Re: [Vo]:Stable, long lasting ~100 W cold fusion reactions have been demonstrated
as far as I have enduerstood, CEA Grenble have replicated and checked against more modern metrology. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LonchamptGreproducti.pdf but maybe I miss a point 2012/9/16 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com At 09:25 PM 9/15/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma**b...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: They didn't necessarily create it, keep it stable. Perhaps it *stayed* stable. There is, practically speaking, a huge difference. You are wrong. The paper shows 3 out of 7 runs worked, but they did it several other times not shown in the paper. Before they they performed the boil-off experiment hundreds of times reliably. They ran 32 tests at at time. Every one of them worked. If they'd been able to do that reliably, I doubt that Toyota would have given up funding Technova. And this technology would have been transferred. The decision to end the program was political. It had nothing to do with the quality of the results. It was about money, greed and power. The scion of Toyota who started the program died of old age, and others who were determined to stop it won out. Perhaps. However, while CF experiments are difficult, has that work by Pons and Fleischmann ever been replicated? If it was so reproducible, why not? I've seen an experimental series where a design seemed to work reliably. Then the researcher was later unable to reproduce it. Something had changed. What cuts through this kind of problem, as far as deepening investigation is concerned, is correlation. Heat/helium is not so much affected by this uncontrolled variability. If *all* experiments are no-heat, sure. Correlation doesn't help. But as long as some generate significant heat, heat/helium demonstrates the reality. To refer to something in another post, sure, we can be pretty good at engineering, but not necessarily when we don't understand how something is working. That's what has been missing: an understanding of the effect. Until we understand it, engineering is hit-and-miss. The pseudoskeptics deride cold fusion because of the common unreliability; however, that argument is demolished by correlation, specifically the correlation of heat with helium.
Re: [Vo]:Don't waste your time trying to edit the E-Cat Article
for the ethernal optimistixc about wikipedia, why not make wiki entries for the business men, not supporting CF, following the official delusion with a visible hypocritical view... fr Rossi, I would avoid, because he is the worst ad for skeptics... but put Robert godes, Truchard, Concezzi, xanthoulis, Nicolas Chauvin, making their CV (maybe ask them), then finisk with a short evocation of their current work... maybe crosslinked, avoiding the cold fusion hub. otherwise you could feed http://lenrwiki.eu/index.php?title=Main_Page to put mainstream cold fusion (I would be less supportive for other free energy devices) version, with minority reports inside if needed... We have no time to feed it 2012/9/16 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com At 10:27 PM 9/15/2012, Kelley Trezise wrote: So, here is my vote on the matter: Keep no merge This article has been taken over by a very small cadre of people opposed to even the mention of the Energy Catalyzer, Cold Fusion, LENR, LANR, etc. It is a stain on the reputation of WP that a small number of very abusive people can drive off the more moderate people, rewrite an article in a highly biased manner and then propose that the article be deleted. This article as it has been written by that small clique lies there like an unburried scat stinking up hell itself. And so it should remain as a stinky stain on the reputation of WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zedshort(talk • contribs) 01:23, 16 September 2012 Don't waste your time trying to edit the article as long as the current crew of trolls have control. It is best that it be left there for all to see but people need to vote honestly on its reliability and such. The article was proposed for deletion by a Single Purpose Account (SPA) who is very likely the sock puppet of a banned editor. There is revert warring on the article, seen today. I'm amazed that TheNextFuture has not only not been blocked, s/he has not even been warned about revert warring. Insilvis has also violated the 3RR rule. TheNextFuture probably knows exactly what s/he is doing, and doesn't care. Insilvis has no block history and may not realize that you can be blocked for 3RR violation for making good reverts, in themselves. However, there is a 3RR exception for reverting a banned editor. The guideline suggests not relying on this But nobody has attempted, as far as I can see, to address the revert warring and blatant sockery.
RE: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
This might be of interest, for transmutation on an even larger scale: POWER LINE STUDIES I: LABORATORY AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND EXPERIMENTS RELATING RADIOACTIVITY AND ALTERNATING ELECTRIC AND/OR MAGNETIC FIELDS ... which is the documentation of transmutation products under high power lines. http://staff.jccc.net/rhammack/section01.html thru http://staff.jccc.net/rhammack/section04.html -Original Message- From: John Newman Moving from the vac tube end of the spectrum to larger sizes, there is scope for closer examination of heavy duty industrial processes. Welding RD literature could be a rich hunting ground for baffled asides citing annoying post-welding impurities.
Re: [Vo]:Stable, long lasting ~100 W cold fusion reactions have been demonstrated
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: To refer to something in another post, sure, we can be pretty good at engineering, but not necessarily when we don't understand how something is working. That's what has been missing: an understanding of the effect. Until we understand it, engineering is hit-and-miss. And to refer to the rest of the 95% of that post: That's what I said.
Re: [Vo]:OT nuclear physicist as dutch prime minister?
UFO's are Unmistakable Formidable Objects UFO's are? /HTML
Re: [Vo]:Stable, long lasting ~100 W cold fusion reactions have been demonstrated
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: The scion of Toyota who started the program died of old age, and others who were determined to stop it won out. Perhaps. Perhaps what? Perhaps he is still alive? Perhaps they were not determined to close it down? They said they were! Fleischmann and everyone else connected with the program told me they were. However, while CF experiments are difficult, has that work by Pons and Fleischmann ever been replicated? If it was so reproducible, why not? First, the boil off experiments were replicated. Second it is not so reproducible. You need the materials and knowledge of the techniques, and both have been buried deeply by Toyota, Johnson Matthey and the NHE because of IP disputes. That is what I have heard. Why? I suppose because they resemble the proverbial Russian peasant: An angel appears before a peasant and says, God grants you any wish you like. The peasant falls to his knees in gratitude, singing God's praises. Until the angel adds: There is one condition. Whatever we give you, we will give twice that to your neighbor. The peasant is stunned, and stops to think. Finally he cries out, put out one of my eyes! The same dynamic was at work with Patterson and with Rossi and many others. In any case, you greatly exaggerate the irreproducability. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:no evidence yet of safety certificate.
