[Vo]:The Believers wins Best Documentary at Chicago Film Festival
http://moviecitynews.com/2012/10/the-48th-chicago-international-film-festival-announces-the-winners-of-its-competitions/ * Docufest Competition* This selection of international documentaries competing for the Gold Hugo go beyond the headlines in telling those true stories that surprise, entertain and challenge us. The *Gold Hugo *goes to *THE BELIEVERS* (USA). This tightly constructed cinematic argument with strong characters puts a human face on scientific research and discovery acknowledging our universal understanding of human failings in our desire to achieve success. In *THE BELIEVERS,* the filmmakers remind us just how inexact science really is sometimes. Directors: Clayton Brown and Monica Long Ross. The *Silver Hugo* goes to *NUMBERED* (Israel). Visually stunning, compelling stories with surprising humor and wit edited into an impactful whole to remind us that the past lives on for the next generations. *NUMBERED* clearly demonstrates the importance of documenting the collective story of the Holocaust and other world genocide. Director: Dana Doron and Uriel Sinai. The Docufest Competition Jury includes Reiner Veit, Alicia Sams and Ruth Leitman. -- Ruby Carat Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
[Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs
Hello group, After contacting Michael A. Nelson directly and receiving confirmation that he attended as an independent witness to Defkalion GT testings, it looks like Mark Gibbs changed his tune a bit. Full article here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/10/20/cold-fusion-gets-a-little-more-real/ Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs
Le Oct 21, 2012 à 12:44 AM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com a écrit : After contacting Michael A. Nelson directly and receiving confirmation that he attended as an independent witness to Defkalion GT testings, it looks like Mark Gibbs changed his tune a bit. Full article here: Mark, I appreciate the positive tone of the new article and share your hopes that the new DGT tests will help to put LENR research on a firmer foundation. It is difficult, though, to see you be dismissive of folks like Storms, McKubre and Miles by implying that they are somehow not serious scientists. They are competent and have chosen the difficult path of pursuing a scientific interest that has given them little in the way of recognition among their peers in the larger scientific community. I appreciate the pressure to write in a language that a wide audience can relate to, but we should resist pandering to facile stereotypes. The fact is that the recent DGT tests, if confirmed, will only have been the tip of an iceberg of solid science backing up cold fusion. It is the steadfast critics among physicists whose credentials as serious scientists should be given closer scrutiny. Eric
Re: [Vo]:A123 systems goes bankrupt
Wgat is happening of the LiFePO4 battery family. It was looking very promising. Robust Li batteries that don't explode even under fire, crash or explosion... comparable energy density. good power density... good endurance... are there other palyes ? did A123 battery division colapse too? or is it only the solar side? (NB: I've been interested in LiFePO4 for hi-power bike lighting) 2012/10/21 fznidar...@aol.com The great green solar and battery society that our goverment has put its hopes on is going bankrupt one player at a time. I was going to buy A-123 stock. I am glad I did not. I was going to by Bezer Home for 30 cents a share, I could kick myself to missing 80 times my investment. Who knows! Maybe someday I'll get lucky. Frank Z
Re: [Vo]:For Safety Reasons Drive Always Required in SSM
defkalion is more clear about that, and it look similar. they drive the chamber with plasma excitation for few time, then for few minute the reactor is not excited (told SSM for e-cat) When getting cooler, it is excited again. Cycle looks the same for E-catand Hyperion, but E-cat is just slower, and excitation is just heat , not spark. 2012/10/21 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com Rossi has been asked another time about drive during the self sustaining mode and confirmed that it is required for safety reasons. Check this question and answer. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748cpage=3#comment-365011and http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748cpage=3#comment-365064. With this response there can be little doubt that what he refers to as SSM is really a duty cycle input drive waveform as I have suggested on many occasions. In his journal, he points out that the Hot Cat SSM periods are typically 1 hour. My interpretation is that the drive lasts for about 1 hour and then the device drifts for another 1 hour. I admit that he is elusive in explaining the actual operation of the device. Also, Rossi continues to quote a COP of 6 for his product. Read this link: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748cpage=3#comment-365306. This is for the Hot Cat contracts even with the latest reported data. I do not consider this a problem at this point since it makes sense according to my simulations. Of course I would like to see evidence of a larger COP, but with the high temperatures now being produced it is obvious to me that he should be able to connect his device to a generator of some type and have sufficient electrical power available for the drive and plenty left over. At one time gas heating was suggested by him, but that appears to be left out of his postings now. I am not sure why this is so. Dave
Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs
I wrote: Storms, McKubre and Miles by implying that they are somehow not serious scientists. I have given away my Anglo-American ethnocentrism. I should add that these three are are just several in a long list of capable researchers from all over the world. Eric
Re: [Vo]:For Safety Reasons Drive Always Required in SSM
Lads and Lassies, From Rossi: 1. Jaroslaw Bem http://www.ecat-polska.pl October 20th, 2012 at 7:04 PM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748cpage=3#comment-365626 To all but especially to Markus K. Markus K. wrote October 15th, 2012 at 3:45 PM: “I was thinking about your control principle with heating resistors and i don’t understand how the system can work: Because every stable control system needs a negative feedback loop. But from what i know about your Ecat, there is a positive feedback loop: if the reaction in the core begins to heat, the temperature rises and as the temp rises the reaction increases. There is no negative feedback that would reduce temperature if it goes above the target temperature, because you have no cooling, only heating resistors.” The negative feedback loop is not need to drive ECAT. For the safety reason is enough to set the hard conditions of the charge chamber ( volume, shape, masses of reactants, area of surface of Nickel powder etc. ) in such way, to slow fade out reaction. Positive feedback loop is needed only for initialize reaction and to heat reactants from time to time, to the target temperature. The lack of positive feedback loop drive, fade out reaction to stop in one hour. For example black out is not dangerous for ECAT, because reaction without the drive, slowly fade out to stop. It is only my opinion, but real facts are Dr Rossi’s secret. Best regards Jaroslaw Bem 2. Prof. Azimuth October 20th, 2012 at 8:30 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748cpage=3#comment-365212 @Ing. Rossi For safety reasons we always need the drive. How can you drive hotcat? Putting electric power to the internal resistors? Hot regards Prof. Azimuth 3. Andrea Rossi October 20th, 2012 at 11:01 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748cpage=3#comment-365304 Dear Prof. Azimuth: This is confidential. Warm Regards, A.R. 4. :-) Chan
[Vo]:Aviation has become too safe for cost-effective improvement
