Re: [Vo]:Rossi - development problems?
Dear Peter, I have no idea if the problem is control. Probably yes. Anyway I find really suspect that number 6 is such a magic number: the only invariant in e-cat. While IMHO experiments show that COP is much higher for long time intervals depending on setup. It is like saying that since a one year baby can barely stand up, he will never be able to run a marathon when adult. Smokemirror for competitors? Avoding troubles for passing certifications? mic 2012/5/3 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Michele, A very interesting approach. The problem is to NOT confound AR's weaknesses with the essence of his E-cat generator that has IMHO (and really, it seems) increased with two orders of magnitude the energy density and intensity compared with the nanometric Ni etc materials a la Arata etc. What do you think? Peter On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote: That blog is indeed cursed by a semi-sentient program that believes that its name is AR. While AR can be frustrating at times, when I want answers that make more sense and have deeper implication I use to talk the Emacs doctor (Eliza with a degree in psychotherapy): https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Total-Frustration.html As you can see from this example, more common sense is in the simulated dialogs: https://scalesoflibra.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/more-fun-with-eliza-the-emacs-psychotherapist/ mic 2012/5/2 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: Perfect;y possible, however immediacy is in the question but not in the answer. With Rossi you never know. On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-05-02 21:11, Peter Gluck wrote: A recent dialog of Andrea Rossi with one of his kibitzes (only the relevant part): Do you plan to increase the COP in the near future? c) I think the keyword here is __near__ future. My take: planned obsolescence. Cheers, S.A. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi - development problems?
I am just writing kind of explanation-in-context for Rossi's discovery. The news about Rossi's competition are largely exagerated.There is only Defkalion, many classes superior tto Rossi in engineering, management, science (yes because Rossi has only used scientists but is not working with them!), management and business strategy. Little chances that anything else understood what Rossi' so called catalyst is and is not. On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Peter, I have no idea if the problem is control. Probably yes. Anyway I find really suspect that number 6 is such a magic number: the only invariant in e-cat. While IMHO experiments show that COP is much higher for long time intervals depending on setup. It is like saying that since a one year baby can barely stand up, he will never be able to run a marathon when adult. Smokemirror for competitors? Avoding troubles for passing certifications? mic 2012/5/3 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Michele, A very interesting approach. The problem is to NOT confound AR's weaknesses with the essence of his E-cat generator that has IMHO (and really, it seems) increased with two orders of magnitude the energy density and intensity compared with the nanometric Ni etc materials a la Arata etc. What do you think? Peter On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote: That blog is indeed cursed by a semi-sentient program that believes that its name is AR. While AR can be frustrating at times, when I want answers that make more sense and have deeper implication I use to talk the Emacs doctor (Eliza with a degree in psychotherapy): https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Total-Frustration.html As you can see from this example, more common sense is in the simulated dialogs: https://scalesoflibra.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/more-fun-with-eliza-the-emacs-psychotherapist/ mic 2012/5/2 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: Perfect;y possible, however immediacy is in the question but not in the answer. With Rossi you never know. On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-05-02 21:11, Peter Gluck wrote: A recent dialog of Andrea Rossi with one of his kibitzes (only the relevant part): Do you plan to increase the COP in the near future? c) I think the keyword here is __near__ future. My take: planned obsolescence. Cheers, S.A. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Correspondence about the rejected paper
Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Call me a moron, but without more context it is not obvious to me that this qualifies as an idiotic rejection letter. Here is a message about that letter that I posted in 2006. *Famous letter from Lindley* During the course of a discussion elsewhere, I uploaded a famous letter from Lindley to Noninski: http://www.lenr-canr.org/Collections/Lindley.jpg The first paragraph is remarkable. Noninski wrote a critique of Lewis, and Lindley sent the critique to Lewis himself for advice. In other words, he asked Lewis whether a critique of his paper should be accepted or rejected, and Lewis decided that his own work was valid and should not be critiqued. However, this is not quite as bad as it looks. Note that the paper was rejected by an independent reviewer in the first round. As I recall, this letter was sent after the second or third round. Noninski tried to rewrite the paper to satisfy the independent reviewer. In the later round, Lindley decided to skip the independent review and have this paper checked by Lewis directly. The first paragraph is, shall we say, unconventional and surprising. Let's leave it at that. When you look carefully, you will see that it is the second paragraph which is truly mind blowing. This copy was sent to me by Melvin Miles, and I believe it was he who marked the second paragraph. Read it carefully. For lack of a better word, let me suggest you savor it, and analyze it step by step, the way a translator might carefully takes prise apart a cryptic sentence in an ancient document in a forgotten language. You may have to read through it several times before you realize what Lindley is saying, and what he demands of Noninski. Let us list some of the weird assertions Lindley has packed into these few short but telling sentences: 1. Lindley demands that Noninski find a single reason -- an equation -- that would simultaneously prove that all negative experiments, including Harwell and others, are actually positive. 2. In other words, but Lindley asserts that all cold fusion experimental results are uniform. The experiments all produced the same result. One explanation must account for all of them. Lindley rejects the idea that some null experiments failed for one reason and some for another. Actually, it appears this idea never crossed his mind. He thinks that all experiments produce a single yes or no result that can only be explained by a single set of equations. The effect either exists or does not, and all experiments automatically prove the issue one way or another. In reality, Lewis got positive heat but he made a mistake in his equation, so he did not recognize it. In many other experiments the result was actually negative because the cathodes cracked, or people did not wait long enough, or the surface was contaminated, or the experiment failed for any of a hundred other reasons. Lewis made a mistake in his equations, but many other researchers used in the proper equations and actually did get a negative result. Noninski did not prove that other negative results were actually positive, and he never set out to do that or claimed he had done that. He did not even address these other experiments. But Lindley assumed this is what Noninski was trying to do. We assume that the wide variety of puzzling and varying results, both positive and negative, indicate that the experiment is complicated and that it is difficult to understand what is happening. Again, this thought apparently never crossed Lindley's mind. 3. Getting back to wild assertions, Lindley apparently believes that Noninski's methods are unorthodox and that he is trying to make a special case, or invent new physics, when in fact Noninski is only asserting that ordinary, conventional equations should be applied. Noninski is saying that Lewis made a mistake. (To summarize very briefly Lewis assumed the calibration constant changed, when in fact it remained the same and the apparent change was caused by excess heat.) It is astounding that an editor of Nature could be so appallingly ignorant of how experiments are conducted, how varied complex they are, and how people go about interpreting the results. Lindley seems to have comic book level understanding of experimental science. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi - development problems?
It is possible that control issues make the 6 COP a limit for Rossi. I assume that eventually he will overcome this problem as DGT seems to suggest in their claims. I am amazed that he has consistently insisted that the COP of 6 is firm. If temperature within the core is the main variable determining the reaction rate then he may have to eventually incorporate an active cooling technique as I have suggested on numerous occasions if he is to achieve a higher COP. Also, please note that COP is not the final measure of performance that we should monitor. The delta temperature between output and source as well as the output temperature itself in conjunction with the COP are performance defining. Do not be mislead by sticking to the COP value only. Dave -Original Message- From: Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, May 3, 2012 5:30 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi - development problems? Dear Peter, I have no idea if the problem is control. Probably yes. nyway I find really suspect that number 6 is such a magic number: the nly invariant in e-cat. hile IMHO experiments show that COP is much higher for long time ntervals depending on setup. t is like saying that since a one year baby can barely stand up, he ill never be able to run a marathon when adult. Smokemirror for competitors? Avoding troubles for passing certifications? mic
Re: [Vo]:LENR detailitis
