if currencies are based on the petro$, then that's going to
 collapse like a tons of bricks when the financial industry realizes that
 LENR just made petroleum obsolete.  Then, currencies will be Nickel-based?
 Or what?

 ...there is really only one thing that all humans agree is valuable: human
 effort. Everyone values their own time. It may be the only resource that
 will
 remain scarce.

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Forbes and Gibbs Garbage: NASA says Cold Fusion is Nothing Useful

2012-01-17 Thread Mary Yugo

I wish 60 Minutes would update their story on CF.  It's been enough time
to see where all the promising research of the old program has gotten.
And I'd love to see them approach Rossi and Defkalion.
In my estimation, that would be absolutely hilarious.  Ever see the number
Dateline NBC did on Dennis Lee, Jeff Otto and their idiotic scam injecting
on-board-generated hydrogen into cars and claiming doubling of mileage
figures?

Video and transcripts of the Lee HHO car runs on water story
here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29899191/ns/dateline_nbc-the_hansen_files_with_chris_hansen/t/fast-money-car-device-sellers-scheme-unravels/#.TxYa0YHW5ls

60 Minutes on CF here:  http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4955212n
from 2009.

RE: [Vo]:From NET: Bockris is still in the game!!

2012-01-17 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax


At 11:53 PM 1/16/2012, you wrote:

I asked a close
friend (PhD physicist) and he said the same thing as Krivit; that fusion has
a *very* specific meaning *to a physicist*, and neutron capture is not
'fusion' as far as they're concerned.  Now, if I was a physicist, I would
hope that I'd be more concerned about whether the LENR/CF data was rigorous
enough and not be concerned about what it was being called, but then, my job
and my field of expertise is not likely to be ridiculed for delaying the
dawn of a new era for 20+ years.  Humans are interesting indeed.


Yes.

Neutron capture reactions are not generally labelled fusion because 
neutron capture is more specific. The answer you get from a 
physicist may depend on the question.


Is neutron capture fusion? may elicit various responses, from No, 
to Well, we don't normally call it that, to Well, it's obviously 
the fusion of a neutron with a nucleus, and sometimes neutrons are 
considered an element ('Neutronium'), so I guess you could call it a 
kind of fusion. Depends on how deeply the physicist thinks about it, 
as to the range of possible answers.


However, if you ask the physicist, If there is a reaction mechanism 
that takes in deuterium as fuel and produces helium as a product, is 
this a fusion mechanism? I think just about every one would say yes.


One might get more specific and look at the reactions proposed by 
Widom and Larsen. If we look at the *complete reaction*, is this fusion?


What is being done is to look at one piece of the reaction (the 
neutron absorption) and ask if that's fusion, and while it is the 
step where the actual fusion takes place, where Z is bumped, there is 
also another name for it, more commonly used.


But we are not looking at the individual reaction, we are looking at 
and describing the *whole effect.* What's going in and what is coming out?


If what is going into a black box is deuterium and, when the box is 
restored to equilibrium, what is coming out is helium and heat, it's 
a fusion box. It really doesn't matter what happens inside.


Now, W-L theory predicts *lots* of transmutations. These are not 
observed to be correlated with the heat. Transmutations are indeed 
observed, but at levels way below that of helium. Further, gamma 
emissions would be expected from neutron activation reactions from 
any slow neutrons, not to mention ultra low momentum neutrons. The 
gammas are not observed. W-L propose a totally novel mechanism for 
gamma suppression, and, realize, this mechanism would have to be very 
efficient, catching *lots* of gammas, yet the mechanism would only 
cover, as proposed, the area of formation of heavy electrons. there 
would be edge effects, some gammas would escape.


(Note that Larsen has patented a gamma ray shield based on this idea. 
There is no published confirmation of any such effect, and Larsen has 
never revealed any experimental evidence behind the claim. That such 
a patent could be issued, while patents on cold fusion are rejected 
as impossible, like perpetual motion machines, is just an example 
of how much damage the physics establishment did with its little 
semantic error.)

Re: [Vo]:From NET: Bockris is still in the game!!