You are absolutely correct. I am not an experienced user and I will not push this further ayway :-) Sverre Haslund 2012/9/16 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com At 05:03 AM 9/15/2012, Sverre Haslund wrote: Hmm.. my edit about SGS certificate has held for 10 minutes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Energy_Catalyzer#Commercial_**planshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer#Commercial_plans http://en.wikipedia.org/**wiki/Energy_Catalyzer#**Commercial_plansÂhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer#Commercial_plans%C3%82 Sverre Haslund Eek. Page history shows revert warring See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/** Wikipedia:3RR#The_three-**revert_rulehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3RR#The_three-revert_rule . It's a bit tedious to figure this out exactly, but it looks like: TheNextFuture, 5RR. I predict a block any day for TheNextFuture. This is an SPA, likely the sock of a banned user. New users don't file AfDs in their first few edits. Once upon a time, there would have been somone all over TheNextFuture, like me. Insilvis, 5RR. block for revert warring likely. Good reverts is generally not a defense. Shaslund, 2RR. SPA, only five edits total, one edit in 2009 to Blacklight Power. Block not likely unless Sverre pushes this further. Shaslund is clearly not an experienced user, doesn't use edit summaries (very important when reverting, to explain). Given the insistent activity from editors (on both sides) clearly not following WP policy and guidelines, I predict that the article will be protected from editing. Semiprotection might not be adequate here. With less than this, and really only one revert warrior, Cold fusion was full-protected. All it takes is someone who knows how to file an RfPP. In any case, Shaslund's first attempt to insert the material lasted 53 minutes before being reverted by Insilvis. The second lasted 24 minutes. A third might get him blocked, a fourth would very, very likely result in a block if it's within 24 hours. The 3RR rule is a bright line, one must have a critical interest to cross it and survive, and an admin might block first and ask questions later. Something like illegal content or libel. I once survived a 3RR violation block because I was reverting blatant sock puppets. First entry in my block log reversed as soon as the admin took a closer look. I was new. Insilivis might make that claim here, TheNextFuture is so obvious.
Re: [Vo]:no evidence yet of safety certificate.
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: TheNextFuture, 5RR. I predict a block any day for TheNextFuture. This is an SPA, likely the sock of a banned user. New users don't file AfDs in their first few edits. . . . All these arcane acronyms: SPA, AfD, blah, blah. As I said, Wikipedia is too complicated. It has too many rules. Only fanatics will bother to master this complex set of rules and procedures. Conventional academic publishing does have rules. It has procedures based on long established traditions. They are simpler than Wikipedia's rules. Granted, Wikipedia's rules are partly about the Internet. Things like three revisions. But I get the impression that most of the rules are about the administrative structure of Wikipedia, which I think is too complicated and opaque. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
Dave Roberson wrote: I guess I am not sure how to give transmutation at low energy the respect it might deserve. This might help. The general topic of transmutation (not linked to LENR) has been discussed within the Collective many times. and has been mired in obscurity for decades (gee, sound familiar???), because we all know that transmutation is simply another name for alchemy. and we've all been told by the masters that that is just a bunch of hooey. given what you now know about LENR, and the consistent, and wrong, view of LENR, do you all still trust the mainstream's view so completely??? One of the earliest and well researched efforts was Kervan's work with biological transmutations. here's the contents of the Collective's memory on this topic: http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l%40eskimo.com http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l%40eskimo.comq=kervan q=kervan you might start with this thread by the ever-belaboring Mr. Bean himself! http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg00791.html Dig in!! -Mark Iverson From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 10:00 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article Jeff, you have pointed out some interesting papers that allowed me to reconsider the transmutation concept. Thus far I have placed most of these experiments in the same category as ghosts and other difficult spirits to capture. Like the other phenomena, it is impossible to accept unless I witness it several times myself. I and I assume many others have read the articles and placed them in the bin labeled Something must have gone wrong with that test! This type of physics might be relatively common but not accepted due to the lack of understanding. If it is real, then we have a great deal of new things to learn about the natural world. I honestly have no idea about the validity of these papers and my tendency is to assume that there are operator errors. As soon as that assumption is applied, we are back to normal physics where transmutations are not happening under these low energy conditions. We find ourselves in a position similar to that of the main line physicists who refuse to waste time reading about LENR since it can not be true. I guess I am not sure how to give transmutation at low energy the respect it might deserve. Your bringing it up again for discussion might help resolve the issue. Dave -Original Message- From: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Sep 16, 2012 12:05 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article I'm old, so I'm old school. I'm not a physicist, just an experienced observer with a basic science education. After a few months of intensive reading, I'm squarely in the transmutation don't get no respect camp. I particularly like this one: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Castellanonucleartra.pdf No particle acceleration. No electrolysis. In fact, no use of electricity in the experimental setup. No disputable calorimetry - in fact no claims of excess heat. The description of the experimental setup clearly implies reasonable skill in materials handling and laboratory technique. Result: a wide range of heavy-element transmutations. Wtf!? And not just these guys. Also here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTanomalousia.pdf and here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHnucleartra.pdf and here: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Dash-Effect%20o f%20Recrystallization-Paper.pdf These results seem objective, widely replicated, and afaik inexplicable via existing condensed-matter physics. Yet they get very little attention. I'm new in this group, so help me out. The way I learned it, there ain't no philosopher's stone, leaving aside well-understood high-energy fusion and fission reaction processes. What am I missing? Jeff On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 8:30 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: To me 250 electron volts of energy in the form of electron projectiles is incredibly small. The neutron generators that can be had all operate with something like 100 keV which is fairly close to 1000 times larger, and they use deuterons as the projectiles. Why would we think that electrons impacting atoms would generate mutations when there is not enough energy to produce energetic X-rays? If we assume that the elevated temperature of the plate material is responsible, then perhaps so, but the battle to prove that LENR exists in the first place has been difficult. It just seems likely that anyone who has witnessed the transmutation of elements within a low power tube would accept LENR without much question. I would like to see proof that the tube transmutation effect is real and an explanation for its occurrence. Again, how could low energy electrons cause this to happen? If one calculates the expected