I wrote: What I would love to see are some (very) simple statements that all can agree on that, if tested and found conclusively true or false to everyone's satisfaction, would help to sift between the competing explanations. I offer one such possible statement as an example: - Ionization of the atomic hydrogen or deuterium required for a LENR-type reaction to proceed. This seems like something that could be tested with one or more clever experiments and found to be false. It would probably be harder to prove that it is true, but that's generally the case with any proposition, so I don't think it should be a problem here. Storms mentions four proposed limitations to any theory: - Neutrons do not initiate cold fusion reactions. - Spontaneous local concentration of energy cannot be the cause of nuclear reactions. - Compact clusters of deuterons cannot form spontaneously simply by occupying sites in palladium that are too small to permit normal bond lengths. - For energy to be released from a nuclear reaction, at least two products must be produced. I like these proposed limitations, since they can all be true or false, but a reservation I have is that some or all of them are quite general and possibly hard to test. What would be nice is a set of statements that are very concrete and testable. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR detailitis
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: What I would love to see are some (very) simple statements that all can agree on that, if tested and found conclusively true or false to everyone's satisfaction, would help to sift between the competing explanations. I offer one such possible statement as an example: - Ionization of the atomic hydrogen or deuterium required for a LENR-type reaction to proceed. This seems like something that could be tested with one or more clever experiments and found to be false. It would probably be harder to prove that it is true, but that's generally the case with any proposition, so I don't think it should be a problem here. Storms mentions four proposed limitations to any theory: - Neutrons do not initiate cold fusion reactions. - Spontaneous local concentration of energy cannot be the cause of nuclear reactions. - Compact clusters of deuterons cannot form spontaneously simply by occupying sites in palladium that are too small to permit normal bond lengths. - For energy to be released from a nuclear reaction, at least two products must be produced. I like these proposed limitations, since they can all be true or false, but a reservation I have is that some or all of them are quite general and possibly hard to test. What would be nice is a set of statements that are very concrete and testable. I am just writing bout some similar ideas. For Pd-D LENR *testable *is a poisoned word. Peter Eric -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:LENR detailitis
You are assuming that hydrogen is the only element that can be used in an LENR reaction. This should be verified. I suspect that the statement that neutrons do not initiate cold fusion reactions might not always be correct. One would expect a slow moving neutron that happens upon a nucleus would be absorbed and give off a large amount of energy and other reaction components. This new influx of energy might trigger the coming events. The cratering events seems to suggest that energy is released as a cascade of reactions in some LENR cases. That implies that local heating or radiation could be important. Does the reference to two products include energy as one and the transformed nucleus as the other? I think you should add an expectation that temperature affects the reaction rates in general. Rossi's device does not begin producing heat until it is at a minimum temperature. Does evidence exist to suggest that magnetic fields have a major influence upon the reactions? The same question should be addressed regarding electric fields and currents. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, May 3, 2012 11:36 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR detailitis I wrote: What I would love to see are some (very) simple statements that all can agree on that, if tested and found conclusively true or false to everyone's satisfaction, would help to sift between the competing explanations. I offer one such possible statement as an example: Ionization of the atomic hydrogen or deuterium required for a LENR-type reaction to proceed. This seems like something that could be tested with one or more clever experiments and found to be false. It would probably be harder to prove that it is true, but that's generally the case with any proposition, so I don't think it should be a problem here. Storms mentions four proposed limitations to any theory: Neutrons do not initiate cold fusion reactions. Spontaneous local concentration of energy cannot be the cause of nuclear reactions. Compact clusters of deuterons cannot form spontaneously simply by occupying sites in palladium that are too small to permit normal bond lengths. For energy to be released from a nuclear reaction, at least two products must be produced. I like these proposed limitations, since they can all be true or false, but a reservation I have is that some or all of them are quite general and possibly hard to test. What would be nice is a set of statements that are very concrete and testable. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Correspondence about the rejected paper
