Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
my five cents: a) aim at reproducibility, whatever the COP or power-level. b) produce a working hypothesis c) investigate 'ash' and side-effects: radiation, energy bursts, etc. d) repeat (a), (b), (c) until convergence a robust 'theory-experiment'- loop is established. e) aim for 'commercial' level. Jumping to (e) prematurely is futile, quack, nonsensical. Commerce and science do not mix easily, to be polite. Please spare me Edison or Tesla. Bad examples. Galvani being a better one. Guenter --- Von: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 2:59 Mittwoch, 19.September 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability Godes probably wouldn't agree. Fwiw, he seems to be an advocate of an electron capture kind of hypothesis as opposed to a fusion kind of hypothesis. Electron capture hypotheses roughly substitute the miracle of coming up with a missing ~0.8MeV (along with some quantum mumbo jumbo) for the miracle of crossing the Coulomb barrier (and a different set of quantum mumbo jumbo). Sorry to anyone I might offend with this offhand comment. ;-) From what little he says, his views seems distinct from Widom-Larson. This was discussed in the group recently. Jeff
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
now who engages on what level: To be provocative: SRI/McKubre is somewhere at level (a) to (b), less so at (c). Here commmercial -ahem- 'secrets' seem to set in. And when SRI does this, it puts itself outside the scientific method of rigorous interpersonal replication. It is of no help to produce youtube videos which show this or that. Youtube is not yet part of the scientific method, as far as I know. The LENR-field has yet to prove its adherence to the scientific method, and not to sell snake-oil to the hopefuls, who seem to want to warm their feet by hope, not evidence. To discard this, or mix up categorials -as I am afraid Jed does- is dangerous! PROOF is INTERGROUP proof without any doubt about methods and results. I/we have yet to find that PROOF. There is none yet. Which is: i) produce an evidence, revealing ALL methods used. ii) reproduce this evidence by a COMPLETELY independent group, with ALL those methods used. This should be the basis of any hypothesizing/theoretisizing. Right? Guenter Von: Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 13:59 Mittwoch, 19.September 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability my five cents: a) aim at reproducibility, whatever the COP or power-level. b) produce a working hypothesis c) investigate 'ash' and side-effects: radiation, energy bursts, etc. d) repeat (a), (b), (c) until convergence a robust 'theory-experiment'- loop is established. e) aim for 'commercial' level. Jumping to (e) prematurely is futile, quack, nonsensical. Commerce and science do not mix easily, to be polite. Please spare me Edison or Tesla. Bad examples. Galvani being a better one. Guenter
Re: Fwd: [Vo]:question about passive solar heat
Frank, How about just using black hose running in a back and forth direction from the bottom of your roof to its apex, with a temperature sensitive valve at the apex point, and a black hose, from the apex, running down the sunny side of your house into the hot water container in your basement. When the water at the apex of your roof attains a pre-selected temperature the valve opens and lets water enter the system from the low point of your roof pushing the water into the container in the basement, until the temperature at the apex lowers to a predetermined temperature and shuts off. Repeat. Bob At 08:49 PM 9/18/2012, you wrote: What about this? I run a black and white hose up the sunny side of the house from the basement. The bottom of the circulating loop is lower than the tank. I splice the bottom of the loop in with a T that connects to the tank drain. Frank
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com mailto:gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote: And when SRI does this, it puts itself outside the scientific method of rigorous interpersonal replication. SRI and Godes are presently engaged in commercial RD, not rigorous fundamental scientific research. The rules are different. It is of no help to produce youtube videos which show this or that. SRI has not made YouTube videos as far as I know. The LENR-field has yet to prove its adherence to the scientific method . . . This is nonsense. Hundreds of peer-reviewed papers have been published describing the experiments, materials and techniques in detail. Any expert who has funding and time can reproduce the effect. It is no more difficult than cloning mammals or doing open heart surgery. In other words, it takes skill but it has been widely replicated. To discard this, or mix up categorials -as I am afraid Jed does- is dangerous! This has nothing to do with me. I am not in charge of policy at the U.S. Patent Office. They are the source of the problem. The purpose of a patent is to promote progress in technology by sharing information while protecting intellectual property. If the P.O. would do their job, information on cold fusion would spread as quickly as it does with any other commercial RD. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
On 09/19/2012 10:58 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: [...] This has nothing to do with me. I am not in charge of policy at the U.S. Patent Office. They are the source of the problem. The purpose of a patent is to promote progress in technology by sharing information while protecting intellectual property. If the P.O. would do their job, information on cold fusion would spread as quickly as it does with any other commercial RD. - Jed I wonder why the Patent Office cares if the device actually works? The criteria should be that the work is original, complex, and involved a significant labor investment. Instead, we have Amazon patenting a 'point a click' method of purchasing, and we have the 'cat and laser' patent. http://www.google.com/patents/US5443036 These are nonsense, and threaten the whole concept of intellectual property, whereas original, creative, labor intensive, design, is denied. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
No. Patentability criteria are: Novel, non-obvious and useful. The utility of a patent does not exist if it doesn't actually work. On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.comwrote: I wonder why the Patent Office cares if the device actually works? The criteria should be that the work is original, complex, and involved a significant labor investment. Instead, we have Amazon patenting a 'point a click' method of purchasing, and we have the 'cat and laser' patent. http://www.google.com/patents/US5443036 These are nonsense, and threaten the whole concept of intellectual property, whereas original, creative, labor intensive, design, is denied. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