Here is an interesting article about aviation safety: http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/10/43_months_since_last_deadly_ai.html Commercial aviation has become so safe that most suggested additional improvements are no longer cost effective. Eventually, sometime in the future, radically new and improved aviation technology will emerge, such as cold fusion. Cold fusion will greatly reduced fatalities because it will eliminate deaths from burning chemical fuel. With changes like this aviation will become even safer than it is now, at no additional cost. It will be both cheaper and safer. What we have now is a technology that has been developed to its practical limits. Aviation has reached a plateau, albeit a temporary one. It cannot be made much safer as long as we use chemical-fuel power jet turbine engines that work at high temperatures and spin rapidly. We will always have problems such as engines disintegrating at high speeds, failing during flight, or igniting the fuel tanks. Along similar lines, automobiles fatalities per passenger mile are much lower than they used to be. Automobiles driven by human beings are probably close to the practical limits of safety. To make them far safer, and to reduce fatalities from 30,000 per year to close to zero per year, we must have fully-automatic robotic automobiles. I doubt it will be possible to reduce automobile deaths to zero anytime in the next few hundred years. Anything moving that fast is bound to fail and kill some number of people every year. I predict that automobile accidents will become so rare, they will be national headline news. There will Congressional investigations launched when 5 or 10 people are killed in a single day. In a particularly bad year after a thousand people are killed, news pundits and Members of Congress will say, why aren't we doing more to improve road safety and reduce these tragedies. From our point of view, they will be fretting about a non-existent problem -- a problem they have already solved. From the point of view of people in 1850, our present angst about the safety of vaccines for infectious disease would make no sense. We worry about ~50 people dying from vaccines per year, whereas if we did not have those vaccines, with our population millions of people would die every year from diseases such as tetanus, measles and diphtheria. See: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/casesdeaths.PDF Still, it makes sense for us to agonize about those 50 people, and to try to do something the problem. A century from now it will make sense for the Congress and the regulatory agencies to try to reduce automobile deaths from ~1000 per year down to 100 or so. When today's aviation technologies are finally replaced, we might move on to aircraft which are so safe, we can have small, individual, robot-controlled air cars or air taxis for individual use. These will be far safer than today's automobiles. I know they will be, because if they are not, the public will not use them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A123 systems goes bankrupt
Before I started forecasting earthquakes, hurricanes and sinkholes I predicted A123 was a loser. I think Terry jumped in and told me they had new investors and might be a great buy. I hope he did not buy the stock... They were providing Fisker's batteries, another colossal Obama losermobile company. If they go under too Justin Bieber might have to ride a bicycle to work, which would be safer for everyone... Stewart Darkmattersalot.com On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 4:12 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: Wgat is happening of the LiFePO4 battery family. It was looking very promising. Robust Li batteries that don't explode even under fire, crash or explosion... comparable energy density. good power density... good endurance... are there other palyes ? did A123 battery division colapse too? or is it only the solar side? (NB: I've been interested in LiFePO4 for hi-power bike lighting) 2012/10/21 fznidar...@aol.com The great green solar and battery society that our goverment has put its hopes on is going bankrupt one player at a time. I was going to buy A-123 stock. I am glad I did not. I was going to by Bezer Home for 30 cents a share, I could kick myself to missing 80 times my investment. Who knows! Maybe someday I'll get lucky. Frank Z
[Vo]:The Believers, Cold Fusion Documentary wins The Gold Hugo Award for Best Documentary at the Chicago Film Festival.
from the site moviecitynews: The *Gold Hugo *goes to *THE BELIEVERS* (USA). This tightly constructed cinematic argument with strong characters puts a human face on scientific research and discovery acknowledging our universal understanding of human failings in our desire to achieve success. In *THE BELIEVERS,* the filmmakers remind us just how inexact science really is sometimes. Directors: Clayton Brown and Monica Long Ross. http://moviecitynews.com/2012/10/the-48th-chicago-international-film-festival-announces-the-winners-of-its-competitions/ http://coldfusionnow.org/screen-daily-reviews-the-believers/ http://www.screendaily.com/reviews/the-latest/the-believers/5047850.article?blocktitle=Latest-ReviewscontentID=1479 Seems the 137 Films people are still looking for supporters and some volunteers for various jobs: http://www.137films.org/support-us.html
Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs
Gibbs: I know that there will be a handful of people (the “believers” I wrote about some time ago) who read that statement and cry “lies” but the fact is that no one has yet demonstrated, definitively, that cold fusion or LENR exists in a form that is actually useful. Now the argument is being useful. LOL!
Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs
The goal keeps rising as always. I suspect that one of the future issues will be safety once this latest milestone is achieved according to his research. Do you think that Gibbs is merely attempting to appear like he is writing a balanced article? You know, where he must show both sides of the story. He does not yet realize that there is only one real side to this amazing story! Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Oct 21, 2012 11:21 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs Gibbs: I know that there will be a handful of people (the “believers” I wrote about some time ago) who read that statement and cry “lies” but the fact is that no one has yet demonstrated, definitively, that cold fusion or LENR exists in a form that is actually useful. Now the argument is being useful. LOL!
Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs
I was going to suggest to Mr. Gibbs that he ask Norman Foster Ramsey, co-chair of the DoE's original cold fusion panel, if he thought that there had been even one well attested reproduction of the phenomenon, whether useful or not. But then I noticed Ramsey died less than a year agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Foster_Ramsey,_Jr. : *Ordinarily, new scientific discoveries are claimed to be consistent and reproducible; as a result, if the experiments are not complicated, the discovery can usually be confirmed or disproved in a few months. The claims of cold fusion, however, are unusual in that even the strongest proponents of cold fusion assert that the experiments, for unknown reasons, are not consistent and reproducible at the present time. However, even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary. * - Dr. Norman Ramsey, Nobel laureate and professor of physics at Harvard University was the only person on the the 1989 Department of Energy cold fusion review panel to voice a dissenting opinion. Ramsey insisted on the inclusion of this preamble as an alternative to his resignation from the panel. On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:06 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The goal keeps rising as always. I suspect that one of the future issues will be safety once this latest milestone is achieved according to his research. Do you think that Gibbs is merely attempting to appear like he is writing a balanced article? You know, where he must show both sides of the story. He does not yet realize that there is only one real side to this amazing story! Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Oct 21, 2012 11:21 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs Gibbs: I know that there will be a handful of people (the “believers” I wrote about some time ago) who read that statement and cry “lies” but the fact is that no one has yet demonstrated, definitively, that cold fusion or LENR exists in a form that is actually useful. Now the argument is being useful. LOL!
Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs
Sigh . . . Another ignorant article by Gibbs. Here is what I just wrote in the Forbes article comment section: The author wrote: Even so, the Defkalion tests were, as far as any cold fusion experiment performed to date has gone, the best so far and they were witnessed by someone who is, for want of a better description, a serious scientist. This statement is preposterous. Cold fusion has been replicated in hundreds of major laboratories, in thousands of test runs. Many of these runs were far better than the Defkalion tests witnessed by Nelson. Many of these other tests have been witnessed by world-class experts in calorimetry, such Robert Duncan of U. Missouri. This was shown in 60 Minutes. The Defkalion tests were not bad, but tests at SRI, Los Alamos, BARC, China Lake and other major laboratories used much better equipment and produced much larger signal to noise ratios. In some of these other tests the ratio of input to output was larger than Defkalion's, and in some there was no input, so the ratio was infinite. Hundreds of mainstream, peer-reviewed journal papers have been published describing experiments more convincing than the Defkalion tests. Gibbs is ignoring this peer-reviewed literature and looking instead at few preliminary documents published on the Internet. He is ignoring the gold standard of established science. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A123 systems goes bankrupt
I haven't followed this story carefully, but a friend of mine (who has) wrote the following: Uh, you should look into A123 Systems, who started it and what they did before criticizing them. These guys developed and improved the Lithium Iron Phosphate battery chemistry while at MIT, then spun out a startup company to commercialize their advances. They were chosen by GM to engineer and build the Volt batteries. These guys aren't some fly by night outfit who just blew smoke up some government officials asses to get that loan. They were a prime startup candidate and had already received many millions of dollars in venture capital backing. And they are being purchased by Johnson Controls for $125 Million, they have assets of $460 Million and debts of $376 Million, plus patents in the battery technology field. It's disappointing to see stuff like this turned into a political football for electioneering purposes. And even more disappointing to see educated people swallowing it whole... Jeff On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:04 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Before I started forecasting earthquakes, hurricanes and sinkholes I predicted A123 was a loser. I think Terry jumped in and told me they had new investors and might be a great buy. I hope he did not buy the stock... They were providing Fisker's batteries, another colossal Obama losermobile company. If they go under too Justin Bieber might have to ride a bicycle to work, which would be safer for everyone... Stewart Darkmattersalot.com On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 4:12 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: Wgat is happening of the LiFePO4 battery family. It was looking very promising. Robust Li batteries that don't explode even under fire, crash or explosion... comparable energy density. good power density... good endurance... are there other palyes ? did A123 battery division colapse too? or is it only the solar side? (NB: I've been interested in LiFePO4 for hi-power bike lighting) 2012/10/21 fznidar...@aol.com The great green solar and battery society that our goverment has put its hopes on is going bankrupt one player at a time. I was going to buy A-123 stock. I am glad I did not. I was going to by Bezer Home for 30 cents a share, I could kick myself to missing 80 times my investment. Who knows! Maybe someday I'll get lucky. Frank Z
Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs
Good question Peter. I've been wondering something similar, just slightly more specific. Ni-H has gotten a lot of attention lately. But what sequence of Pd-D experiments over the years was most significant to the ...slow erosion of the psuedoskeptic position... that Abd described in email to the group some time back? Possible answer - read the Storms 2010 summary paper and follow his references ? Or is there a shorter / more specific / different answer? Jeff On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Jed, Which experiment of all (except the 1kW Patterson Cell) was the best ever? Peter On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Sigh . . . Another ignorant article by Gibbs. Here is what I just wrote in the Forbes article comment section: The author wrote: Even so, the Defkalion tests were, as far as any cold fusion experiment performed to date has gone, the best so far and they were witnessed by someone who is, for want of a better description, a serious scientist. This statement is preposterous. Cold fusion has been replicated in hundreds of major laboratories, in thousands of test runs. Many of these runs were far better than the Defkalion tests witnessed by Nelson. Many of these other tests have been witnessed by world-class experts in calorimetry, such Robert Duncan of U. Missouri. This was shown in 60 Minutes. The Defkalion tests were not bad, but tests at SRI, Los Alamos, BARC, China Lake and other major laboratories used much better equipment and produced much larger signal to noise ratios. In some of these other tests the ratio of input to output was larger than Defkalion's, and in some there was no input, so the ratio was infinite. Hundreds of mainstream, peer-reviewed journal papers have been published describing experiments more convincing than the Defkalion tests. Gibbs is ignoring this peer-reviewed literature and looking instead at few preliminary documents published on the Internet. He is ignoring the gold standard of established science. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs
If you go back and re-read my previous columns on cold fusion you'll see that my interest has *always* been in useful cold fusion ... The cold fusion phenomena, while scientifically intriguing, amounts to to nothing of practical interest if you can't do something useful with it ... rather like muon catalyzed fusion ... Interesting but not practically useful. [mg] On Sunday, October 21, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote: Gibbs: I know that there will be a handful of people (the “believers” I wrote about some time ago) who read that statement and cry “lies” but the fact is that no one has yet demonstrated, definitively, that cold fusion or LENR exists in a form that is actually useful. Now the argument is being useful. LOL!
RE: [Vo]:A123 systems goes bankrupt
Some Chinese company bought a 49% stake in A123 very recently, so is that in addition to Johnson Controls??? -Mark From: Jeff Berkowitz [mailto:pdx...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 10:16 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A123 systems goes bankrupt I haven't followed this story carefully, but a friend of mine (who has) wrote the following: Uh, you should look into A123 Systems, who started it and what they did before criticizing them. These guys developed and improved the Lithium Iron Phosphate battery chemistry while at MIT, then spun out a startup company to commercialize their advances. They were chosen by GM to engineer and build the Volt batteries. These guys aren't some fly by night outfit who just blew smoke up some government officials asses to get that loan. They were a prime startup candidate and had already received many millions of dollars in venture capital backing. And they are being purchased by Johnson Controls for $125 Million, they have assets of $460 Million and debts of $376 Million, plus patents in the battery technology field. It's disappointing to see stuff like this turned into a political football for electioneering purposes. And even more disappointing to see educated people swallowing it whole... Jeff On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:04 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Before I started forecasting earthquakes, hurricanes and sinkholes I predicted A123 was a loser. I think Terry jumped in and told me they had new investors and might be a great buy. I hope he did not buy the stock... They were providing Fisker's batteries, another colossal Obama losermobile company. If they go under too Justin Bieber might have to ride a bicycle to work, which would be safer for everyone... Stewart Darkmattersalot.com On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 4:12 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Wgat is happening of the LiFePO4 battery family. It was looking very promising. Robust Li batteries that don't explode even under fire, crash or explosion... comparable energy density. good power density... good endurance... are there other palyes ? did A123 battery division colapse too? or is it only the solar side? (NB: I've been interested in LiFePO4 for hi-power bike lighting) 2012/10/21 fznidar...@aol.com The great green solar and battery society that our goverment has put its hopes on is going bankrupt one player at a time. I was going to buy A-123 stock. I am glad I did not. I was going to by Bezer Home for 30 cents a share, I could kick myself to missing 80 times my investment. Who knows! Maybe someday I'll get lucky. Frank Z
Re: [Vo]:A123 systems goes bankrupt