Pam Boss pointed out the the choice of words in this letter is very insulting and unprofessional. Even if your contrived attempt... I am so used to that tone I hardly noticed. Lindley is famous for calling for unrestrained mockery, even a little unqualified vituperation to destroy cold fusion. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LindleyDtheembarra.pdf Lindley is the second dumbest person associated with cold fusion. The late Nate Hoffman was the stupidest, in my opinion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:LENR detailitis
Eric, Already understood. H=p+ + e- What do you think ionization is? I side with Chan. http://chan.host-ed.me/ ZAP energy = H2 = proton cation plus hydride anion (See image on site). Or obtain from metal hydride. Hydride anion fits into Ni nano matrix structure in an orderly manner. Then under influence of magnetic and gravitational fields, oscillates in tandem with its sisters and achieves entrance into the Ni nucleus. The rest is history. Warm regards, Reliable Eric Walker wrote: I wrote: What I would love to see are some (very) simple statements that all can agree on that, if tested and found conclusively true or false to everyone's satisfaction, would help to sift between the competing explanations. I offer one such possible statement as an example: * Ionization of the atomic hydrogen or deuterium required for a LENR-type reaction to proceed. This seems like something that could be tested with one or more clever experiments and found to be false. It would probably be harder to prove that it is true, but that's generally the case with any proposition, so I don't think it should be a problem here. Storms mentions four proposed limitations to any theory: * Neutrons do not initiate cold fusion reactions. * Spontaneous local concentration of energy cannot be the cause of nuclear reactions. * Compact clusters of deuterons cannot form spontaneously simply by occupying sites in palladium that are too small to permit normal bond lengths. * For energy to be released from a nuclear reaction, at least two products must be produced. I like these proposed limitations, since they can all be true or false, but a reservation I have is that some or all of them are quite general and possibly hard to test. What would be nice is a set of statements that are very concrete and testable. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR detailitis
*Then under influence of magnetic and gravitational fields,* * * When the only driver in the system is heat, where does the magnetic field come from. On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 2:45 PM, integral.property.serv...@gmail.com integral.property.serv...@gmail.com wrote: Eric, Already understood. H=p+ + e- What do you think ionization is? I side with Chan. http://chan.host-ed.me/ ZAP energy = H2 = proton cation plus hydride anion (See image on site). Or obtain from metal hydride. Hydride anion fits into Ni nano matrix structure in an orderly manner. Then under influence of magnetic and gravitational fields, oscillates in tandem with its sisters and achieves entrance into the Ni nucleus. The rest is history. Warm regards, Reliable Eric Walker wrote: I wrote: What I would love to see are some (very) simple statements that all can agree on that, if tested and found conclusively true or false to everyone's satisfaction, would help to sift between the competing explanations. I offer one such possible statement as an example: * Ionization of the atomic hydrogen or deuterium required for a LENR-type reaction to proceed. This seems like something that could be tested with one or more clever experiments and found to be false. It would probably be harder to prove that it is true, but that's generally the case with any proposition, so I don't think it should be a problem here. Storms mentions four proposed limitations to any theory: * Neutrons do not initiate cold fusion reactions. * Spontaneous local concentration of energy cannot be the cause of nuclear reactions. * Compact clusters of deuterons cannot form spontaneously simply by occupying sites in palladium that are too small to permit normal bond lengths. * For energy to be released from a nuclear reaction, at least two products must be produced. I like these proposed limitations, since they can all be true or false, but a reservation I have is that some or all of them are quite general and possibly hard to test. What would be nice is a set of statements that are very concrete and testable. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion has 21 Jobs posted - Mats twitter a/c hacked : speculation
At 11:24 AM 5/2/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote: Hat-tip to Mats Lewan : Defkalion posts job listing for 21 professionals http://matslew.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/defkalion-posts-job-listing-for-21-professionals/ Mats' twitter account got hacked ... I got an email purportedly from him saying that people have been saying bad things about you .. and a tinyurl to a BAD place. He said it should be fixed by now. But he subsequently tweeted : presumably about defkalion tests ... Not at the moment. But things seem moving. Hope to get back with more news within a month or so. Wild speculation : the initial bare tests were successful, but with the prototype nearly complete, all the teams are doing a system calorimetric test as well.