Power evaluations should not be done by electronic power meters, but with current probes and DSO's. Only in such case one can determine the correct power consumption from the grid. In such setup, even power consumption in pulses can be measured accurately. On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:00 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: If we have learned anything from Griggs, Rossi, and Myers its that the power contained in electrical pulses is difficult to measure. Frank -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Sep 18, 2012 2:04 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Is this the first paper in which one group has reported100% success in multiple tests (over 150)? Yup, it may be. I do not recall seeing such a high success rate before. There may have been a few poorly documented reports of 100% success that I suspected were 100% instrument artifacts. I seem to recall some, but I do not remember who made these claims. They did not publish a paper. I do not remember uploading anything like that. I think I would remember it. Normally I would be very suspicious of an effect that appears every time, on demand. But when it comes from a a top-notch lab such as SRI I am not going to worry about it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
Craig, I noticed several times in the cat patent, they mention invisible light. That's interesting, possibly an invalid patent, or possibly, one could patent one, using visible light. Bob On 09/19/2012 10:58 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: [...] This has nothing to do with me. I am not in charge of policy at the U.S. Patent Office. They are the source of the problem. The purpose of a patent is to promote progress in technology by sharing information while protecting intellectual property. If the P.O. would do their job, information on cold fusion would spread as quickly as it does with any other commercial RD. - Jed I wonder why the Patent Office cares if the device actually works? The criteria should be that the work is original, complex, and involved a significant labor investment. Instead, we have Amazon patenting a 'point a click' method of purchasing, and we have the 'cat and laser' patent. http://www.google.com/patents/US5443036 These are nonsense, and threaten the whole concept of intellectual property, whereas original, creative, labor intensive, design, is denied. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
On 09/19/2012 11:44 AM, Robert Dorr wrote: Craig, I noticed several times in the cat patent, they mention invisible light. That's interesting, possibly an invalid patent, or possibly, one could patent one, using visible light. Bob I'm sure you've seen this. You take a laser pointer and point the light spot near a cat, and he'll jump at it. You can then move the light spot around the room, and he'll run and jump at it indefinitely. I was pointing out the absurdity of patenting something so simple. There's no original work here; likely the fellow who patented it, had seen it somewhere else. And there's no way to enforce this patent. The patent owner doesn't own the right to laser pointers; only the process of using a laser pointer to excite a cat. Since we were talking about what 'should' be patentable, I was throwing my opinion into the mix, that patents should protect labor, as should all property rights. Without the labor involved in the creation process, there shouldn't be anything to patent, and with the labor, then it shouldn't matter if it works. Notice that if the object created, has to be 'useful', then patents are very limited when used in RD. If you are working on a multi-step process and try to patent step 1, when step 1 isn't useful in any other type of process, then the patent may fail that test. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
Yep, lawyers involved in what I call the 'scientific method' seems to be a bad idea. See: ... In the 19th century, the invention of perpetual motion machines became an obsession for many scientists. Many machines were designed based on electricity. John Gamgee developed the Zeromotor, a perpetual motion machine of the second kind. Devising these machines is a favourite pastime of many eccentrics, who often devised elaborate machines in the style of Rube Goldberg or Heath Robinson. Such designs appeared to work on paper, though various flaws or obfuscated external energy sources are eventually understood to have been incorporated into the machine (unintentionally or intentionally). ... Proposals for such inoperable machines have become so common that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has made an official policy of refusing to grant patents for perpetual motion machines without a working model. ... http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetuum_mobile # wrt 'scientific method': ... Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established (when data is sampled or compared to chance). ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method With rare exceptions LENR researchers (not scientists) want to keep their magic sauce, and try to trick the patent-system to patent an aspect of their method/machinery, which maybe necessary, but not essential nor sufficient. This is understandable, but counter to the scientific method. And I would be very surprised if the public accepted a device on a wide scale in their basement, which has potential substiantial hazards To cite Feynman: ... warning against self-deception, the original sin of science, saying that the first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. To avoid self-deception scientists must bend over backward to report data that cast doubt on their theories. Feynman applied this principle specifically to scientists ... Von: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 17:25 Mittwoch, 19.September 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability No. Patentability criteria are: Novel, non-obvious and useful. The utility of a patent does not exist if it doesn't actually work. On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder why the Patent Office cares if the device actually works? The criteria should be that the work is original, complex, and involved a significant labor investment. Instead, we have Amazon patenting a 'point a click' method of purchasing, and we have the 'cat and laser' patent. http://www.google.com/patents/US5443036 These are nonsense, and threaten the whole concept of intellectual property, whereas original, creative, labor intensive, design, is denied. Craig
[Vo]:Crowdfunding and cold fusion
It is hard to get money for cold fusion research. How about financing science using e.g. kickstarter crowdfunding schemes? I just donated $11 for space elevator project that is planed to be build at full scale so that it is operational around 2020. Capacity for payload would be around two tons per climber at the first phase. Before that, I donated for 54 meters high vertical farm project at Linköping. As space elevator gathered $110k in just two weeks with almost zero advertisement budged, I would estimate that credible cold fusion research project could gather annually several million dollars using crowdfunding. –Jouni *Space Elevator Science - Climb to the Sky - A Tethered Tower* http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/michaellaine/space-elevator-science-climb-to-the-sky-a-tethered
Re: [Vo]:Crowdfunding and cold fusion