Although your reference isn't specific enough to be certain, it appears that Johnson Controls is purchasing that. http://community.nasdaq.com/News/2012-10/johnson-controls-to-acquire-a123-analyst-blog.aspx?storyid=183182#.UIQ1x2_d1kM Johnson Controls will also buy A123's facilities in Livonia and Romulus, Michigan; cathode powder manufacturing facilities in China; equity interest in Shanghai Advanced Traction Battery Systems Co.; *as well as its joint venture with Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC).* Jeff On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:44 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Some Chinese company bought a 49% stake in A123 very recently, so is that in addition to Johnson Controls??? -Mark ** ** ** ** *From:* Jeff Berkowitz [mailto:pdx...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, October 21, 2012 10:16 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:A123 systems goes bankrupt ** ** I haven't followed this story carefully, but a friend of mine (who has) wrote the following: ** ** Uh, you should look into A123 Systems, who started it and what they did before criticizing them. These guys developed and improved the Lithium Iron Phosphate battery chemistry while at MIT, then spun out a startup company to commercialize their advances. They were chosen by GM to engineer and build the Volt batteries. These guys aren't some fly by night outfit who just blew smoke up some government officials asses to get that loan. They were a prime startup candidate and had already received many millions of dollars in venture capital backing. And they are being purchased by Johnson Controls for $125 Million, they have assets of $460 Million and debts of $376 Million, plus patents in the battery technology field. ** ** It's disappointing to see stuff like this turned into a political football for electioneering purposes. And even more disappointing to see educated people swallowing it whole... ** ** Jeff ** ** On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:04 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Before I started forecasting earthquakes, hurricanes and sinkholes I predicted A123 was a loser. I think Terry jumped in and told me they had new investors and might be a great buy. I hope he did not buy the stock... They were providing Fisker's batteries, another colossal Obama losermobile company. If they go under too Justin Bieber might have to ride a bicycle to work, which would be safer for everyone... ** ** Stewart Darkmattersalot.com ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 4:12 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Wgat is happening of the LiFePO4 battery family. It was looking very promising. Robust Li batteries that don't explode even under fire, crash or explosion... comparable energy density. good power density... good endurance... are there other palyes ? did A123 battery division colapse too? or is it only the solar side? (NB: I've been interested in LiFePO4 for hi-power bike lighting) 2012/10/21 fznidar...@aol.com ** ** The great green solar and battery society that our goverment has put its hopes on is going bankrupt one player at a time. ** ** I was going to buy A-123 stock. I am glad I did not. ** ** I was going to by Bezer Home for 30 cents a share, I could kick myself to missing 80 times my investment. ** ** Who knows! Maybe someday I'll get lucky. ** ** Frank Z ** ** ** ** ** **
Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs
Best we figure out a way to contain the neutrinos, fission and fusion products. I don't believe voids in a lattice is the answer, just creates more fission and fusion products and corresponding low levels of radiation. I still like the Papp idea if it can be contained safetly. Just my take on it. On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: If you go back and re-read my previous columns on cold fusion you'll see that my interest has *always* been in useful cold fusion ... The cold fusion phenomena, while scientifically intriguing, amounts to to nothing of practical interest if you can't do something useful with it ... rather like muon catalyzed fusion ... Interesting but not practically useful. [mg] On Sunday, October 21, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote: Gibbs: I know that there will be a handful of people (the “believers” I wrote about some time ago) who read that statement and cry “lies” but the fact is that no one has yet demonstrated, definitively, that cold fusion or LENR exists in a form that is actually useful. Now the argument is being useful. LOL!
Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs
I don't have the time to review the huge amount of literature you people have already looked at ... if any of you, Rothwell included, would like to help build a list of successful experiments I'd be happy to build it into an article with full attribution to all contributors. I'd like to see a list that includes: - where - when - technology - run time - COP - experimenters and affiliations - observers and affiliations - references I think such a list would be very useful in public discussions about the reality of cold fusion. [mg] On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: Good question Peter. I've been wondering something similar, just slightly more specific. Ni-H has gotten a lot of attention lately. But what sequence of Pd-D experiments over the years was most significant to the ...slow erosion of the psuedoskeptic position... that Abd described in email to the group some time back? Possible answer - read the Storms 2010 summary paper and follow his references ? Or is there a shorter / more specific / different answer? Jeff On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: Dear Jed, Which experiment of all (except the 1kW Patterson Cell) was the best ever? Peter On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Sigh . . . Another ignorant article by Gibbs. Here is what I just wrote in the Forbes article comment section: The author wrote: Even so, the Defkalion tests were, as far as any cold fusion experiment performed to date has gone, the best so far and they were witnessed by someone who is, for want of a better description, a serious scientist. This statement is preposterous. Cold fusion has been replicated in hundreds of major laboratories, in thousands of test runs. Many of these runs were far better than the Defkalion tests witnessed by Nelson. Many of these other tests have been witnessed by world-class experts in calorimetry, such Robert Duncan of U. Missouri. This was shown in 60 Minutes. The Defkalion tests were not bad, but tests at SRI, Los Alamos, BARC, China Lake and other major laboratories used much better equipment and produced much larger signal to noise ratios. In some of these other tests the ratio of input to output was larger than Defkalion's, and in some there was no input, so the ratio was infinite. Hundreds of mainstream, peer-reviewed journal papers have been published describing experiments more convincing than the Defkalion tests. Gibbs is ignoring this peer-reviewed literature and looking instead at few preliminary documents published on the Internet. He is ignoring the gold standard of established science. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs
For the technical reader, this has already been done, here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf I would be interested in cooperating to put something aimed at non-technical readers together. Jeff On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: I don't have the time to review the huge amount of literature you people have already looked at ... if any of you, Rothwell included, would like to help build a list of successful experiments I'd be happy to build it into an article with full attribution to all contributors. I'd like to see a list that includes: - where - when - technology - run time - COP - experimenters and affiliations - observers and affiliations - references I think such a list would be very useful in public discussions about the reality of cold fusion. [mg] On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: Good question Peter. I've been wondering something similar, just slightly more specific. Ni-H has gotten a lot of attention lately. But what sequence of Pd-D experiments over the years was most significant to the ...slow erosion of the psuedoskeptic position... that Abd described in email to the group some time back? Possible answer - read the Storms 2010 summary paper and follow his references ? Or is there a shorter / more specific / different answer? Jeff On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: Dear Jed, Which experiment of all (except the 1kW Patterson Cell) was the best ever? Peter On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Sigh . . . Another ignorant article by Gibbs. Here is what I just wrote in the Forbes article comment section: The author wrote: Even so, the Defkalion tests were, as far as any cold fusion experiment performed to date has gone, the best so far and they were witnessed by someone who is, for want of a better description, a serious scientist. This statement is preposterous. Cold fusion has been replicated in hundreds of major laboratories, in thousands of test runs. Many of these runs were far better than the Defkalion tests witnessed by Nelson. Many of these other tests have been witnessed by world-class experts in calorimetry, such Robert Duncan of U. Missouri. This was shown in 60 Minutes. The Defkalion tests were not bad, but tests at SRI, Los Alamos, BARC, China Lake and other major laboratories used much better equipment and produced much larger signal to noise ratios. In some of these other tests the ratio of input to output was larger than Defkalion's, and in some there was no input, so the ratio was infinite. Hundreds of mainstream, peer-reviewed journal papers have been published describing experiments more convincing than the Defkalion tests. Gibbs is ignoring this peer-reviewed literature and looking instead at few preliminary documents published on the Internet. He is ignoring the gold standard of established science. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs
I should add that I don't have the training or experience to take the lead on such an effort. I am just a basically competent writer with an interest in the subject matter. Jeff On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: For the technical reader, this has already been done, here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf I would be interested in cooperating to put something aimed at non-technical readers together. Jeff On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: I don't have the time to review the huge amount of literature you people have already looked at ... if any of you, Rothwell included, would like to help build a list of successful experiments I'd be happy to build it into an article with full attribution to all contributors. I'd like to see a list that includes: - where - when - technology - run time - COP - experimenters and affiliations - observers and affiliations - references I think such a list would be very useful in public discussions about the reality of cold fusion. [mg] On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.comwrote: Good question Peter. I've been wondering something similar, just slightly more specific. Ni-H has gotten a lot of attention lately. But what sequence of Pd-D experiments over the years was most significant to the ...slow erosion of the psuedoskeptic position... that Abd described in email to the group some time back? Possible answer - read the Storms 2010 summary paper and follow his references ? Or is there a shorter / more specific / different answer? Jeff On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: Dear Jed, Which experiment of all (except the 1kW Patterson Cell) was the best ever? Peter On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Sigh . . . Another ignorant article by Gibbs. Here is what I just wrote in the Forbes article comment section: The author wrote: Even so, the Defkalion tests were, as far as any cold fusion experiment performed to date has gone, the best so far and they were witnessed by someone who is, for want of a better description, a serious scientist. This statement is preposterous. Cold fusion has been replicated in hundreds of major laboratories, in thousands of test runs. Many of these runs were far better than the Defkalion tests witnessed by Nelson. Many of these other tests have been witnessed by world-class experts in calorimetry, such Robert Duncan of U. Missouri. This was shown in 60 Minutes. The Defkalion tests were not bad, but tests at SRI, Los Alamos, BARC, China Lake and other major laboratories used much better equipment and produced much larger signal to noise ratios. In some of these other tests the ratio of input to output was larger than Defkalion's, and in some there was no input, so the ratio was infinite. Hundreds of mainstream, peer-reviewed journal papers have been published describing experiments more convincing than the Defkalion tests. Gibbs is ignoring this peer-reviewed literature and looking instead at few preliminary documents published on the Internet. He is ignoring the gold standard of established science. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: The cold fusion phenomena, while scientifically intriguing, amounts to to nothing of practical interest if you can't do something useful with it ... rather like muon catalyzed fusion ... Interesting but not practically useful. Oy veh. Where to begin?!? This is such a grievous technical confusion, I hardly know what to say. Okay: Cold fusion caused a major explosion before 1989, at U. Utah, and it boiled away water in Mizuno's lab in the early 1980s. This was even before anyone managed to confirm the effect exists. After 1989, DOZENS of experiments produced power density and temperatures roughly equal to the core of conventional fission reactor. Some of the produced 50 to 100 MJ of energy from samples weighing a few grams. In other words, a device the size of a small coin produce as much energy as kilogram of gasoline, sometimes at boiling temperatures. Or in some cases at temperature high enough to melt ceramic cold fusion cathodes. OBVIOUSLY that is enough power and energy for a practical application. So, there has never been the *slightest doubt* that cold fusion is capable of producing useful levels of energy if it can be controlled. There is not one reason to think that! The question has always been: Can the reaction be controlled? Since every other physical reaction ever discovered in the laboratory has been controlled, eventually, and since several control parameters of cold fusion have been discovered, it is reasonable to suppose that it can be controlled. Muon catalyzed fusion, on the other hand, is known to be limited to extremely low power levels, and an useless input to output ratio. This known by theory and confirmed by experiment. Using this for practical purposes would be like trying to power our electrical machinery with Benjamin Franklin's electrostatic generators. Those generators could charge up Leyden jar capacitors enough to kill a turkey, and enough to nearly kill Franklin himself. But obviously you could not power a factory with one, even if you scaled it up. It is equally obvious that if you scale up a 1989 cold fusion device, you *could* power a factory, a city, or the whole planet with it. Furthermore, nearly every useful scientific discovery in the last 400 years began as a small reaction in the laboratory, and was later scaled up. I mean things like electricity and radiation. We went from the Curies finding samples of radium are slightly warm, to full scale fission reactors 50 years later. The fact that a reaction is small at the beginning is never a reason to suppose it cannot be scaled up to industrial-scale applications. History has shown over and over that this is wrong. I could say much more to address this miasma of confusion, but I shall refrain. Let me say only that Fleischmann, I, and many others believed all along that the only reason cold fusion has not been controlled and scaled up in the last 23 years is because it has not been funded properly. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs
Dear Mark, First- thanks for the article. And may I invite you for a friendly visit to my blog http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com, papers labelled NEW ENERGY? A good candidate for the best Pd-D LENR peak performer is described here: http://www.fondazionefrisone.it/eventi/catania07/LesinSreportonelectr.pdf It is cathode no 64 of Energetics Israel, ; excess power up to 34W, average 20W for 17 hours. An Everest for Pd-D. Peter On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: I don't have the time to review the huge amount of literature you people have already looked at ... if any of you, Rothwell included, would like to help build a list of successful experiments I'd be happy to build it into an article with full attribution to all contributors. I'd like to see a list that includes: - where - when - technology - run time - COP - experimenters and affiliations - observers and affiliations - references I think such a list would be very useful in public discussions about the reality of cold fusion. [mg] On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: Good question Peter. I've been wondering something similar, just slightly more specific. Ni-H has gotten a lot of attention lately. But what sequence of Pd-D experiments over the years was most significant to the ...slow erosion of the psuedoskeptic position... that Abd described in email to the group some time back? Possible answer - read the Storms 2010 summary paper and follow his references ? Or is there a shorter / more specific / different answer? Jeff On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: Dear Jed, Which experiment of all (except the 1kW Patterson Cell) was the best ever? Peter On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Sigh . . . Another ignorant article by Gibbs. Here is what I just wrote in the Forbes article comment section: The author wrote: Even so, the Defkalion tests were, as far as any cold fusion experiment performed to date has gone, the best so far and they were witnessed by someone who is, for want of a better description, a serious scientist. This statement is preposterous. Cold fusion has been replicated in hundreds of major laboratories, in thousands of test runs. Many of these runs were far better than the Defkalion tests witnessed by Nelson. Many of these other tests have been witnessed by world-class experts in calorimetry, such Robert Duncan of U. Missouri. This was shown in 60 Minutes. The Defkalion tests were not bad, but tests at SRI, Los Alamos, BARC, China Lake and other major laboratories used much better equipment and produced much larger signal to noise ratios. In some of these other tests the ratio of input to output was larger than Defkalion's, and in some there was no input, so the ratio was infinite. Hundreds of mainstream, peer-reviewed journal papers have been published describing experiments more convincing than the Defkalion tests. Gibbs is ignoring this peer-reviewed literature and looking instead at few preliminary documents published on the Internet. He is ignoring the gold standard of established science. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Mark Gibbs asks for recommended papers and experiments