RE: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
How embarrassing. All those posts on biological transmutation, and we misspelled the guy's last name in most of them. Should be Kervran, no? From: MarkI-ZeroPoint Dave Roberson wrote: I guess I am not sure how to give transmutation at low energy the respect it might deserve. This might help. The general topic of transmutation (not linked to LENR) has been discussed within the Collective many times. and has been mired in obscurity for decades (gee, sound familiar???), because we all know that transmutation is simply another name for alchemy. and we've all been told by the masters that that is just a bunch of hooey. given what you now know about LENR, and the consistent, and wrong, view of LENR, do you all still trust the mainstream's view so completely??? One of the earliest and well researched efforts was Kervan's work with biological transmutations. here's the contents of the Collective's memory on this topic: http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l%40eskimo.com http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l%40eskimo.comq=kervan q=kervan you might start with this thread by the ever-belaboring Mr. Bean himself! http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg00791.html Dig in!! -Mark Iverson From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 10:00 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article Jeff, you have pointed out some interesting papers that allowed me to reconsider the transmutation concept. Thus far I have placed most of these experiments in the same category as ghosts and other difficult spirits to capture. Like the other phenomena, it is impossible to accept unless I witness it several times myself. I and I assume many others have read the articles and placed them in the bin labeled Something must have gone wrong with that test! This type of physics might be relatively common but not accepted due to the lack of understanding. If it is real, then we have a great deal of new things to learn about the natural world. I honestly have no idea about the validity of these papers and my tendency is to assume that there are operator errors. As soon as that assumption is applied, we are back to normal physics where transmutations are not happening under these low energy conditions. We find ourselves in a position similar to that of the main line physicists who refuse to waste time reading about LENR since it can not be true. I guess I am not sure how to give transmutation at low energy the respect it might deserve. Your bringing it up again for discussion might help resolve the issue. Dave -Original Message- From: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Sep 16, 2012 12:05 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article I'm old, so I'm old school. I'm not a physicist, just an experienced observer with a basic science education. After a few months of intensive reading, I'm squarely in the transmutation don't get no respect camp. I particularly like this one: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Castellanonucleartra.pdf No particle acceleration. No electrolysis. In fact, no use of electricity in the experimental setup. No disputable calorimetry - in fact no claims of excess heat. The description of the experimental setup clearly implies reasonable skill in materials handling and laboratory technique. Result: a wide range of heavy-element transmutations. Wtf!? And not just these guys. Also here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTanomalousia.pdf and here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHnucleartra.pdf and here: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Dash-Effect%20o f%20Recrystallization-Paper.pdf These results seem objective, widely replicated, and afaik inexplicable via existing condensed-matter physics. Yet they get very little attention. I'm new in this group, so help me out. The way I learned it, there ain't no philosopher's stone, leaving aside well-understood high-energy fusion and fission reaction processes. What am I missing? Jeff On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 8:30 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: To me 250 electron volts of energy in the form of electron projectiles is incredibly small. The neutron generators that can be had all operate with something like 100 keV which is fairly close to 1000 times larger, and they use deuterons as the projectiles. Why would we think that electrons impacting atoms would generate mutations when there is not enough energy to produce energetic X-rays? If we assume that the elevated temperature of the plate material is responsible, then perhaps so, but the battle to prove that LENR exists in the first place has been difficult. It just seems likely that anyone who has witnessed the transmutation of elements within a low power tube would accept LENR without much question. I would like to see proof
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Sat, 15 Sep 2012 16:19:26 -0500: Hi, [snip] 1. They appear to be different samples. It is not stated that they are the same reaction material, before and after. The analysis numbers are 07/18/12 #25 for the before, and 07/18/12 #23 for the after. Since two separate analyses are required, one before, and one after, isn't it logical that they would have different numbers? OTOH the fact that the after analysis has a lower number appears to imply some confusion, or someone just assigned the numbers according to a non-obvious order. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 5:14 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Sat, 15 Sep 2012 16:19:26 -0500: Hi, [snip] 1. They appear to be different samples. It is not stated that they are the same reaction material, before and after. The analysis numbers are 07/18/12 #25 for the before, and 07/18/12 #23 for the after. Since two separate analyses are required, one before, and one after, isn't it logical that they would have different numbers? Yes and on different days. This is what PDGTG said in response to the question. http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17t=1290 XRF devises (sic), such the ones we use, label the measurements automatically per day, maintaining a sequential number. We perform such analysis in batches having labeled the samples before and after the reactions. So there is not any discrepancy or wrong labeling in this case. T
[Vo]:free energy rap
FREE ENERGY - LUMINARIES ft. Aishah [ELEVATE SOLUTION SERIES] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2l5Z9T_x8A professionally produced rap video about free energy. nearly 80,000 hits Harry
Re: [Vo]:free energy rap
Thanks for this Harry. I put it up on our front page. Jammin great find! On 9/16/12 2:37 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: FREE ENERGY - LUMINARIES ft. Aishah [ELEVATE SOLUTION SERIES] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2l5Z9T_x8A professionally produced rap video about free energy. nearly 80,000 hits Harry -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