Dreadful choice, Jouni.Best choice in Universe is here;http://rwgresearch.com/open-projects/the-papp-noble-gas-engine/Just sent this winner $100 two weeks ago,. You just exposed your ignorance but possibly your brain is flawed. Stay away from hallucinogens.MeowJouni Valkonen Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:32:41 -0700 It is hard to get money for cold fusion research.How about financing science using e.g. kickstarter crowdfunding schemes? Ijust donated $11 for space elevator project that is planed to be build atfull scale so that it is operational around 2020. Capacity for payloadwould be around two tons per climber at the first phase. Before that, Idonated for 54 meters high vertical farm project at Linköping.As space elevator gathered $110k in just two weeks with almost zeroadvertisement budged, I would estimate that credible cold fusion researchproject could gather annually several million dollars using crowdfunding.–Jouni
[Vo]:LENR article at Casey Research
I usually really enjoy reading the articles on the Casey Research site, although the latest article from their Chief Energy Investment Strategist is a total hit piece IMHO. Really burns me up - I think I'm going to have to send her an email in response to it. http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/do-fringes-energy-science-offer-real-hope-energy-hungry-world Excerpt: /Cold fusion is many things -- including a mental exercise for theoretical physicists and a hoax from Andrea Rossi -- but legitimate is not one of them/// Anyone have any thoughts on what information to use to best discount her claims? Joe
Re: [Vo]:LENR article at Casey Research
That seems to be a conservative think tank or something of the sort. I guess this kind of assessment towards alternative energy is not unexpected. 2012/9/19 Joe Hughes jhughe...@comcast.net I usually really enjoy reading the articles on the Casey Research site, although the latest article from their Chief Energy Investment Strategist is a total hit piece IMHO. Really burns me up - I think I'm going to have to send her an email in response to it. http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/do-fringes-energy-science-offer-real-hope-energy-hungry-world Excerpt: *Cold fusion is many things – including a mental exercise for theoretical physicists and a hoax from Andrea Rossi – but legitimate is not one of them*** Anyone have any thoughts on what information to use to best discount her claims? Joe -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:LENR article at Casey Research
What is your basis for concluding that this is a conservative think tank? or is it just another one of your baseless opinions. The article appears to be a moderate piece written from the perspective of a skeptic of Rossi's shinanigans. A sentiment many of us here reflect. I do not see any conservative bias at all. In fact, I find his Jesus comment quite offensive. I resent the implication that you and Jed and other liberals in this forum always make. You take swipes at conservatives as if conservatives are the reason for all the ills of this world. I resent your implication that conservatives do not believe in science or do science. Well, I am a conservative, I believe in the existence of the Almighty Creator God. And I do science - to figure out the mind of God. And I do cold fusion research, and I have a Science degree. Much more than what you can say. 'Nuff said. Jojo - Original Message - From: Daniel Rocha To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 1:27 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR article at Casey Research That seems to be a conservative think tank or something of the sort. I guess this kind of assessment towards alternative energy is not unexpected. 2012/9/19 Joe Hughes jhughe...@comcast.net I usually really enjoy reading the articles on the Casey Research site, although the latest article from their Chief Energy Investment Strategist is a total hit piece IMHO. Really burns me up - I think I'm going to have to send her an email in response to it. http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/do-fringes-energy-science-offer-real-hope-energy-hungry-world Excerpt: Cold fusion is many things – including a mental exercise for theoretical physicists and a hoax from Andrea Rossi – but legitimate is not one of them Anyone have any thoughts on what information to use to best discount her claims? Joe -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
[Vo]:A LENR route to green fission?
A company formed by some SPAWAR alumni (and others), Global Energy Corporation claims to have a green fission technology nearly ready for testing in smaller markets - GUAM POWER AUTHORITY EXPLORES NUCLEAR POWER Next generation facilities could reduce power costs http://pidp.eastwestcenter.org/pireport/2012/February/02-13-02.htm Virginia firm offers nuclear energy http://www.mvariety.com/cnmi/cnmi-news/local/46996-virginia-firm-offers-nuclear-energy.php (Company website) http://www.globalenergycorporation.net/ A possibly relevant ICCF-17 paper - Its not Low Energy But it is Nuclear - Pamela A. Mosier-Boss http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Mosier-Boss-Its-Not-Low-Energy-Paper.pdf My interpretation is that they expect to use LENR to generate relatively low-energy neutrons to initiate fission chains starting with U-238 and terminating in fairly harmless wastes. To me, it seems similar to the Thorium reactor approach. Their adviser list seems impressive. Any opinions? - Lou Pagnucco
Re: [Vo]:LENR article at Casey Research
Please, I am not a liberal nor a conservative. And I did not have in mind the homophobic conservative kind but the economic thoughts usually associated with conservative think tanks. 2012/9/19 Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com ** What is your basis for concluding that this is a conservative think tank? or is it just another one of your baseless opinions. The article appears to be a moderate piece written from the perspective of a skeptic of Rossi's shinanigans. A sentiment many of us here reflect. I do not see any conservative bias at all. In fact, I find his Jesus comment quite offensive. I resent the implication that you and Jed and other liberals in this forum always make. You take swipes at conservatives as if conservatives are the reason for all the ills of this world. I resent your implication that conservatives do not believe in science or do science. Well, I am a conservative, I believe in the existence of the Almighty Creator God. And I do science - to figure out the mind of God. And I do cold fusion research, and I have a Science degree. Much more than what you can say. 'Nuff said. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Thursday, September 20, 2012 1:27 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:LENR article at Casey Research That seems to be a conservative think tank or something of the sort. I guess this kind of assessment towards alternative energy is not unexpected. 2012/9/19 Joe Hughes jhughe...@comcast.net I usually really enjoy reading the articles on the Casey Research site, although the latest article from their Chief Energy Investment Strategist is a total hit piece IMHO. Really burns me up - I think I'm going to have to send her an email in response to it. http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/do-fringes-energy-science-offer-real-hope-energy-hungry-world Excerpt: *Cold fusion is many things – including a mental exercise for theoretical physicists and a hoax from Andrea Rossi – but legitimate is not one of them*** Anyone have any thoughts on what information to use to best discount her claims? Joe -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
[Vo]:Scandal in Wikiland...