2012-01-17 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax


At 08:54 PM 1/16/2012, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote:
For those not following LENR for more than about 
the last year, the name Bockris might be 
new.  He did a considerable amount of excellent 
LENR research in the 90s, and eventually faced 
several official inquiries at the insistence 
of colleagues none of which found any 
wrong-doing or bad science.  He really hasnt 
been that active as far as Im aware, at least 
not in academic circles. Perhaps Jed could fill 
us in on Bockris activities for the last 5 years, as regards to LENR.


Brockris is obviously one of the giants in the 
field. It would be great to have an interview 
with Brockris that wasn't filtered through 
Krivit's obsession. There are severe problems 
with Widom-Larsen theory, and I'd love to know 
how Brockris understands those. Krivit has, to my 
knowledge, never explored the reason why so many 
in the field reject W-L theory, practically out-of-hand.


I'll add that until we do know what is happening 
in these reactions, nothing can be completely ruled out.


However, one fact is clear. Helium is being 
produced, in a cell where the likely source of 
the requisite nucleons is deuterium. W-L theory 
proposes a process where a deuteron becomes a 
dineutron through electron capture (one could 
indeed call that the fusion of a deuteron with 
an electron), and then the neutrons cause further 
reactions, some of which release helium. Was that helium formed by fusion?


The only problem with the statement is if one 
restricts the term fusion to a particular 
reaction, i.e., D + D - He-4, with no intermediaries.



What prompted this posting is the following blog from NET/SKrivit:

Bockris Paper Advances Thanks to Widom-Larsen Theory
Posted on January 13, 2012 by Steven B. Krivit

John OMara Bockris, regarded as one of the 
worlds pre-eminent electrochemists, recently 
advised me that he overcame objections by 
referees to a paper he submitted for publication 
by citing the Widom-Larsen Theory.


Bockris sent me a letter on Jan. 2 and discussed his progress.

I have been absolutely intrigued by [Lewis] 
Larsen and have changed my mind about his 
stuff, Bockris wrote. I used one of his 
equations in a paper which was held up by 
referees and was able to defeat them by Larsens equation!


Bockris has also been following my distinction 
between low-energy nuclear reactions and cold fusion.


If I understand clearly what you say, you agree 
that some of the work that has been going on may 
involve nuclear reactions, Bockris wrote, but 
that its not fusion. Is that what you said? If 
it is, then I agree with it. Most of the 
condensed matter nuclear reactions do not involve fusion.


Which begs the question. What is fusion? There 
is a standard definition, and the standard 
definition is applied both to simple reactions 
such as D+D, which is very well-known and 
studied, under hot conditions, and, as well, 
low-temperature catalyzed conditions, as with 
muon-catalyzed fusion, and as well to complex 
reactions, as in stellar interiors. Most high-Z 
elements are formed through nucleosynthesis, from 
lighter elements, and that is, by definition, fusion.


In rejecting cold fusion, the physics 
establishment fell into a very easy trap. Had 
they been rigorous in their descriptions and in 
the explanations of why they were rejecting it, 
they'd probably have noticed the error. They 
assumed that if it was fusion, it must be D+D 
fusion, straight, no complications. They were 
essentially claiming that complications were 
impossible, which is *always* an error. As an 
example, if I say that fusion is impossible at 
temperatures lower than X, I'd obviously be in 
error, unless I very carefully qualify the statement, because:


1. For any particular reaction, under particular 
conditions, there will be a fusion cross-section, 
essentially a measure of the rate of fusion. 
Because of tunneling, the fusion cross-section is 
never zero, if the reaction itself is possible at 
any temperature. What is really being said is not 
that fusion is impossible, but that the rate at 
low temperatures will be very low, well below the 
rates necessary to explain the Pons and 
Fleischmann results, and other work in the field.


2. However, to calculate that rate, one must 
define a specific reaction. Call that reaction Z. 
Z may be a known reaction, in which case rates 
and products may be known. From the experimental 
data, one may be able to rule out Z as happening, 
but even this can be shaky. Is it possible that Z 
could happen due to an unexpected form of 
catalysis? Physicists may have a knee-jerk idea 
that this is unlikely, but no physticist worth 
his salt would say that it's impossible. The 
unlikely comes from ideas that if this reaction 
took place under low-temperature conditions, it 
would have been observed, but this argument 
breaks down if examined closely. After all, 
observations are being reported. When we look 
back, we find

[Vo]:Rossi selling Licences?