Okay, these are analysis numbers, not sample numbers, per se. This is not good control, by the way, but that's a different question. Samples should be labelled and then correlated with analysis. Now, what we know is that the two samples were analyzed on the same day. How long was this experiment? So they held the sample from before and analyzed it only later? Was this a sample of the same material or of similar material? I keep coming up with more questions, because the exact procedures used have not been stated. The paper is actually quite short on specific information, and long on theoretical explanation, which has a high probability of being utterly irrelevant. I.e., what they actually did to change the material isn't stated, only some theoretical result. And on and on. My point is that this isn't scientific information. It's a commercial report, heavy on meaning and light on what happened. (I did not claim that there was wrong labelling, only that I couldn't tell what had happened.) The comment quoted below about on different days is mysterious, since the samples, labelled per Defkalion comment, show the same day. I'm not sure at all why they used those sample numbers, since they tell us nothing about the *samples*, but only about the *analytical batch.* At 04:29 PM 9/16/2012, Terry Blanton wrote: On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 5:14 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Sat, 15 Sep 2012 16:19:26 -0500: Hi, [snip] 1. They appear to be different samples. It is not stated that they are the same reaction material, before and after. The analysis numbers are 07/18/12 #25 for the before, and 07/18/12 #23 for the after. Since two separate analyses are required, one before, and one after, isn't it logical that they would have different numbers? Yes and on different days. This is what PDGTG said in response to the question. http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17t=1290 XRF devises (sic), such the ones we use, label the measurements automatically per day, maintaining a sequential number. We perform such analysis in batches having labeled the samples before and after the reactions. So there is not any discrepancy or wrong labeling in this case. T
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
At 04:14 PM 9/16/2012, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Sat, 15 Sep 2012 16:19:26 -0500: Hi, [snip] 1. They appear to be different samples. It is not stated that they are the same reaction material, before and after. The analysis numbers are 07/18/12 #25 for the before, and 07/18/12 #23 for the after. Since two separate analyses are required, one before, and one after, isn't it logical that they would have different numbers? OTOH the fact that the after analysis has a lower number appears to imply some confusion, or someone just assigned the numbers according to a non-obvious order. It's simply the order in which the technician picked up and tested the samples. The exact test method isn't given. From what Defkalion has said, apparently, they ran at least 25 samples that day. There are a host of questions. The data and its intepretation are far from clear.
Re: [Vo]:no evidence yet of safety certificate.
At 10:54 AM 9/16/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: TheNextFuture, 5RR. I predict a block any day for TheNextFuture. This is an SPA, likely the sock of a banned user. New users don't file AfDs in their first few edits. . . . All these arcane acronyms: SPA, AfD, blah, blah. As I said, Wikipedia is too complicated. It has too many rules. Only fanatics will bother to master this complex set of rules and procedures. Actually, there are no rules. WP:IAR. However, anyone who has substantial Wikipedia experience knows what RR and SPA and AfD mean. Those are elementary. An SPA means a single purpose account, an account which typically has only one area of interest. SPAs often don't gain substantial Wikipedia experience and don't understand how the place works. It's just an natural consequence, not a moral judgment. If Wikipedia had a saner structure, SPAs would be heavily supported and encouraged, at the same time as being restrained. Conventional academic publishing does have rules. It has procedures based on long established traditions. They are simpler than Wikipedia's rules. Well, no. Get this: Wikipedia doesn't have rules. That, indeed, is one reason why it's difficult to understand. I gave an acronym: WP:IAR. Enter that in the search box on Wikipedia. You'll see what was called Rule Number One. Granted, Wikipedia's rules are partly about the Internet. Things like three revisions. But I get the impression that most of the rules are about the administrative structure of Wikipedia, which I think is too complicated and opaque. The problem is that the structure worked, quite well, but it fails when topics are seriously controversial. The closest thing that Wikipedia has to rules are called Policy, but the defacto structure is lousy at enforcing policy, and fundamental site purposes are encoded into policy. Wikipedia cannot realize its mission and the crucial neutrality policy with the ad hoc structure developed. And the ad hoc structure developed became strongly resistant to any change, typically ejecting those who seriously stood for *enforcement of the original -- and still standing -- policies, as against the whim of the mob. Or the whim of any of various factions that include administrators, such as the anti-pseudoscience faction, which wasn't too careful about straying into fringe science, which it typically treated as if it were pseudoscience. But they failed when they tried to get cold fusion classified as pseudoscience they actually failed again and again whenever confronted through Wikipedia processes as they were designed. Problem is, anyone who did that was then identified as having an agenda, which the mob then treats as if it were leprosy or something. And the mob cares nothing about evidence, it just reacts. Reading the policies with understanding, they are excellent, at least usually. The problem is that the reality can be very, very different from what you'd think from policy, and there is no structure that can discriminate between majority point of view and neutrality. MPOV, in practice, is majority of whoever shows up, which, then, can be heavily biased by various factors. Long-term Wikipedians with a factional view have common watchlists, they are highly active, they look every day, so they show up in discussions way out of proportion to what a real sample of users would be. Perhaps they have WP:ANI on their watchlists, because they are very interested in banning editors. So, without any conspiracy, there is nevertheless are the effects of cabals. And anyone who is truly a long-term Wikipedian is very likely imbalanced, so crazy is the place. I eventually found that the long-term sane editors, the ones I could count on for supportive comments, became fewer and fewer, and when I looked, they'd stopped editing. Enough, already! My very supportive friend, elected to the Arbitration Committee, resigned after he was personally, face-to-face, confronted with a threat of harm to his family if he continued. The civil facade of Wikipedia covers an ugly side, very ugly. There are forces which want the place to stay the same, and are willing to go to serious lengths to keep it that way. They know how to manipulate it. That probably has nothing to do with cold fusion, by the way. I was considered a threat not because of my interest in cold fusion and the predictions that I'd be banned started before I ever saw the article. It was because I was proposing ways to, within policy, improve the structure, so that the reality and the policies would converge. Very dangerous. Off with his head!