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: I don't have the time to review the huge amount of literature you people have already looked at ... Then I suggest you read the papers listed in the main page at LENR-CANR.org, especially the ones by Storms, Nagel and McKubre. See: http://lenr-canr.org/ http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEastudentsg.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NagelDJscientific.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf if any of you, Rothwell included, would like to help build a list of successful experiments I'd be happy to build it into an article with full attribution to all contributors. An experiment that is successful from a scientific point of view may well seem marginal or unimportant from a practical point of view. See, for example, the work of Melvin Miles. It seldom produced more than a half-watt of power. The success rate for many types of palladium was zero. On the other hand: The calorimetry was excellent so that half-watt is a sure thing. It is much more certain than Defkalion's results. The s/n ratio is what matters. Some types of palladium worked every time. So that proves the choice of palladium is critical. In that sense, the failed experiments were as useful as the ones that worked. The heat was correlated with helium. And, when there was no heat, there was not helium. Again, the failed experiments were as useful as the ones that worked, as controls. (Abd is fond of pointing this out.) On its own merits this experiment deserves a Nobel prize. It is way more important than most Nobel-level discoveries. It contributes nothing directly to practical applications. I'd like to see a list that includes: - where - when - technology - run time - COP - experimenters and affiliations - observers and affiliations - references I think such a list would be very useful in public discussions about the reality of cold fusion. I am tempted to say do your own homework. I might consider doing this, if Gibbs would stop claiming that Fleischmann, McKubre, Storms, Duncan and the others are not serious scientists. As long as he beats that drum I will say that Gibbs is not a serious journalist. I will not spend hours making a list that I expect he will ignore or denigrate. I would like to see some indication that Gibbs is willing to spend an hour reading the literature on this subject. So far, every column he has published has been technically wrong from top to bottom. I find it hard to believe he has read anything. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mark Gibbs asks for recommended papers and experiments
Let me add also that the COP of a cold fusion experiment has no meaning and it is of no importance whatever. Asking for it -- or stressing it -- proves only that you do not understand the experiment. If the input power is so high it interferes with the measurements you have a problem. Otherwise the input power is irrelevant. It should be ignored. It is not even a COP in the technical sense. It does not directly trigger output. It does not correlate with output. Everyone in this field knows simple ways to reduce input power and improve the COP. Gibbs and others dwell on unimportant side-issues like the supposed COP while they ignore the s/n ratio and other actual scientific content. They look at preliminary reports uploaded by Defkalion while they ignore official reports published after years of intense research by distinguished experts at China Lake, and papers published in mainstream journals. - Jed
[Vo]:Liquid Nitrogen Automobile
A third advantage is that liquid nitrogen is a by-product of the industrial process for making liquid oxygen. Because there is four times as much nitrogen as oxygen in air, there is inevitably a glut of the stuff—so much so, liquid nitrogen sells in America for a tenth of the price of milk. http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/10/nitrogen-cycle
Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs
I wrote: So, there has never been the *slightest doubt* that cold fusion is capable of producing useful levels of energy if it can be controlled. There is not one reason to think that! Per a suggestion by Jeff Berkowitz, I should clarify what I meant by that: It was established that cold fusion is real around 1991 or so, after it was widely replicated. In some cases, even the first round of replications produced power density, temperatures and energy density high enough for practical commercial applications. Although the actual power was too low for any application larger than a hearing-aid or wrist-watch battery. In other words, if you could scale up a coin-shaped cathode to something the size of a loaf of bread, it would easily be enough to power your house or your automobile. For as long as we have known cold fusion is real, we have also known that if it can be controlled, it will be useful for just about every application short of surface to orbit spacecraft. Incidentally, the dollar value of energy far below 0.1 watt, in the hearing-aid and wrist-watch battery scale, is billions of dollars a year. Even at present levels, controllable cold fusion would be worth a vast fortune, and that breakthrough alone would, in a few days, pay for all of the research conducted so far. Focusing only on large scale energy applications is another typical amateur mistake, made by people who know nothing about technology, business, or the energy market. - Jed
[Vo]:The Media and their LENR Responsibility
Gibbs comment about being *useful* really has me inflamed. For so very long the Media has reported that LENR is not real. They were the reason Pons is sequestered on the South of France. They did not give Fleischmann the recognition that he deserved before he died. Now Gibbs comes out and says that this is the first time it might be able to do something useful. Well it is clear that he thinks it is real. Well, now the Media has a responsibility to shout to the world that LENR is real. Jed said that the biggest impairment to making LENR into something useful is the lack of funding. Well, the Media should be demanding that the DoE provide that funding. Every day they delay in doing so means the death of humans who could get the potable water they need, could feed the children the hungry children and could provide the equal wealth that free energy can bring.
Re: [Vo]:A123 systems goes bankrupt
Well said Jeff, I have not followed it carefully, although Fisker Karma was major client for A123 Systems, and it is assembled in Finland. Therefore it was reported also in Finnish media. There was speculation that inadequate demand for Fisker Karma was a contributor for the bankruptcy. However i do not buy this excuse I would speculate that the real reason was that they started to do business with unfinished new product (Lithium phosphate battery) and they just could not make the technology cost effective. Therefore there was no point to continue, because it was not likely that the company could become profitable. Instead Tesla is trusting normal lithium ion batteries that have high reliability. Currently market for laptop batteries is 100 times bigger than for EV-batteries. Tesla's chosen strategy to use cheap and reliable laptop batteries was superior business idea. As Tesla manufactures own battery packs, they have pushed the cost already down to $600 per kWh and Elon Musk claims that they can still further push down the price. $600 per kWh is already starting to be price level that EV can bring better price performance than combustion engine in cars for higher middle class. If Elon can push the price to near $300 per kWh, then it would mean that Elon can sell every car that he can manufacture. Because already the performance of Tesla Model S is superior to that of combustion engine cars. Actually Model S performance is already similar than BMW M5. Both Model S and M5 cost around $100 000. M5 is slightly faster, but on the other hand, Model S accelerates better at parking lot! And probably Model S is cornering faster because of ideal center of gravity. —Jouni On 21 October 2012 20:15, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: I haven't followed this story carefully, but a friend of mine (who has) wrote the following: Uh, you should look into A123 Systems, who started it and what they did before criticizing them. These guys developed and improved the Lithium Iron Phosphate battery chemistry while at MIT, then spun out a startup company to commercialize their advances. They were chosen by GM to engineer and build the Volt batteries. These guys aren't some fly by night outfit who just blew smoke up some government officials asses to get that loan. They were a prime startup candidate and had already received many millions of dollars in venture capital backing. And they are being purchased by Johnson Controls for $125 Million, they have assets of $460 Million and debts of $376 Million, plus patents in the battery technology field. It's disappointing to see stuff like this turned into a political football for electioneering purposes. And even more disappointing to see educated people swallowing it whole... Jeff
Re: [Vo]:The Media and their LENR Responsibility
I do not mean the above as an indictment of Mr. Gibbs. He has done more than most to promote LENR and for that, I am grateful. It's just that it took private inventors to make something of LENR when the DoE should have been spending huge sums of money to advance the science and make something useful. And if the DoE is actually funding Rossi for military applications, double shame on them. Read this interesting article from Ruby's site: http://coldfusionnow.org/economics-of-cold-fusion-lenr-power-us-department-of-defense/
[Vo]:Universal LENR Reactor - Fuel Rods
See here: http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2012/10/21/universal-lenr-reactor-fuel-rods/
[Vo]:LENR and Kickstarter?