2012-01-17 Thread Patrick Ellul

http://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=chromeie=UTF-8q=Lure+of+cold+fusion+backfires#q=Lure+of+cold+fusion+backfireshl=enprmd=imvnsusource=univtbm=nwstbo=usa=Xei=Zy8WT8TDC7CviQfm_9RDved=0CDMQqAIbav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osbfp=e0379f193c830c55biw=1440bih=839


He said Byron New Energy Charitable Trust had planned to use some of that
money (understood to be $100,000) to buy the Australian rights to the
technology.

The only impediment to us obtaining this licence right now is your default
of payment of the $200,000 that you owe us by close of business (on January
17).

Re: [Vo]:Rossi selling Licences?

2012-01-17 Thread Terry Blanton

Like, wow!  This is hotter than a Rossi Reactor.

T

RE: [Vo]:Rossi selling Licenses?

2012-01-17 Thread Jones Beene

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 

 Like, wow!  This is hotter than a Rossi Reactor.


Appropriate song on the jazz station just now, 
from 'A Little Night Music' if you are old enough to remember

Send in the Clowns

Don't you love farce?
His fault, it's clear.
I thought that he'd want what we want.
But not Rossi I fear.
Where are the clowns?
Quick, send in the clowns.
Don't bother, they're here.

Isn't it rich?
Isn't it queer,
Losing his timing this late
In his career?
Where are the E-cat?
There ought to be E-cats.
Well, maybe next year.

... Apologies to Stephen Sondheim
attachment: winmail.dat

RE: [Vo]:multielectron catalysis theory A possible theory for rossi reactor

Jones,

You should have posted the free version of that paper at URL:
http://www.ladir.cnrs.fr/pages/fillaux/152_JPCM_2006_3229.pdf

Also related may be the paper:
Proton transfer across hydrogen bonds: From reaction path to Schrödingers
cat*
http://media.iupac.org/publications/pac/2007/pdf/7906x1023.pdf

and other citing papers at:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=enlr=cites=14755060705510149149um=1ie=UTF-8ei=QTwWT4uZMq3KiAKR1YTGDwsa=Xoi=science_linksct=sl-citedbyresnum=2ved=0CCkQzgIwAQ

This is very interesting but also very difficult reading - even apart from
CF/LENR connections. I have not really seen related material before.
Hopefully, some more elementary introductory papers are available. If I
find any, I will post pointers to them. Do you know of any?

Regards,
Lou Pagnucco

Thanks for posting this - and it is intriguing in one way but flawed in
another - certainly in the suggested binding energy. If it were true, the
nickel active material would be completely unmeltable, for one thing.
There
is no basis for going to that extreme.

The most obvious flaw in this theory goes back to the vagaries of the QM
species called a multiparticle, which is theorized as an variety of
entangled species but otherwise is imaginary. Of course, the neutrino was
also imaginary at one early stage. OTOH, the part about entanglement is
possibly the best feature, in explaining E-Cat/Hyperion - because the
sudden
loss of entanglement is the elegant way to explain the huge problem of
periodic quiescence. And the appearance of entanglement explains how the
strong force can be used for gain without fusion or fission. And the
re-emergence of entanglement explains why the reactor can be started up
again easily but with a time delay.

In Rossis reactor, these Russian theorists say the multiparticle is
created
by the color interaction of molecular hydrogen H2 electrons and Ni crystal
lattice atoms valence electrons. This kind of sounds like
spintronics/excitonics - and it should. The more you think about it, the
more sense it makes.

But there are two big problems before moving forward - first,
multiparticles
have not been documented as real AFAIK - and second, certainly not
detected
with anything close to this binding energy (~300 keV). They need to get
realistic on the binding energy. Spintronics/excitonic potential energy is
far less.