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: It's simply the order in which the technician picked up and tested the samples. The exact test method isn't given. From what Defkalion has said, apparently, they ran at least 25 samples that day. There are a host of questions. The data and its intepretation are far from clear. You appear to be a supporter of LENR; but, what is more important, your pride or the truth? T
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
That comment is a bit over my line. I think Abd's position is appropriate at this point in time. Jeff On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: It's simply the order in which the technician picked up and tested the samples. The exact test method isn't given. From what Defkalion has said, apparently, they ran at least 25 samples that day. There are a host of questions. The data and its intepretation are far from clear. You appear to be a supporter of LENR; but, what is more important, your pride or the truth? T
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: That comment is a bit over my line. I think Abd's position is appropriate at this point in time. Well, Jeff, I guess my emotions have gotten the better of me. How long have you been seeking a solution to the world's energy problem? I apologize to anyone I offend. Then again, don't expect me to change. T
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
So, how many people here think Defkalion is trying to deceive us? Raise your hands. T
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
Oh, one more question, how many think they (PDGTG) have employed incompetent people, who do not know what they are doing? Hands? T taking a sabbatical
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 8:30:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article To me 250 electron volts of energy in the form of electron projectiles is incredibly small. The neutron generators that can be had all operate with something like 100 keV which is fairly close to 1000 times larger, and they use deuterons as the projectiles. . From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com I couldn't find any reference in a quick search to accumulated transmutations in a triode. Anyone got a reference to an actual report of transmuted elements from vacuum tubes? Searching along these lines did get me to the Farnsworth (of TV fame) Fusor : http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/farnsworth-fusor-carls-jr/ http://carlwillis.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/thesis2.doc 3.0*10^6 neutrons/sec from a 70 kV spherical accelerator.
RE: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
I'm with you on that. However, this does not mean that they have nothing. In fact, the scenario that best fits the facts is that they seen excess heat in that range of COP= 1.5-2; which is significant in itself - but they are burdened with a flawed business plan which was built on the expectation of much better results (and greed). Thus the deception. -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton So, how many people here think Defkalion is trying to deceive us? Raise your hands. T
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
At 04:29 PM 9/16/2012, Terry Blanton wrote: [quoting Defkalion at http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17t=1290] XRF devises (sic), such the ones we use, label the measurements automatically per day, maintaining a sequential number. We perform such analysis in batches having labeled the samples before and after the reactions. So there is not any discrepancy or wrong labeling in this case. There is a subsequent answer on that page: MTd2 wrote: You disclosed changes in composition of the materials. But, what about the isotopic ratio, which really could rule out contamination? Is it possible to say anything now? In public, through this forum, no there is nothing more to say. Such data (and the methods we use to get them as well the handling procedures in use) are available to any interested scientist/researcher/lab that wish to visit, under a NDA, our labs. Off course we valuate such requests based on the scientific record and history of each applicant. Defkalion is not publishing scientific reports, they are deliberately withholding important information. As I've written many times, they certainly have the right to do this, but a consequence of it is that we don't accept what they say just because they say it. Defkalion, in what they are showing, are far ahead of Rossi, but that doesn't say much! Both are concealing more than they reveal. In answering questions about the XRF analysis results, they are quite vague. As for the extra elements origin: Some of them are present in the structure of the internal supporting material inside the reactor whilst some other (such as Cu) are not. In all cases, we try not contaminate the samples using standard handling procedures. Samples of before and after wouldn't discriminate between contamination and production. What would be more interesting would be comparisons of shift in composition before/after, as experimental cell vs. control cell, otherwise identical except perhaps for hydrogen/deuterium or hydrogen/helium. (Deuterium is supposed to be generally inactive in Ni work.) The question asked about isotopic composition was, of course, a crucial one. Most contamination (not necessarily all) would show standard natural isotopic abundance, whereas elements transmuted from other elements would typically show different abundances, giving clues as to the process. XRF is dependent upon the electronic structure of elements, so it only shows the element, not the isotopes of the element, which apparently all show up with the same X-ray flourescent wavelength.
Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy on Hi-Temp Superconductivity LENR
Axil: Hasn't the existence of this attractive force been disproven? http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012arXiv1205.4922B On Novel attractive forces between ions in quantum plasmas -- failure of linearized quantum hydrodynamics Bonitz, M.; Pehlke, E.; Schoof, T. eprint arXiv:1205.4922 In a recent letter [P.K. Shukla and B. Eliasson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 165007 (2012)] the discovery of a new attractive force between protons in a hydrogen plasma was reported that would be responsible for the formation of molecules and of a proton lattice. Here we show, based on ab initio density functional theory calculations, that these predictions are wrong and caused by using linearized quantum hydrodynamics beyond the limits of its applicability. Keywords: Physics - Plasma Physics, Condensed Matter - Statistical Mechanics -Kevmo --- On Wed, 9/12/12, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Lattice Energy on Hi-Temp Superconductivity LENR To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Wednesday, September 12, 2012, 11:10 AM This increase in conductivity is casued by the formation of cooper pairs of protons through the action of thr Shukla-Eliasson Attractive Force. See my last post - Friedel oscillations Cheers: Axil
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 16 Sep 2012 00:59:46 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] I guess I am not sure how to give transmutation at low energy the respect it might deserve. Your bringing it up again for discussion might help resolve the issue. It's not so difficult to accept, if you look at it from the Hydrino standpoint. Hydrinos form a sort of geometric mean between chemical and nuclear energies. That means that they can also act as a half-way house. If you multiply chemical energy (e.g. 1 eV) with nuclear energy e.g. 1 MeV, and take the square root, you get 1000 eV, which is in the ballpark of 600 eV. What this means is that for about 1000 eV you can force Hydrino chemical reactions, which can in turn, due to their small size lead to nuclear reactions. (tunneling is much faster at much reduced separation distances). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
At 07:58 PM 9/16/2012, Terry Blanton wrote: On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: It's simply the order in which the technician picked up and tested the samples. The exact test method isn't given. From what Defkalion has said, apparently, they ran at least 25 samples that day. There are a host of questions. The data and its intepretation are far from clear. You appear to be a supporter of LENR; but, what is more important, your pride or the truth? My pride is of no importance. Why do you ask? I've come to the conclusion that LENR is real, specifically, that the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect is nuclear in origin and that it is extremely likely to be some form of deuterium fusion, mechanism unknown, though, as Storms says, there are plausible theories, which means we don't fall down laughing. My conclusion is rebuttable, but I've been unable to find any cogent rebuttal. The preponderance of the evidence is clear, and I'm nothing to be particularly proud of in coming to the conclusion I've stated: it appears to be the position supported in mainstream journals as of late, the only problem being that some journals have continued a long-standing blackout of coverage of the field. That is unstable, I doubt it will last long. Basically, Springer-Verlag and Elsevier, the two largest scientific publishers in the world, are eating the lunch of a few holdouts, by publishing in the field. Naturwissenschaften published -- it actually invited -- Edmund Storms' review, Status of cold fusion (2010). It is not going to stand without answer forever. A minor journal, Journal of Environmental Monitoring, published a review of cold fusion, by Krivit and Marwan, and there was a letter from Kirt Shanahan in response. There was then a joint response by most of the major names in the field, demolishing Shanahan's claims, which didn't take much, they were mostly preposterous. And Shanahan has complained that the editors wouldn't allow him further response. The tables have turned. In case people haven't noticed. I think it rather likely that there have been submissions of skeptical papers to journals, but they did not have adequate quality to be published. After a time, Richard Garwin's position, as expressed to CBS News, gets a tad old: They must be making some mistake measuring the input power. Which would absolutely fail to explain heat/helium. Heat/helium, for anyone who was paying attention (which doesn't include most of the physics community), blew the skeptical position out of the water, once Miles was confirmed, all that was left was pseudoskepticism. There is not this level of evidence for nickel-hydrogen reactions. I'm sympathetic to reports, but am quite wary of jumping to conclusions about them. Obviously, NiH, if it works, is likely to be far more practical than PdD. The latter is, at this point, a scientific curiosity. Maybe commercial applications will eventually appear for it, but a lot of money has been spent trying, without result. NiH has only recently begun to get serious attention, and most of this has been commercially afflicted. Dr. Storms thinks that both PdD and NiH involve the same process. That's actually an assumption of his, though, it's not clearly demonstrated. (He is explicit about this.) I would not reject a PdD process proposal merely because it wouldn't work with NiH, nor the reverse. I consider that no assumption based on PdD research can be taken as applying automatically to NiH work. And, absolutely, we don't know the ash. The Defkalion paper gives us some clues, perhaps, but not the data we would need to have any kind of certainty, and I don't find even reasonable surmise very possible from it. I've suggested what kind of data would be more likely to allow that, but we are not likely to get that data from Defkalion unless they change their approach.
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
I didn't mean to take a shot at you Terry. Answers to your three questions. How long? Not long (although I've followed the subject on and off since 1989) - no credentials here. Trying to deceive us? No. Incompetent people? No. I believe we do them a favor by being professionally skeptical and asking hard questions. The rest of the world will. Jeff On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Oh, one more question, how many think they (PDGTG) have employed incompetent people, who do not know what they are doing? Hands? T taking a sabbatical
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
At 08:26 PM 9/16/2012, Terry Blanton wrote: On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: That comment is a bit over my line. I think Abd's position is appropriate at this point in time. Well, Jeff, I guess my emotions have gotten the better of me. How long have you been seeking a solution to the world's energy problem? I apologize to anyone I offend. Then again, don't expect me to change. As you say. Basically, if you say you can change, you can. And if you say you cannot change, you cannot. Usually. Sometimes lightning strikes. Now, I'm not seeking a solution to the world's energy problem, because I don't see the world as having an energy problem. We will adapt or we will die. What's the problem? Rather, my interest is in science and how we understand reality. I'm not attached to specifics, more than a little. Right now, I'm looking at some radiation detectors, LR-115, seeing if I can make any sense out of the tracks. They may have been a little underdeveloped, but I'm not eager to drop them in the caustic solution for longer. Underdeveloped could mean crisper images. If I'm too hot for energy solutions, my judgment could easily be be warped. I just want to see what the detectors show, I don't want to see what I want to see, unless that's what nature intends to show me. Ultimately, if I find anything of significance here, I'll have someone else do an analysis, who doesn't know the experimental conditions to which the detectors were exposed.