FYI: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57514677-93/corruption-in-wikiland-paid-pr- scandal-erupts-at-wikipedia/ .and this is probably more common than we think: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19527797 As with anything on the net, if you want ALL the facts, you need to visit a number of sites which are discussing a given issue and use them as a kind of 'debate', where each site has its own slant. Reading the comment section can also be quite helpful. -Mark Iverson
[Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents
If I had a nickel for every time ... Yeah, yeah ... you know the line. If I had a nickel for every time so-and-so inventor came up with a clever recipe for LENR success, I'd be a millionaire. So ... with that caveat in mind, here's a cheap tip about what to do with another cheap tip - all those Buffalo coins you've been saving for the meter ... IOW - there is a ready source of Romanowski alloy for Celani type reactions in your pocket, or center console, as we speak. The U.S. nickel has been a cupronickel since 1913 and the composition is rather similar to Constantan: 75% copper 25% nickel with trace amounts of manganese. Romanowski would approve. The US Mint may change this soon to save a few, err... nickels, so here is my advice to LENR experimenters... Save those nickels ! Do not feed the meters with your precious LENR alloys! After all, in some cities like SF these days, you get only about 120 seconds of parking for every nickel anyway, if the meter even takes them. And a quarter is actually less value than a nickel in metal value ... go figure. Strange days, these... Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:A LENR route to green fission?
I'm having a hard time making sense of this on several levels. For a one thing, the Mosier-Boss results (including the paper you link below and previous papers, all found in a page on their site) document fast neutrons, not thermal neutrons. For another thing, fission would put the lie to their waste claims. Methinks fission is fission; you're going to get the standard double-hump distribution of daughters, all radioactive. I suppose you could moderate and thermalize the neutrons, But after neutron capture (as opposed to fission) by U-238, a short decay chain ensues that quickly lands on Pu-239, which is long-lived and fissile. Not exactly a desirable result. Is there a real physicist in the house!? ;-) Jeff On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:15 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: A company formed by some SPAWAR alumni (and others), Global Energy Corporation claims to have a green fission technology nearly ready for testing in smaller markets - GUAM POWER AUTHORITY EXPLORES NUCLEAR POWER Next generation facilities could reduce power costs http://pidp.eastwestcenter.org/pireport/2012/February/02-13-02.htm Virginia firm offers nuclear energy http://www.mvariety.com/cnmi/cnmi-news/local/46996-virginia-firm-offers-nuclear-energy.php (Company website) http://www.globalenergycorporation.net/ A possibly relevant ICCF-17 paper - It’s not Low Energy – But it is Nuclear - Pamela A. Mosier-Boss http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Mosier-Boss-Its-Not-Low-Energy-Paper.pdf My interpretation is that they expect to use LENR to generate relatively low-energy neutrons to initiate fission chains starting with U-238 and terminating in fairly harmless wastes. To me, it seems similar to the Thorium reactor approach. Their adviser list seems impressive. Any opinions? - Lou Pagnucco
Re: [Vo]:Scandal in Wikiland...