Of course, the proof could be E-cat/Hyperion and even Thermacore. We have
talked about entanglement before - and this is the second best way to
realize how it would work in practice. The best way is still to suggest
that
the nickel is responsible for spillover and surface pitting provides the
rigidity. Proton entanglement of dense surface hydrogen (2D) makes sense
as
it is already bound in 5 or 6 atoms, according to Holmlid, and certain
kinds
of surface crystals makes sense too - especially since one particular
paper
can explain the earlier Thermacore work with Potassium catalyst. See
Macroscopic quantum entanglement and super-rigidity of protons in the
KHCO3 crystal Abstract here:

http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-8984/18/12/006

If we find out that either Rossi or DGT did copy Thermacore's use of
potassium carbonate as the so called secret then the entanglement
hypothesis will vault ahead of all the others as the most likely
explanation.

Please post the news - if anyone finds reference or evidence to potassium
carbonate in either of these newer devices. It will definitely be the
smoking gun.

BTW hydrogen potassium carbonate is expected from the dehydrogenated
molecule, in the presence of spillover, and the initial entanglement could
be a nano-magnetic phenomenon of the adjoining nickel.

-Original Message-
From: ecat builder

Here is an alternate site for download:

http://ecatplanet.net/downloads/pdf/Reaktor_Rossi.pdf

- Brad

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:23 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:
The website has been down for some time now.
It keeps returning the message: Bandwidth Exceeded ... try again later.

It sounds like a pretty sophisticated theory that only a few can
properly
assess. Does it make any testable predictions? Or does it provide any
insights into the CF/LENR results reported so far?

Re: [Vo]:LENR G Silver Currency

2012-01-17 Thread Eric Walker

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint 
zeropo...@charter.net wrote:

 Sure, the US went off the gold standard decades ago (a mistake in my
 opinion), but where does money get invested when currencies weaken…
 precious metals.  You do realize that we’re not just talking transmutation
 of two or three elements… the LENR tests which looked for transmuted
 elements found many… some over ten different elements, and I’m not counting
 isotopes as separate elements.  LENR would most likely have a very
 disruptive impact on that market… which has advantages as well as
 disadvans… a lot of those metals are used in technologies like integrated
 circuits and special alloys for aircraft, and the price will come down,
 which is good for the consumer.


Yeah -- I've taken a look at some of the NAA and SIMS spectra.  The
isotopes are all over the map.  If the data are taken at face value, it
looks like whatever you put on the nickel or palladium surface could
potentially be modified significantly.  It's interesting on some level to
think that you could generate isotopes using a controlled process of some
kind, and being able to do this would no doubt be valuable for scientific
and technological applications.

But there are three considerations that give me pause, here.  The first two
are related to evidence and the third to safety.  First, a lot of the
spectra in the papers are small and hard to read and don't give you clear
error bars, so it's difficult to get a sense of how much above error the
shifts are at the end of the experiment.  Some papers give this level of
detail, which is helpful to have.  But in any event the following slides
give a good overview of some of the subtleties involved in this kind of
measurement:  http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ApicellaMmassspectr.pdf.

Second, I don't have a good sense of what the difference between a genuine
shift in isotopes, on one hand, and contamination of some kind, on the
other, would look like.  The question legitimately arises whether there are
simply impurities in the hydrogen gas or heavy water that are glomming onto
the cathode.  I imagine there are some people who could look at the spectra
and immediately get a sense of the difference.

A third concern relates to safety.  The possibility has already been
brought up that if these experiments emit gamma rays (I've read several
papers that indicate that they do under certain circumstances), then it's
likely that any devices would be regulated.  It's fine to create
regulations, but since such devices involve components that you can
purchase over the Internet and assemble at home, there's only so much you
can do to keep any emerging technology under control.  What if you could
take something like uranium-238, which is relatively abundant, add
sufficient neutrons to it and then let it alpha and beta decay to
uranium-235?  This is the kind of thing that happens in the course of
r-process nucleosynthesis, which seems like it might be similar to what is
going on in LENR.  This chart suggests that if you can get something into
the actinide series, you're well on your way:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radioactive_decay_chains_diagram.svg

I can only imagine that there are complications here and there, including
losing relatively unstable isotopes before they can accumulate.  But the
larger point is that the discovery of LENR, if it is real, might have
negative implications as well as positive ones.