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
If you want relatively copious transmutation reactions, you use high voltages. I don't know the rates, specifically, but I'd not be surprised to find some low level of transmutation at 100 V. That's pretty hot, anyone know the equivalent temperature? From Wikipedia, I come up with 100 eV as being about a million degrees K. That's not ordinarily considered hot enough for fusion, but hot enough means fusion at an appreciable rate. If a tube has years to accumulate stuff, I wouldn't be surprised at all, and that was my point. The papers that were linked in another post, from Rex Research, were about high voltage discharge tubes. One produced a 12 inch spark. What is that, 200 KV? I forget. The information below showed 3 million neutrons per second, indicating perhaps six million fusions (depends on the reaction) per second, at 70 KV. So could those old results have been coming from fusion? Reasonably likely, in fact. So? Cold fusion involves much higher reaction rates than one would get in plasma experiments at the 10-20 volts that might be used in electrochemical work. And, folks, no neutrons, no gammas, not from PdD, at any rate. Cold fusion is something quite different. Nobody came up with references to an accumulation of transmutations in old triode vacuum tubes, as used in amplifiers and such. I wasn't looking for things like high voltage discharge tubes or the Farnsworth Fusor! The latter was specifically designed to create standard hot fusion. Yes, it's a vacuum tube but not what we were talking about. At 09:00 PM 9/16/2012, Alan Fletcher wrote: From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 8:30:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article To me 250 electron volts of energy in the form of electron projectiles is incredibly small. The neutron generators that can be had all operate with something like 100 keV which is fairly close to 1000 times larger, and they use deuterons as the projectiles. . From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com I couldn't find any reference in a quick search to accumulated transmutations in a triode. Anyone got a reference to an actual report of transmuted elements from vacuum tubes? Searching along these lines did get me to the Farnsworth (of TV fame) Fusor : http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/farnsworth-fusor-carls-jr/ http://carlwillis.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/thesis2.doc 3.0*10^6 neutrons/sec from a 70 kV spherical accelerator.
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
This page is not widely known? -- Dozens of scientific papers were published between 1905 and 1927 concerning the mysterious appearance of hydrogen, helium and neon in vacuum tubes. The matter never has been resolved. http://www.levity.com/alchemy/nelson2_6.html Jeff On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: If you want relatively copious transmutation reactions, you use high voltages. I don't know the rates, specifically, but I'd not be surprised to find some low level of transmutation at 100 V. That's pretty hot, anyone know the equivalent temperature? From Wikipedia, I come up with 100 eV as being about a million degrees K. That's not ordinarily considered hot enough for fusion, but hot enough means fusion at an appreciable rate. If a tube has years to accumulate stuff, I wouldn't be surprised at all, and that was my point. The papers that were linked in another post, from Rex Research, were about high voltage discharge tubes. One produced a 12 inch spark. What is that, 200 KV? I forget. The information below showed 3 million neutrons per second, indicating perhaps six million fusions (depends on the reaction) per second, at 70 KV. So could those old results have been coming from fusion? Reasonably likely, in fact. So? Cold fusion involves much higher reaction rates than one would get in plasma experiments at the 10-20 volts that might be used in electrochemical work. And, folks, no neutrons, no gammas, not from PdD, at any rate. Cold fusion is something quite different. Nobody came up with references to an accumulation of transmutations in old triode vacuum tubes, as used in amplifiers and such. I wasn't looking for things like high voltage discharge tubes or the Farnsworth Fusor! The latter was specifically designed to create standard hot fusion. Yes, it's a vacuum tube but not what we were talking about. At 09:00 PM 9/16/2012, Alan Fletcher wrote: From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 8:30:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article To me 250 electron volts of energy in the form of electron projectiles is incredibly small. The neutron generators that can be had all operate with something like 100 keV which is fairly close to 1000 times larger, and they use deuterons as the projectiles. . From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com I couldn't find any reference in a quick search to accumulated transmutations in a triode. Anyone got a reference to an actual report of transmuted elements from vacuum tubes? Searching along these lines did get me to the Farnsworth (of TV fame) Fusor : http://carlwillis.wordpress.**com/2008/02/17/farnsworth-**fusor-carls-jr/http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/farnsworth-fusor-carls-jr/ http://carlwillis.files.**wordpress.com/2008/02/thesis2.**dochttp://carlwillis.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/thesis2.doc 3.0*10^6 neutrons/sec from a 70 kV spherical accelerator.
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
At 10:24 PM 9/16/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: This page is not widely known? -- I refer to that page below, the Rex Research page, at least in one incarnation. High voltage. (no more original content below). Dozens of scientific papers were published between 1905 and 1927 concerning the mysterious appearance of hydrogen, helium and neon in vacuum tubes. The matter never has been resolved. http://www.levity.com/alchemy/nelson2_6.htmlhttp://www.levity.com/alchemy/nelson2_6.html Jeff On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: If you want relatively copious transmutation reactions, you use high voltages. I don't know the rates, specifically, but I'd not be surprised to find some low level of transmutation at 100 V. That's pretty hot, anyone know the equivalent temperature? From Wikipedia, I come up with 100 eV as being about a million degrees K. That's not ordinarily considered hot enough for fusion, but hot enough means fusion at an appreciable rate. If a tube has years to accumulate stuff, I wouldn't be surprised at all, and that was my point. The papers that were linked in another post, from Rex Research, were about high voltage discharge tubes. One produced a 12 inch spark. What is that, 200 KV? I forget. The information below showed 3 million neutrons per second, indicating perhaps six million fusions (depends on the reaction) per second, at 70 KV. So could those old results have been coming from fusion? Reasonably likely, in fact. So? Cold fusion involves much higher reaction rates than one would get in plasma experiments at the 10-20 volts that might be used in electrochemical work. And, folks, no neutrons, no gammas, not from PdD, at any rate. Cold fusion is something quite different. Nobody came up with references to an accumulation of transmutations in old triode vacuum tubes, as used in amplifiers and such. I wasn't looking for things like high voltage discharge tubes or the Farnsworth Fusor! The latter was specifically designed to create standard hot fusion. Yes, it's a vacuum tube but not what we were talking about. At 09:00 PM 9/16/2012, Alan Fletcher wrote: From: David Roberson mailto:dlrober...@aol.comdlrober...@aol.com To: mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.comvortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 8:30:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article To me 250 electron volts of energy in the form of electron projectiles is incredibly small. The neutron generators that can be had all operate with something like 100 keV which is fairly close to 1000 times larger, and they use deuterons as the projectiles. . From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com I couldn't find any reference in a quick search to accumulated transmutations in a triode. Anyone got a reference to an actual report of transmuted elements from vacuum tubes? Searching along these lines did get me to the Farnsworth (of TV fame) Fusor : http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/farnsworth-fusor-carls-jr/http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/farnsworth-fusor-carls-jr/ http://carlwillis.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/thesis2.doc 3.0*10^6 neutrons/sec from a 70 kV spherical accelerator.