Not so good for us. The inquisitors that block LENr feel they have a sacred mission to protect the population from manipulation and herery... they will became even more fanatic. I'm not too much afraid about greedy people, because they are a little rational, more about honest closed minds. The Roland Benabou groupthink model insnot based on greedyness but on the insticitive method to ignore facts when someone put your beliefs assets in danger... 2012/9/19 MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net FYI: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57514677-93/corruption-in-wikiland-paid-pr-scandal-erupts-at-wikipedia/ ** ** …and this is probably more common than we think: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19527797 ** ** As with anything on the net, if you want ALL the facts, you need to visit a number of sites which are discussing a given issue and use them as a kind of ‘debate’, where each site has its own slant. Reading the comment section can also be quite helpful… -Mark Iverson ** **
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
this order is bad in real lifen and the rejection of LENR is caused by that pseudo-rational pathology... in real life the inventors discover a phenomenon, try to make it useful... if it work, they are happy and try to optimize until all is blocked... if not they are blocked... when they are blocked, they try to build a theory to know where to look at... basically phenomenological model... with that they make it work as needed... finally scientist get the story and make a theory compatible with other scientific theory... theory is not a goal, but a tool to make things work, or kids happy (scientist a curious kids or bad scientists). 2012/9/19 Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com my five cents: a) aim at reproducibility, whatever the COP or power-level. b) produce a working hypothesis c) investigate 'ash' and side-effects: radiation, energy bursts, etc. d) repeat (a), (b), (c) until convergence a robust 'theory-experiment'- loop is established. e) aim for 'commercial' level. Jumping to (e) prematurely is futile, quack, nonsensical. Commerce and science do not mix easily, to be polite. Please spare me Edison or Tesla. Bad examples. Galvani being a better one. Guenter --- *Von:* Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com *An:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Gesendet:* 2:59 Mittwoch, 19.September 2012 *Betreff:* Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability Godes probably wouldn't agree. Fwiw, he seems to be an advocate of an electron capture kind of hypothesis as opposed to a fusion kind of hypothesis. Electron capture hypotheses roughly substitute the miracle of coming up with a missing ~0.8MeV (along with some quantum mumbo jumbo) for the miracle of crossing the Coulomb barrier (and a different set of quantum mumbo jumbo). Sorry to anyone I might offend with this offhand comment. ;-) From what little he says, his views seems distinct from Widom-Larson. This was discussed in the group recently. Jeff
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
James Bowery wrote: No. Patentability criteria are: Novel, non-obvious and useful. The utility of a patent does not exist if it doesn't actually work. Correct. I think useful means usable. That is, the invention does something, however trivial. It works. The purpose it is applied to may be trivial, or of no practical or desirable use to anyone. It does not have to have any commercial value. I base this on discussions with David French, and also on various websites that say things like: the invention must have some usefulness (utility), no matter how trivial. David French emphasizes that just because you get a patent, that does not mean the invention has any commercial value or that you will make any money from it. He says many patents are awarded for inventions that no one wants. They are useless in that sense. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:question about passive solar heat
In reply to fznidar...@aol.com's message of Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:36:46 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] I can think of no way to place the hose on the roof and get it to work. If the hose is lower than the tank it conveys hot water to the tank and shuts down the loop current when the sun goes down thus holding hot water in the tank. ...but when the Sun goes down, that's exactly where you want the hot water. :) Besides, by having the tank up high, it provides gravity feed pressure to your hot water taps. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:A LENR route to green fission?
Good points, Jeff Maybe, I'm assuming incorrectly, bu from Mosier-Boss paper excerpt - These results indicated that there were at least two channels - an aneutronic channel that produced heat (the so-called true Fleischmann-Pons effect) and another channel that favored formation of energetic charged particles, neutrons, and tritium. It was Swartz [3] who suggested that, by adjusting the experimental parameters, one could switch from one channel to the other. - I surmised that rather than just fully aneutronic channels, there were also low energy neutrons, since (I think) transmutations have been reported in the absence of high energy neutron emissions. Yes, Pu-239 is very long-lived, but doesn't this mean it will hang around long enough to capture enough neutrons to convert to some shorter-lived isotope? And, similarly with other long-lived byproducts? -- Lou Pagnucco Jeff Berkowitz wrote: I'm having a hard time making sense of this on several levels. For a one thing, the Mosier-Boss results (including the paper you link below and previous papers, all found in a page on their site) document fast neutrons, not thermal neutrons. For another thing, fission would put the lie to their waste claims. Methinks fission is fission; you're going to get the standard double-hump distribution of daughters, all radioactive. I suppose you could moderate and thermalize the neutrons, But after neutron capture (as opposed to fission) by U-238, a short decay chain ensues that quickly lands on Pu-239, which is long-lived and fissile. Not exactly a desirable result. Is there a real physicist in the house!? ;-) Jeff On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:15 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: A company formed by some SPAWAR alumni (and others), Global Energy Corporation claims to have a green fission technology nearly ready for testing in smaller markets - GUAM POWER AUTHORITY EXPLORES NUCLEAR POWER Next generation facilities could reduce power costs http://pidp.eastwestcenter.org/pireport/2012/February/02-13-02.htm Virginia firm offers nuclear energy http://www.mvariety.com/cnmi/cnmi-news/local/46996-virginia-firm-offers-nuclear-energy.php (Company website) http://www.globalenergycorporation.net/ A possibly relevant ICCF-17 paper - Its not Low Energy But it is Nuclear - Pamela A. Mosier-Boss http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Mosier-Boss-Its-Not-Low-Energy-Paper.pdf My interpretation is that they expect to use LENR to generate relatively low-energy neutrons to initiate fission chains starting with U-238 and terminating in fairly harmless wastes. To me, it seems similar to the Thorium reactor approach. Their adviser list seems impressive. Any opinions? - Lou Pagnucco
Re: [Vo]:A LENR route to green fission?