Hi. Has there ever been a LENR project on Kickstarter? Maybe it would be time for a reasonable LENR researcher to set up a Kickstarter project and to thus seek crowdfunding from the masses. A reasonable project with a clear goal and not too much money (I'm thinking 100-200k) with decent perks, maybe kits, could get enough attention that people would fund it enough for it to come through. Are there any such U.S. dwelling LENR researchers who would be up for setting this kind of a project on Kickstarter? Well, it could also be set up on IndieGoGo, but that site doesn't really have as big a following and hype behind it as Kickstarter. Recent (related) Kickstarter / IndieGogo project examples: http://www.indiegogo.com/teslamuseum http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/tesla/electricity-the-life-story-of-nikola-tesla http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/movingwindmills/moving-windmills-documentary-film it can go terribly right, too: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/597507018/pebble-e-paper-watch-for-iphone-and-android and terribly wrong, too: http://www.indiegogo.com/Dynaspheres-to-Europe http://www.indiegogo.com/magnetic-battery
Re: [Vo]:Mark Gibbs asks for recommended papers and experiments
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: if any of you, Rothwell included, would like to help build a list of successful experiments I'd be happy to build it into an article with full attribution to all contributors. I was already considering going through the literature to make a plot of success/failure ratios. I'd be happy to do the leg-work and build up a report. I could add other stuff like the power levels, COP and S/N ratio (or equivalent). I don't see any need to go further back than (say) 2000 (maybe even 2002, to make it a 10-year band). Maybe we could divide up the known researchers.
Re: [Vo]:The Media and their LENR Responsibility
I'd like to see a video of nothing but arrogant quotes like: This experiment hasn't been reproduced by any national lab or any university without a good football team yet. -- Dr. Nathan Lewis (Cal Tech) Interspersed with photographs of post-2000 mideast war victims like this: [image: Inline image 1] On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: I do not mean the above as an indictment of Mr. Gibbs. He has done more than most to promote LENR and for that, I am grateful. It's just that it took private inventors to make something of LENR when the DoE should have been spending huge sums of money to advance the science and make something useful. And if the DoE is actually funding Rossi for military applications, double shame on them. Read this interesting article from Ruby's site: http://coldfusionnow.org/economics-of-cold-fusion-lenr-power-us-department-of-defense/
Re: [Vo]:Mark Gibbs asks for recommended papers and experiments
On Oct 21, 2012, at 13:46, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I'd be happy to do the leg-work and build up a report. Be sure to take a look at the recent reviews so that you don't inadvertently duplicate similar work that has already been done. I'm thinking of these reviews in particular: - the recent Naturewissenschaften paper by Ed Storms. - the more extensive book that he has written. - the review by Hagelstein et al. that was put together for the second DOE panel (I think this was in 2004, and it focused on Pd/D, so there will be less overlap here). - Charles Beaudette's book. Ed Storms's book, in particular, is overflowing with tables mentioning such details as COP. There are so many tables that one starts to take them for granted and overlooks how much work must have gone into tabulating the information. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mark Gibbs asks for recommended papers and experiments
Celani have interesting table showing progress in COP, density and power. in fact the most important parameter is S/N for science, and density for industrial applications. But good S/N is easier with high COP and high power (easier to spot and identify an elephant in a living room, than a mouse in a barn). http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1433866/?ln=fr 2012/10/21 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com On Oct 21, 2012, at 13:46, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I'd be happy to do the leg-work and build up a report. Be sure to take a look at the recent reviews so that you don't inadvertently duplicate similar work that has already been done. I'm thinking of these reviews in particular: - the recent Naturewissenschaften paper by Ed Storms. - the more extensive book that he has written. - the review by Hagelstein et al. that was put together for the second DOE panel (I think this was in 2004, and it focused on Pd/D, so there will be less overlap here). - Charles Beaudette's book. Ed Storms's book, in particular, is overflowing with tables mentioning such details as COP. There are so many tables that one starts to take them for granted and overlooks how much work must have gone into tabulating the information. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Mark Gibbs asks for recommended papers and experiments
One of the founders of the DoE with whom I had a discussion demanded that the papers be filtered down to only those that appear in Science Citation Index. On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: if any of you, Rothwell included, would like to help build a list of successful experiments I'd be happy to build it into an article with full attribution to all contributors. I was already considering going through the literature to make a plot of success/failure ratios. I'd be happy to do the leg-work and build up a report. I could add other stuff like the power levels, COP and S/N ratio (or equivalent). I don't see any need to go further back than (say) 2000 (maybe even 2002, to make it a 10-year band). Maybe we could divide up the known researchers.
Re: [Vo]:Mark Gibbs asks for recommended papers and experiments
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: I don't have the time to review the huge amount of literature you people have already looked at ... Then I suggest you read the papers listed in the main page at LENR-CANR.org, especially the ones by Storms, Nagel and McKubre. See: if you're only going to read one, read Storms. (Published in a real journal too, so you don't have to worry about being contaminated). http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEastudentsg.pdf (2009) === http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NagelDJscientific.pdf (2009) This is a summary of papers at ICCF-15 (2009), so it doesn't review the history. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf (2009) From the perspective of SRI ... Both Storms and McKubre have excellent coverage of the history, progress (and erronious debunking) of Pd-D, but don't have much (if anything) on Ni-H. They both make the comment that the normal scientific method has been reversed : if it can't be explained then it can't be real. Storms : Having an explanation for a strange behavior is NOT initially necessary, although eventual discovery of an explanation is important. This is a good method and has served mankind well when it is faithfully applied. Science fails when these rules are ignored. McKubre makes the interesting comment : Another way of making progress is by engaging in the process of creating a product. Here we might take advantage of the growing public and political interest in real alternative energy solutions. The FPE produces real and useful energy, process heat. In Energetics experiment L64, in a single burst, twenty five times more heat was produced than entered the cell as electric power. This heat was produced at temperatures sufficient to boil water. Such an effect has practical value. Obviously taking an experiment to the market as a product requires several steps that are non-trivial. This exercise however may be an effective means of gaining an engineering understanding of the effect even before the scientific. Segue to Rossi, Defkalion .