[Vo]:Sunday and Monday free promotional copies avaliable
Free promotional copies of my book Elementary Antigravity II available Monday. I hope. Amazon is having some troubles the last few days and it may be stuck. I can't update but I believe an older version (3) will be presented. If you don't have Kindle download a free reader on you computer from Amazon. Electronics Project is also running on a free promotion. The reader is nice, many older books run very cheep or free. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8search-alias=digital-textfield-author=Frank%20Znidarsic enjoy the free books Frank Znidarsic
[Vo]:Fwd: Sunday and Monday free promotional copies avaliable
Opps Sat and Sunday free promotion. The Kindle viewer is here. http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?ie=UTF8docId=1000426311 -Original Message- From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, May 3, 2012 3:31 pm Subject: Sunday and Monday free promotional copies avaliable Free promotional copies of my book Elementary Antigravity II available Monday. I hope. Amazon is having some troubles the last few days and it may be stuck. I can't update but I believe an older version (3) will be presented. If you don't have Kindle download a free reader on you computer from Amazon. Electronics Project is also running on a free promotion. The reader is nice, many older books run very cheep or free. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8search-alias=digital-textfield-author=Frank%20Znidarsic enjoy the free books Frank Znidarsic
Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Sunday and Monday free promotional copies avaliable
Now it comes up as a Friday and a Saturday free promotion. Its always more difficult to do than to say. I spoke before a local group on how to write for Kindle. A local asked me to speak because she liked the idea. Some have asked me to write for them, One has notes in a box that I could make something really good out of. The other has a mess that was typed up 20 years ago in a scattered condition. One has ideas that I could help get together. Another wants to write a children's book and sketched some comic characters. What is paintbrush this one asked. I am tried, thank you! Maybe Jed could do something for them, no pay of course. -Original Message- From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, May 3, 2012 3:39 pm Subject: [Vo]:Fwd: Sunday and Monday free promotional copies avaliable Opps Sat and Sunday free promotion. The Kindle viewer is here. http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?ie=UTF8docId=1000426311 -Original Message- From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, May 3, 2012 3:31 pm Subject: Sunday and Monday free promotional copies avaliable Free promotional copies of my book Elementary Antigravity II available Monday. I hope. Amazon is having some troubles the last few days and it may be stuck. I can't update but I believe an older version (3) will be presented. If you don't have Kindle download a free reader on you computer from Amazon. Electronics Project is also running on a free promotion. The reader is nice, many older books run very cheep or free. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8search-alias=digital-textfield-author=Frank%20Znidarsic enjoy the free books Frank Znidarsic
[Vo]:Planned Outage
Resent-From: outages-l...@eskimo.com From: Eskimo Support Staff supp...@eskimo.com Date: May 3, 2012 1:34:22 AM PDT To: outages-l...@eskimo.com Subject: Schedualed Maintenance Friday 10pm-12pm'ish We got the broken machine repaired but did not get the updates done this Wednesday, so Carl and I will be doing additional work Friday evening to do software updates. These will require all machines to be rebooted so there will be brief (hopefully) interruptions to all host services that evening. If you use our service for dial-up or DSL service, this may result in a brief interruption of authentication, so if you are unable to get on the net this evening, wait about ten minutes and try again and you should be ok. Eskimo North Support | Voice Numbers - (206)812-0051 or 800-246-6874 supp...@eskimo.com | Voice help available 9am to 5pm (PST) Mon-Fri PO Box 55816 | (Temporarily closed Saturday and Sunday) Seattle, WA 98155-0816 |Fax us at - (206)812-0054
Re: [Vo]:LENR detailitis
Axil, FYI: http://www.tfcbooks.com/mall/more/563nh.htm and perhaps a peek at a discard I dug out of the trash basket next to my desk sent by a fellow interested person: 1. Consider the nucleus of any virtual partial A a. A is positively charged. 2. Consider a subset of A, As with a unit mass of 1 a. Let As = p b. Name p Proton c. p has a unit positive charge. 