In reply to pagnu...@htdconnect.com's message of Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:33:12 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] Good points, Jeff Maybe, I'm assuming incorrectly, bu from Mosier-Boss paper excerpt - These results indicated that there were at least two channels - an aneutronic channel that produced heat (the so-called true Fleischmann-Pons effect) and another channel that favored formation of energetic charged particles, neutrons, and tritium. It was Swartz [3] who suggested that, by adjusting the experimental parameters, one could switch from one channel to the other. - I surmised that rather than just fully aneutronic channels, there were also low energy neutrons, since (I think) transmutations have been reported in the absence of high energy neutron emissions. Yes, Pu-239 is very long-lived, but doesn't this mean it will hang around long enough to capture enough neutrons to convert to some shorter-lived isotope? And, similarly with other long-lived byproducts? [snip] They are clearly planning on using the D+D reaction to create T + p then the D+T reaction to create 14 MeV neutrons. In the world of fission reactions, anything 1 MeV is considered high energy. A 14 MeV neutron will fission *any* of the Actinides directly, resulting in the release of about 200 MeV, and radioactive daughter products. However as a (very) rough rule of thumb, the lighter the isotope the shorter the half life. It's the radioactive Actinides that have very long half lives that require storage forever. Since all the Actinides will be burnt up, there should be few isotopes left with very long half lives. Since by far the largest component of nuclear reactor waste is unburned U238, such waste can clearly be a fuel, as can Plutonium, natural Uranium, and Thorium. BTW as some Vorticians will remember, I have previously suggested using muon catalyzed fusion to achieve this same result. Now it seems these folks are planning on doing the same thing, but using a LENR reaction to create the neutrons. (1 GeV = 1 muon = 100 DT fusion reactions = 100 neutrons = 100 x 200 MeV fission reactions = 20 GeV thermal = 6-8 GeV electrical). COP = 6-8. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Crowdfunding and cold fusion
In reply to c...@inbox.lv's message of Wed, 19 Sep 2012 20:04:33 +0300: Dear cat in box, Are you dead or alive? Enquiring minds desperately want this question answered. ;^) [snip] Dreadful choice, Jouni. Best choice in Universe is here; http://rwgresearch.com/open-projects/the-papp-noble-gas-engine/ Just sent this winner $100 two weeks ago,. You just exposed your ignorance but possibly your brain is flawed. Stay away from hallucinogens. Meow Jouni Valkonen Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:32:41 -0700 It is hard to get money for cold fusion research. How about financing science using e.g. kickstarter crowdfunding schemes? I just donated $11 for space elevator project that is planed to be build at full scale so that it is operational around 2020. Capacity for payload would be around two tons per climber at the first phase. Before that, I donated for 54 meters high vertical farm project at Linköping. As space elevator gathered $110k in just two weeks with almost zero advertisement budged, I would estimate that credible cold fusion research project could gather annually several million dollars using crowdfunding. Jouni Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
In reply to Craig Haynie's message of Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:13:21 -0400: Hi, [snip] These are nonsense, and threaten the whole concept of intellectual property, whereas original, creative, labor intensive, design, is denied. ..now you understand the true purpose of the patent office! ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Crowdfunding and cold fusion
Robin, This is one of Chan's alter ego sign in names. The persons that go by the name Reliable, Chan, Phen, Ny min, Mint Candy, cy cle and other chinese names are one and the same person. How do I know this, simply that everytime I post a criticism of Chan's method, or the Flat Plate Heat Exchanger Spark Plug method or anyone of those fake LENR aparatus, I get a barrage of private emails from this guy using various email addresses. I respond and reveal something to one and all of a sudden, every chinese sign in name knows about it. These idiots are one and the same person who want to delay and confuse LENR research with their disinformation. Everytime I post something about my nanotube research and my theory, I get some private email trying to point me to a link to Chan's site or to some other useless link. The purpose seems to be to waste my time. Don't even bother to open links they post, they're useless junk intended to divert your attention and focus and waste your time.. There's enough proof in the Vortex archives to prove what I am saying. All you have to do is do a little digging and correlate certain facts they mention, and you will discover they know certain things they should not know unless they were the same person. Best to ignore these morons. Chinese people seem to have no qualms about lying, so keep that in mind. Jojo - Original Message - From: mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 6:09 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Crowdfunding and cold fusion In reply to c...@inbox.lv's message of Wed, 19 Sep 2012 20:04:33 +0300: Dear cat in box, Are you dead or alive? Enquiring minds desperately want this question answered. ;^) [snip] Dreadful choice, Jouni. Best choice in Universe is here; http://rwgresearch.com/open-projects/the-papp-noble-gas-engine/ Just sent this winner $100 two weeks ago,. You just exposed your ignorance but possibly your brain is flawed. Stay away from hallucinogens. Meow Jouni Valkonen Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:32:41 -0700 It is hard to get money for cold fusion research. How about financing science using e.g. kickstarter crowdfunding schemes? I just donated $11 for space elevator project that is planed to be build at full scale so that it is operational around 2020. Capacity for payload would be around two tons per climber at the first phase. Before that, I donated for 54 meters high vertical farm project at Linköping. As space elevator gathered $110k in just two weeks with almost zero advertisement budged, I would estimate that credible cold fusion research project could gather annually several million dollars using crowdfunding. -Jouni Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Question Concerning Celani's Charts