Re: [Vo]:Cooper pairing of protons

2012-01-17 Thread mixent

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Sun, 8 Jan 2012 02:35:02 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
Where N can be 1 to very many, N identical waves are said to be coherent.
These many waves have the same waveform; they are all in fact the same
wave. Since particles are matter waves, N particles that are identical and
indistinguishable are coherent.  These matter waves can be made identical
by any number of resonance interactions.

I think that to be coherent they also need to be in phase, which is nearly
impossible to achieve if they are in motion relative to one another.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi selling Licences?

2012-01-17 Thread Patrick Ellul

@Aussie Guy: You better hurry before you lose the exclusivity to sell
e-cats down under, to Dick Smith :) just kidding!

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 Like, wow!  This is hotter than a Rossi Reactor.

 T

RE: [Vo]:From NET: Bockris is still in the game!!

Abd,

I only want to ask your opinion on the unexpectedly low gamma radiation.

Let's assume we have a nanowire (or nano-protrusion on a nano-particle)
with diameter of a few nanometers and (experimentally observed) carrying a
huge 10^11 [Amp/cm^2] current density.

Then would this nanowire be enveloped in an ultra-intense surface vortex
plasmon of very high momentum electrons?

If a gamma release occurred at, or below, the metal surface, could many
gammas escape at their birth energies, or would Compton-effect
collisions with the electron shroud deplete most of their energy?

Thanks,
Lou Pagnucco

 At 11:53 PM 1/16/2012, you wrote:
I asked a close
friend (PhD physicist) and he said the same thing as Krivit; that fusion
[...]
 Now, W-L theory predicts *lots* of transmutations. These are not
 observed to be correlated with the heat. Transmutations are indeed
 observed, but at levels way below that of helium. Further, gamma
 emissions would be expected from neutron activation reactions from
 any slow neutrons, not to mention ultra low momentum neutrons. The
 gammas are not observed. W-L propose a totally novel mechanism for
 gamma suppression, and, realize, this mechanism would have to be very
 efficient, catching *lots* of gammas, yet the mechanism would only
 cover, as proposed, the area of formation of heavy electrons. there
 would be edge effects, some gammas would escape.

 (Note that Larsen has patented a gamma ray shield based on this idea.
 There is no published confirmation of any such effect, and Larsen has
 never revealed any experimental evidence behind the claim. That such
 a patent could be issued, while patents on cold fusion are rejected
 as impossible, like perpetual motion machines, is just an example
 of how much damage the physics establishment did with its little
 semantic error.)

RE: [Vo]:LENR G Silver Currency

Welcome Bruno!

Hey, Vorts, has the Collective ever had the contributions from an economist
before?

 

Anyway, Bruno, thanks for your comments, and I would encourage you to
analyze this from the perspective that it is *real*, that it is an entirely
new type of nuclear/chemical reaction, and will result in replacing
petroleum as the energy source for the world.  I think the Collective would
very much like to hear what an economist thinks will happen. how is this
going to affect the financial markets.  Your insights will bring a very
different and welcome perspective. although, don't be surprised if some
Vorts argue some of the points with you!  We are an opinionated bunch.

J

 

-Mark

 

From: Bruno Santos [mailto:besantos1...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 5:06 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR G  Silver  Currency

 

At last a theme where I can contribute, being an economist. :-)

 

Money today is Fiat money. There is no correlation between the dollar and
the oil. Oil has its price on dollar, not the other way around. 

 

Currencies have their value based on several things, amongst which:
government credibility, inflation expectations, public debt, interests,
etc... 

 

There would be significant changes in currencies exchange prices if the oil
economy should collapse. But that is not because the oil backup today's
currencies, but because some of those things that holds some currencies
values worldwide would change significantly. I mean, lending money to
Venezuela or Russia could be a bad idea, since these countries currencies
value depends a lot on oil/gas exports. People would sell bolivares and
rublos because their perception of these currencies risk would increase
overnight. America would have a smaller trade deficit and China would have
an even larger trade surplus. 