3. Consider A surrounded by empty energy wells of positive electrostatic fields able to fill in proportion to the distance from an approaching negative charge. a. Let p be located at the precise center of a spherical energy well such that the well depth or energy density potential varies by discrete jumps from the beginning of a radius and traveling outwardly. b. Assign p mass mP (Of the Gravitational ratio Force to Acceleration) defined as the arbitrary quantity mP=938.3 MeV/c2 The nuclear magnetic moment is expressed in terms of the nuclear spin in the form: where we have now introduced a new unit called a nuclear magneton. For free protons with spin I =1/2, the magnetic moments are of the form: where the proton g-factor: Proton: g = 5.5856912 +/- 0.022 and more at: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/nspin.html May all my friends here be attracted by a thirst for knowledge to explore in depth the mysteries of cold fusion mathematically. Warm Regards, Reliable Axil Axil wrote: Then under influence of magnetic and gravitational fields, When the only driver in the system is heat, where does the magnetic field come from. On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 2:45 PM, integral.property.serv...@gmail.com integral.property.serv...@gmail.com wrote: Eric, Already understood. H=p+ + e- What do you think ionization is? I side with Chan. http://chan.host-ed.me/ ZAP energy = H2 = proton cation plus hydride anion (See image on site). Or obtain from metal hydride. Hydride anion fits into Ni nano matrix structure in an orderly manner. Then under influence of magnetic and gravitational fields, oscillates in tandem with its sisters and achieves entrance into the Ni nucleus. The rest is history. Warm regards, Reliable Eric Walker wrote: I wrote: What I would love to see are some (very) simple statements that all can agree on that, if tested and found conclusively true or false to everyone's satisfaction, would help to sift between the competing explanations. I offer one such possible statement as an example: * Ionization of the atomic hydrogen or deuterium required for a LENR-type reaction to proceed. This seems like something that could be tested with one or more clever experiments and found to be false. It would probably be harder to prove that it is true, but that's generally the case with any proposition, so I don't think it should be a problem here. Storms mentions four proposed limitations to any theory: * Neutrons do not initiate cold fusion reactions. * Spontaneous local concentration of energy cannot be the cause of nuclear reactions. * Compact clusters of deuterons cannot form spontaneously simply by occupying sites in palladium that are too small to permit normal bond lengths. * For energy to be released from a nuclear reaction, at least two products must be produced. I like these proposed limitations, since they can all be true or false, but a reservation I have is that some or all of them are quite general and possibly hard to test. What would be nice is a set of statements that are very concrete and testable. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Correspondence about the rejected paper
At 12:40 PM 5/3/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Pam Boss pointed out the the choice of words in this letter is very insulting and unprofessional. Even if your contrived attempt... I am so used to that tone I hardly noticed. Lindley is famous for calling for unrestrained mockery, even a little unqualified vituperation to destroy cold fusion. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LindleyDtheembarra.pdfhttp://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LindleyDtheembarra.pdf Lindley is the second dumbest person associated with cold fusion. The late Nate Hoffman was the stupidest, in my opinion. Yeah, Jed, we discussed the late Nate when we first started corresponding. I very much disagree with you about Mr. Hoffman. He made some mistakes, no question about that, but there is nobody on the planet who has not done that. Hoffman's basic approach was sound, given the time and context, and his book, A Dialogue on Chemically Induced Nuclear Effects, definitely leaves the cold fusion story open; it was issued before the heat/helium thing had become confirmed. To associate a sober commentator like Hoffman, who very much approached the matter neutrally and thoughfully, with someone like Lindley, is thoughtless. Jed, please give it up. As a reasonably typical example, from Hoffman's book, talking about Pons and Fleischmann's famous error in reporting a certain kind of gamma radiation from their cells (and without validating everything he wrote): ...In this case, these top electrochemists had ventured into using one of the most important and familiar tools of the hot fusion physicists and had stumbled over an artifact most familiar to this clan. Adding to the feud, hot fusion physicists function through peer review and open publication in scientific journals, while electrochemists function through patents, secrecy, and commercial ventures. (What's important here isn't the specific difference between hot fusion physicists and electrochemists, which certainly is not precise, nor even correct -- it's a gross generalization -- but rather the concept that the physicists and chemists do operate in different environments, with different expectations. Hoffman really helped me, as I was starting out to learn about cold fusion, to recognize the situation as a turf war, with the chemists saying this isn't chemistry, and the physicists saying, this isn't nuclear physics. I.e., both groups were really saying, we don't recognize