A quick look at Celani's chart on page 31 of his report leads to a few interesting thoughts. In that chart he plots the excess power as one variable versus time. The shape of the waveform suggests that his device has most likely achieved a state of self sustaining operation for brief periods of time. He is monitoring the temperature of the outer glass surface to calculate the radiated power from which he subtracts the 48 watts applied to the inactive wire. I notice that the leading edges of the power waveform pulses are very steep and the period of time during which the large excess power is seen is short. I suspect that a strong filtering function is at work to greatly reduce the glass outer surface temperature and that the actual power might be quite a bit larger than that shown on the chart. The power pulses could be in the form of impulses with a peak of 50 watts or more, although we can not determine that from the low resolution of the chart. From an earlier discussion I proposed that a drive power of 48 watts applied to the inactive wire would behave as a joule heating of 15 watts applied to the active LENR wire. The active wire is also subjected to the high gas temperature associated with the inactive drive wire heating. This combination could very easily result in a self sustaining mode due to the large COP gain that I think is present. My main question is why does the power decay back to below the average output after a very brief period? Rossi has always insisted that melting of his material brings the LENR output to an immediate halt and this curve appears to support that idea. Furthermore, the many similar impulses that show up in Celani's chart make me believe that each one is an independent positive feedback event that continues until its conclusion. If my hypothesis is true, then the surface of the active wire most likely would demonstrate a very large collection of damaged regions due to the many active pulses. It is possible that rapid re crystallization of each region after the melting event would allow it to return to active duty, but this would need to be confirmed. I simulated a system that began in a stable mode which transformed into one of positive feedback reinforcement that would quickly proceed toward large excess output power and the Celani waveforms have a similar appearance. The recovery toward zero excess power would be slower than the rising edge if the system lost its positive feedback due to melting, otherwise both edges would be rapid. I would like to pursue this line of thought further to verify that it is occurring, but a more detailed set of data will be required before the waveforms can be adequately resolved. Does anyone know of a link to the supporting data from which the Celani charts were drawn? I have not be able to locate the details. Dave
Re: [Vo]:question about passive solar heat
Frank, How about just using black hose running in a back and forth direction from the bottom of your roof to its apex, with a temperature sensitive valve at the apex point, and a black hose, from the apex, running down the sunny side of your house into the hot water container in your basement. When the water at the apex of your roof attains a pre-selected temperature the valve opens and lets waterenter the system from the low point of your roof pushing the water into the container in the basement, until the temperature at the apex lowers to a predetermined temperature and shuts off. Repeat. Bob snip Thanks Bob. The problem is that cold water must then be lifted to the roof from the basement. It takes lift to get it to go up.
Re: [Vo]:question about passive solar heat
Frank; I made the assumption you are on a city type pressurized water system, therefore no need to lift to roof. If your not, I see the dilemma. Pretty hard to do without some type of pump. Bob At 05:24 PM 9/19/2012, you wrote: Frank, How about just using black hose running in a back and forth direction from the bottom of your roof to its apex, with a temperature sensitive valve at the apex point, and a black hose, from the apex, running down the sunny side of your house into the hot water container in your basement. When the water at the apex of your roof attains a pre-selected temperature the valve opens and lets waterenter the system from the low point of your roof pushing the water into the container in the basement, until the temperature at the apex lowers to a predetermined temperature and shuts off. Repeat. Bob snip Thanks Bob. The problem is that cold water must then be lifted to the roof from the basement. It takes lift to get it to go up.
Re: [Vo]:question about passive solar heat
I live in the city with gas hot water. Its not for me but its for an isolated cabin. It has a pressurized system, however, I want to transfer hot water to the tank even when the water is off. I think the loop idea may work. It will only transfer a fraction of its flow rate to the tank and many have enough reserve lift to carry the cold water up. It is getting a little late in the season to try it out. -Original Message- From: Robert Dorr rod...@comcast.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Sep 19, 2012 8:33 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:question about passive solar heat Frank; I made the assumption you are on a city type pressurized water system,therefore no need to lift to roof. If your not, I see the dilemma. Prettyhard to do without some type of pump. Bob At 05:24 PM 9/19/2012, you wrote: Frank, How about just usingblack hose running in a back and forth direction from the bottom of yourroof to its apex, with a temperature sensitive valve at the apex point,and a black hose, from the apex, running down the sunny side of yourhouse into the hot water container in your basement. When the water atthe apex of your roof attains a pre-selected temperature the valve opensand lets waterenter the system from the low point of your roof pushingthe water into the container in the basement, until the temperature atthe apex lowers to a predetermined temperature and shuts off.Repeat. Bob snip Thanks Bob. The problem is that cold water must then be lifted tothe roof from the basement. It takes lift to get it to goup.
[Vo]:graphs of reaction and decay networks
I've put together some graphs of exothermic proton and deuteron capture reaction networks for several materials together with associated decay chains. See: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzKtdce19-wySThpSnd3bUxJdDQ A PDF can be obtained by choosing Download from the File menu at the left. If you see any details in error, let me know. There is a fascinating pair of reactions that I haven't completely made sense of yet: 15N + D - 13C + A + 7.7 MeV 13C + D - 15N + γ + 16.1 MeV At face value, it is a catalytic reaction that takes deuterium and yields helium-4. But I'm not able to make sense of the energy balance. it appears to be saying that if you take 15N and add deuterium, you'll get 13C and some energy, and if you take 13C and add deuterium, you'll get 15N and some energy. I've probably messed up the calculation; if not, there's some magic going on there. Eric
Re: [Vo]:graphs of reaction and decay networks
Hi Eric, I made a quick calculation and believe that your balance adds up. The net process is equal to the production of a He4 atom from two deuterons. Each deuteron releases 2.224 MeV to build from parts while a He4 atom releases 28.2933 MeV if constructed from basic parts. So if you start with the two deuterons and end with He4 you get 28.2933 - 2 * 2.224 = 23.8453 MeV. The total released by your two reactions is 23.8 MeV. The numbers appear to correlate. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Sep 19, 2012 11:54 pm Subject: [Vo]:graphs of reaction and decay networks I've put together some graphs of exothermic proton and deuteron capture reaction networks for several materials together with associated decay chains. See: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzKtdce19-wySThpSnd3bUxJdDQ A PDF can be obtained by choosing Download from the File menu at the left. If you see any details in error, let me know. There is a fascinating pair of reactions that I haven't completely made sense of yet: 15N + D - 13C + A + 7.7 MeV 13C + D - 15N + γ + 16.1 MeV At face value, it is a catalytic reaction that takes deuterium and yields helium-4. But I'm not able to make sense of the energy balance. it appears to be saying that if you take 15N and add deuterium, you'll get 13C and some energy, and if you take 13C and add deuterium, you'll get 15N and some energy. I've probably messed up the calculation; if not, there's some magic going on there. Eric
Re: [Vo]:A LENR route to green fission?