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: You can play with ideas all you want. The information in the subject article from Defkalion is primitive, it's hard to tell what it means. Not just in terms of implication, but in terms of what they actually did to collect it. Read the article and see how ambiguous it all is. Now, of course, maybe I missed something. That happens. I agree -- the Defkalion article is really a set of notes and shouldn't be considered a confirmation. I'm thinking of the ten or so experiments summarized in section 4.5 of Ed Storms's book in which transmutations were seen in a nickel substrate under hydrogen. This seems like enough evidence to adopt as a working assumption that Ni/H is bona fide LENR; this might be correct or it might not, but one cannot avoid making assumptions, and that seems like sufficient evidence for adopting the assumption that Ni/H is LENR until there is further evidence to call such an assumption into doubt. If the confirmation one seeks is correlation with heat, I agree, this is important, and I have not seen it a report of it yet, aside from anecdotal evidence. But that level of evidence isn't needed for exploration. Storms is talking about low levels of transmutation, not about major levels. I think I've heard him say this as well. But I also understand that the characterization of transmutations has not been carefully pursued until more recently, so it would be premature to conclude that the levels are known to be low. The ash does not cover all possible products of rare branches or secondary reactions, it refers to the main reaction. We agree on this point. The helium seen in Pd/D systems seems compatible with catalyzed D or p capture, if there is some kind of subsequent alpha decay occurring within a palladium substrate; it is possible that this is not energetically favorable in Ni/H systems, though, in which case you would not expect to see 4He as an ash in Ni/H.  It is common in the experiments to see reports of fast protons and alpha particles in the palladium experiments. Actually, it isn't common. There are reports of CR-39 tracks, but the work is problematic, confirmation rare. SPAWAR's non-neutron results are difficult to distinguish from chemical damage. I personally think they might be produced by massive low-energy alphas, under 20 KeV, but that's not a strong belief at all. Referring to the main reaction, there isn't anything above 20 KeV, the Hagelstein limit. I looked further into the question of alpha decay in palladium, and it does not appear to be energetically favorable -- that was just speculation on my part and not intended to be a summary of any experimental evidence. I've seen a lot of reports of hot alphas and protons; i.e., the CR-39 tracks -- are this the results you were questioning, or am I misreading the paragraph above? I believe there are studies from the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre using this approach as well showing similar results, although it's been a little while since I've reviewed them, so I might be mistaken. It is this kind of evidence, in which there are 11MeV alpha particles and 2MeV protons, that leads me to question the proposed 20KeV limit; that seems to me to be simply being selective about the experimental record. I appreciate that the CR-39 experiments may be problematic, and I know almost nothing about how they are carried out or what goes into them. But they will continue to cast doubt in my mind about the proposed limit until they are completely discredited. It's fine to adopt such a limit as a working hypothesis, however. :) I would compare what's in the before and after Defkalion charts, but basic details are missing: I didn't have the Defkalion charts in mind, although I think they're interesting. Only very primitive science is done with anecdotal evidence. Unfortunately, a lot of cold fusion work has been like this. We did X and Y, and we saw this amazing result, Z. I hope I haven't been understood to suggest that this is the main thrust of science. While it's interesting, and the kind of stuff that people share at conferences or informally, it's far more interesting, scientifically, if we have We did X and Y, 50 times, and this is the range of results we saw. We altered Y to Z, and this is the range of results we saw. And then when someone else independently confirms this, we have real science. If someone tries to confirm it and fails, we have not necessarily lost anything, because confirmations can fail for lots of reasons; what we then have is more work to do Agreed. These are the results that form the basis of journal articles. But there is a large amount of exploratory work that must precede the level of rigor that goes into the articles, and this exploratory work is just as much the business of science as the subsequent activity of drawing measured conclusions that takes place
Re: [Vo]:LENR Cold Fusion website- Investing in LENR Cold Fusion
From: Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2012 8:11:02 PM Nicely done: http://coldfusion3.com/blog/best-lenr-investments-or-at-least-companies-to-watch Rossi, at the end of his taxi talk with Sterling Allen, said that the eCat is too risky to invest in! It's also interesting that he's down-playing the applications of the eCat -- he's already said that its use in cars is decades away, and aircraft, never (despite NASA/Boeing penciling it in on a 15-year time frame). Now he dismisses another area : Andrea Rossi September 16th, 2012 at 5:54 AM Dear Pekka Janhunen: We are honestly thinking, after due diligence, that it will be impossible to compete against reverse osmosis, which costs 1 $/1000 liters: we will never reach this target , unless something really revolutionary comes up. Anyway we now are focused on the electric power consumption. Warm Regards, A.R. Sure is a curious scam --- rather than claiming that the eCat is the best thing since sliced bread (send money now), he's discouraging too much speculation (in a logical and financial sense).