 

What would happen to the financial markets wordwide? Nobody knows... Oil/Gas
companies are either first or second largest companies in some very large
markets like USA, China, Brazil, Great Britain, France and Russia stock
exchanges... 

 

The electricity generation and distribution companies are also very
important for the financial markets, as those companies usually are blue
chips and long term safe houses.  

 

Best regards,

 

Bruno 

2012/1/17 mix...@bigpond.com

In reply to  Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint's message of Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:29:56
-0800:
Hi,
[snip]

In addition, if currencies are based on the petro$, then that's going to
collapse like a tons of bricks when the financial industry realizes that
LENR just made petroleum obsolete.  Then, currencies will be Nickel-based?
Or what?

...there is really only one thing that all humans agree is valuable: human
effort. Everyone values their own time. It may be the only resource that
will
remain scarce.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

RE: [Vo]:Rossi selling Licenses?

Jones,
You missed your calling...
:-)
-m
_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 7:13 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi selling Licenses?

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 

 Like, wow!  This is hotter than a Rossi Reactor.

Appropriate song on the jazz station just now, 
from 'A Little Night Music' if you are old enough to remember

Send in the Clowns

Don't you love farce?
His fault, it's clear.
I thought that he'd want what we want.
But not Rossi I fear.
Where are the clowns?
Quick, send in the clowns.
Don't bother, they're here.

Isn't it rich?
Isn't it queer,
Losing his timing this late
In his career?
Where are the E-cat?
There ought to be E-cats.
Well, maybe next year.

... Apologies to Stephen Sondheim
attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:Forbes and Gibbs Garbage: NASA says Cold Fusion is Nothing Useful

2012-01-17 Thread Harry Veeder

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
 At 01:12 PM 1/17/2012, ***  Craig Brown *** wrote:

 I think the question here is WHY?  Why release a video saying LENR is
 looking good as a powerful replacement for conventional fossil fuels, then
 when questioned about it, Zawodny tells everyone, that it's not useful and
 that he's sceptical about it.

 Seriously, WTF is going on at NASA?


 You need to re-read Zawodny's blog :
 http://joe.zawodny.com/index.php/2012/01/14/technology-gateway-video/

 a) They're required to publicize any patent, and a layman's video is one way
 of doing it.

 b) Zawodny says that he believes there IS credible evidence for LENR

 c) Zawodny says that he has NOT seen credible scientific evidence for any
 clear and convincing demonstrations of any viable **commercial** device
 producing useful amounts of net energy (and then clarifies what he means by
 scientific evidence -- and I think everyone here agrees that Rossi's tests
 didn't amount to that, and that Defkalion have showed nothing.)  It's Rossi
 (and Defkalion) he's skeptical of.

 d) The subject heading is a mis-statement of what Gibbs said (ie that NASA's
 statement added nothing useful). Neither Zawodny or Gibbs said that LENR
 couldn't be useful.


Zawodny wrote on his blog:
As for what people are trying to read into this video, specifically
my use of the word “demonstrated”, it is my professional opinion that
the production of excess energy has been demonstrated when the results
of the last 20+ years of experimentation are evaluated. There has been
a lot of work done in the past 20+ years. When considered in aggregate
I believe excess power has been demonstrated. I did not say, reliable,
useful, commercially viable, or controllable.  If any of those other
terms were applicable I would have used them instead. If anything, it
is the lack of a single clear demonstration of reliable, useful, and
controllable production of excess power that has held LENR research
back. As a non-technical piece aimed at the general public, my limited
media training has taught me that less information/detail is generally
better than more. I did not produce or direct the video. While I saw
the video before it was released, I did not learn of it’s release
until the email started pouring in Thursday morning.

He paints a dismal picture of progress in the field. There has been
more than a single instance of reliable and controllable amounts of
excess heat.The lastest commercial claims, even if they remain
shrouded in trade secrets, should have been expected to arise by now
give the pace of developments in recent years.


Harry

RE: [Vo]:Cooper pairing of protons