Piantelli also found the two channel effect in his radiation experiments. This behavior was caused by the speed in which hydrogen loading was done in nickel. Slow loading produced radiation and fast loading produced heat. http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=1cad=rjaved=0CCkQFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnewenergytimes.com%2Fv2%2Flibrary%2F2004%2F2004Focardi-EvidenceOfElectromagneticRadiation.pdfei=WqpaULaAFIXy0gGb94DABQusg=AFQjCNHu3w5dimV_JIaouNutOQePoXu2Pgsig2=D0x1bSsDVfrhx7bM0uaKyg A formation of condensate of proton pairs would thermalize the energy coming out of these LENR based nuclear reactions. If the proton condensate does not form, the LENR associated radiation comes out of the nucleus as energetic particles since there is no proton condensate available to thermalize this nuclear energy. Cheers:Axil On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 4:33 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Good points, Jeff Maybe, I'm assuming incorrectly, bu from Mosier-Boss paper excerpt - These results indicated that there were at least two channels - an aneutronic channel that produced heat (the so-called true Fleischmann-Pons effect) and another channel that favored formation of energetic charged particles, neutrons, and tritium. It was Swartz [3] who suggested that, by adjusting the experimental parameters, one could switch from one channel to the other. - I surmised that rather than just fully aneutronic channels, there were also low energy neutrons, since (I think) transmutations have been reported in the absence of high energy neutron emissions. Yes, Pu-239 is very long-lived, but doesn't this mean it will hang around long enough to capture enough neutrons to convert to some shorter-lived isotope? And, similarly with other long-lived byproducts? -- Lou Pagnucco Jeff Berkowitz wrote: I'm having a hard time making sense of this on several levels. For a one thing, the Mosier-Boss results (including the paper you link below and previous papers, all found in a page on their site) document fast neutrons, not thermal neutrons. For another thing, fission would put the lie to their waste claims. Methinks fission is fission; you're going to get the standard double-hump distribution of daughters, all radioactive. I suppose you could moderate and thermalize the neutrons, But after neutron capture (as opposed to fission) by U-238, a short decay chain ensues that quickly lands on Pu-239, which is long-lived and fissile. Not exactly a desirable result. Is there a real physicist in the house!? ;-) Jeff On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:15 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: A company formed by some SPAWAR alumni (and others), Global Energy Corporation claims to have a green fission technology nearly ready for testing in smaller markets - GUAM POWER AUTHORITY EXPLORES NUCLEAR POWER Next generation facilities could reduce power costs http://pidp.eastwestcenter.org/pireport/2012/February/02-13-02.htm Virginia firm offers nuclear energy http://www.mvariety.com/cnmi/cnmi-news/local/46996-virginia-firm-offers-nuclear-energy.php (Company website) http://www.globalenergycorporation.net/ A possibly relevant ICCF-17 paper - It’s not Low Energy – But it is Nuclear - Pamela A. Mosier-Boss http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Mosier-Boss-Its-Not-Low-Energy-Paper.pdf My interpretation is that they expect to use LENR to generate relatively low-energy neutrons to initiate fission chains starting with U-238 and terminating in fairly harmless wastes. To me, it seems similar to the Thorium reactor approach. Their adviser list seems impressive. Any opinions? - Lou Pagnucco
Re: [Vo]:graphs of reaction and decay networks
Where are the tritium and the neutrons? This reaction has two branches that occur with nearly equal probability:D + D→ T+ 1HD + D→ 3He+ n Then 2 1D + 3 1T → 4 2He + 1 0n http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron Cheers:Axil On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:50 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Hi Eric, I made a quick calculation and believe that your balance adds up. The net process is equal to the production of a He4 atom from two deuterons. Each deuteron releases 2.224 MeV to build from parts while a He4 atom releases 28.2933 MeV if constructed from basic parts. So if you start with the two deuterons and end with He4 you get 28.2933 - 2 * 2.224 = 23.8453 MeV. The total released by your two reactions is 23.8 MeV. The numbers appear to correlate. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Sep 19, 2012 11:54 pm Subject: [Vo]:graphs of reaction and decay networks I've put together some graphs of exothermic proton and deuteron capture reaction networks for several materials together with associated decay chains. See: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzKtdce19-wySThpSnd3bUxJdDQ A PDF can be obtained by choosing Download from the File menu at the left. If you see any details in error, let me know. There is a fascinating pair of reactions that I haven't completely made sense of yet: 15N + D - 13C + A + 7.7 MeV 13C + D - 15N + γ + 16.1 MeV At face value, it is a catalytic reaction that takes deuterium and yields helium-4. But I'm not able to make sense of the energy balance. it appears to be saying that if you take 15N and add deuterium, you'll get 13C and some energy, and if you take 13C and add deuterium, you'll get 15N and some energy. I've probably messed up the calculation; if not, there's some magic going on there. Eric