this alleged phenomenon as being what we know.) And he continued: Well, the hot fusion physicists thought they had delivered a head-removing saber slash to cold fusion when they got the most prestigious scientific journal, Nature, to react at this faux pas by rejecting any article that was not highly critical of cold fusion, while accepting very preliminary, messy experiments that were anti-cold fusion. Of course, the hot fusion physicists were outraged when Pons and Fleischmann proceeded on, without a trace of a limp from their stumble, to get serious commercial backing for their secret techniques from Japanese sources. Hoffman reproduces some early reports about helium, all stuff that was highly misleading because there was no correlation with anomalous heat. That kind of error was repeated over and over in the literature and work of the time. It was assumed that if you did X, and if cold fusion was real, you would see fusion products. Indeed, you might, but X was uncharacterized, and the only way you could know that you actually reproduced the conditions of the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect was if you saw the heat. Many of these reports didn't even look for heat. They'd just make some palladium deuteride and poke radiation detectors at it, or the like. So we saw large numbers of reports, hundreds of papers, about people doing X, they thought, i.e., what Pons and Fleischmann had supposedly done, and looking for nuclear products, such as tritium, neutrons, radiation, or helium, as examples. Since even the best workers attempting X only saw heat a certain percentage of the time, under the best of conditions, and since many of these replication attempts weren't even reaching what became the known best conditions, that the nuclear products were not usually observed is, in hindsight, simply to be expected. In hindsight, it was colossally stupid, trying to investigate X without actually verifying that you were studying X, rather than something else. Suppose a certain person is a safe cracker, a bank robber. Leave this person alone in a bank, money disappears from the vault. So someone reports the disappearance of money from a bank vault, and claims that a bank robber must have been there, there is no other explanation. To test the theory that a bank robber took the money, they leave various criminal types alone in a bank, but no money disappears. And then this is cited as proof that the bank robber theory must be false. But a critical condition,
Re: [Vo]:LENR detailitis
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:29 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: You are assuming that hydrogen is the only element that can be used in an LENR reaction. This should be verified. You bring up an excellent point. My wording was not careful enough -- I should have made reference to known systems in the statement about ionization of hydrogen or deuterium. I have wondered what might happen in a larger lattice with larger larger ions. There might be something interesting that happens, or there might be a cyclical reaction that doesn't go anywhere. I suspect that the statement that neutrons do not initiate cold fusion reactions might not always be correct. One would expect a slow moving neutron that happens upon a nucleus would be absorbed and give off a large amount of energy and other reaction components. This new influx of energy might trigger the coming events. I personally am inclined against the statement about neutrons -- I'm rooting for a neutron reaction. When I say that I like the limitations proposed by Ed Storms, I mean this in the sense that they are potentially falsifiable, so they can be found to be true or false. I wish they were more concrete, however, and in that sense they're not quite what I had in mind, since I'm looking for statements that could potentially be tested in specific experiments. Storms seems to have general ground rules in mind for any explanation. Does the reference to two products include energy as one and the transformed nucleus as the other? Perhaps -- the explanation in the book seems to indicate that the limitation is being proposed in order to avoid magical reaction equations; e.g., throwing out conservation of momentum. I think you should add an expectation that temperature affects the reaction rates in general. Rossi's device does not begin producing heat until it is at a minimum temperature. I like that -- maybe something like, - A reaction stops if the temperature goes above a certain threshold, after which the substrate becomes unusable. - Below a certain threshold, there is a direct correlation between temperature and heat. Both of these statements assume that there's always heat -- that itself might be an interesting assumption to investigate. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR detailitis
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:01 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: - Below a certain threshold, there is a direct correlation between temperature and heat. Ha! I sure hope there is. I meant, a direct correlation between cell temperature and power or something like that. Eric