Re: [Vo]:Mark Gibbs asks for recommended papers and experiments
I think I got my links mixed up (I have three browsers up with 20 tabs ) if you're only going to read one, read Storms. (Published in a real journal too, so you don't have to worry about being contaminated). http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf 2010
RE: [Vo]:Liquid Nitrogen Automobile
-Original Message- From: Terry Blanton A third advantage is that liquid nitrogen is a by-product of the industrial process for making liquid oxygen http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/10/nitrogen-cycle The LN system seems to offer so many apparent advantages that scammers like Mike Brady, of Perendev infamy, tried to get in on the act. That is actually a compliment and adds to the amazement that it is still being overlooked. However, the article in the Economist completely misses the Co-Gen angle which can pay for everything (but which works better with liquid air than with LN in a home setting). Wiki has a poor article that does not mention Co-gen or liquid air either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_nitrogen_vehicle The hybrid + cogen version, which could easily replace batteries is a liquid air system which does need a small ICE for best results. But the small ICE means you never run out fuel due to having no filling station, since you have backup. This system is ideal for N. Europe where for many months of the year, the heat generated to make liquid air is used to heat the home and make hot water. That is the co-gen angle; and it can save more than money a Prius for some locales, since home heating is so onerous. Liquid air is best employed in a vehicle with a small sub-liter diesel engine (to heat the liquid air for a compound turbine providing most of the power). The expansion ratio is extreme when heat is added - at least double the 700:1 of the cold version - so it could allow extreme mileage for the diesel fuel which is needed. It is rather amazing that the Germans have missed this niche - given their cold winters, love of the diesel, high fuel prices, and general inventiveness in everything automotive. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Mark Gibbs asks for recommended papers and experiments
I was right the first time -- Storms' Student's guide is the best single paper. - Original Message - I think I got my links mixed up (I have three browsers up with 20 tabs http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf 2010
Re: [Vo]:Mark Gibbs asks for recommended papers and experiments
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: if you're only going to read one, read Storms. (Published in a real journal too, so you don't have to worry about being contaminated). http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf 2010 That is: Storms, E., *Status of cold fusion (2010).* Naturwiss., 2010. *97*(10): p. 861-881. The titles become kind of cryptic thanks to the Pascal program. I prefer short URLs. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Liquid Nitrogen Automobile
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: However, the article in the Economist completely misses the Co-Gen angle which can pay for everything . . . Co-Gen . . . how? Waste heat from the air compressor? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Media and their LENR Responsibility
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Gibbs comment about being *useful* really has me inflamed. For so very long the Media has reported that LENR is not real. They were the reason Pons is sequestered on the South of France. They did not give Fleischmann the recognition that he deserved before he died. Now Gibbs comes out and says that this is the first time it might be able to do something useful. Well it is clear that he thinks it is real. I hope he does. You never know. He seems to have moved the goalposts. I expect he will now belittle cold fusion even though it is real because it is not yet practical. This is infuriating, as you say. Gibbs is not the first to do this. In 1993, Hagelstein wrote: Scientists in the field have gone to extremes in attempts to satisfy skeptics. Cells were stirred, blanks were done, extremely elaborate closed cell calorimeters have been developed (in which the effect has been demonstrated), the signal to noise ratio has been improved so that positive results can now be claimed at the 50 sigma level, the reproducibility issue has been laid to rest; but still it is not enough. I have heard some skeptics saying that a commercial product is the next hurdle to be jumped through before any significant funding can be justified. This is simply not right. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinsummaryofi.pdf Well, now the Media has a responsibility to shout to the world that LENR is real. I am sure they don't see it that way! Anyway, if they did start shouting, many mainstream scientists would come down on them like a ton of bricks. The APS and the DoE would beat up on them. Let's face facts. If Gibbs were to publish an unequivocal statement that cold fusion is real, it is important, and it deserves funding, he would soon lose his job. I honestly can't blame mass media reporters for kissing up to the establishment. We cannot expect them to martyr themselves the way Eugene Mallove did. He was one in a million! And he had no idea how difficult this would be or long it would take. He was far too optimistic. (I told him that, but only occasionally, because he had enough problems without hearing that from me.) My guess is that roughly half of professional scientists are still convinced that cold fusion is fraud or lunacy or what-have-you. The opponents themselves assume they represent 99% of scientists, but I have some fragmentary evidence that they represent a smaller fraction. I do not blame the mass media for these distortions. I don't blame Gibbs for publishing mush and half-truths. I only wish he would publish *technically accurate* mush. What I mean is: describe what the cold fusion researchers claim, not a made-up version that you pull out of your hat. You can follow that with counterclaims made by ignorant skeptics, or even with your own half-baked speculation. Go ahead and attack the field. Ridicule it all you like. But *at least begin* by reporting what is being claimed, rather than an imaginary version. I don't blame the mass media because I think the technical journals are at fault. The scientific establishment -- especially the DoE -- is at fault. Scientists who oppose the research yet who have read nothing about it are at fault. When a new development is announced in computers, or medicine, or hybrid cars, a person who is seriously interested should read technical journals or trade magazines. The mass media publishes a simplified version of the story, based on what the technical journals say. As long as most technical journals attack or ignore cold fusion, you can't expect Forbes, or CNN, or the New York Times to cover the subject. It is not their job to sort through complicated technical subjects. They will go out and ask scientists, and the scientists are likely to say cold fusion is bogus junk science because they are ordinary people who are as biased as anyone is likely to be about a subject he knows nothing about. They have no idea they are wrong, and no reason to check. I suppose a reporter might approach a scientist and say: Here is a list of peer-reviewed journal papers by McKubre, Miles, Storms and others. Have you read them, and if so, what do you think? If the scientist says he has not read them I would ignore everything else he says. An opinion -- whether it is positive or negative -- is meaningless if you cannot support it by citing experiments. This is experimental science; not theory. I don't care if the scientist is a 5-time Nobel laureate; if he has not done his homework, and he does not know the instruments, methods and results, he is no more qualified to judge cold fusion than an cop on the corner or a stockbrocker would be. - Jed
[Vo]:Godes / Brillouin patent thoughts, with Spice simulation
Hi all, I finished writing up a few thoughts about the Godes / Brillouin patent application, and published them on our blog: http://pdxlenr.blogspot.com/2012/10/thoughts-about-godes-brillouin-patent.html In the posting I acknowledge Abd directly and the rest of vortex. Thanks again for helping get over a couple of spots I couldn't scratch my head hard enough to get past on my own. Jeff
Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs
Mark: This appears to be your second article on LENR, at least as far as I am aware. For the third article, why don't you correspond with Jed Rothwell and incorporate some of his excellent advice? Kevmo --- On Sun, 10/21/12, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: From: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs To: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sunday, October 21, 2012, 10:37 AM If you go back and re-read my previous columns on cold fusion you'll see that my interest has always been in useful cold fusion ... The cold fusion phenomena, while scientifically intriguing, amounts to to nothing of practical interest if you can't do something useful with it ... rather like muon catalyzed fusion ... Interesting but not practically useful. [mg] On Sunday, October 21, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote: Gibbs: I know that there will be a handful of people (the “believers” I wrote about some time ago) who read that statement and cry “lies” but the fact is that no one has yet demonstrated, definitively, that cold fusion or LENR exists in a form that is actually useful. Now the argument is being useful. LOL!
Re: [Vo]:Mark Gibbs asks for recommended papers and experiments
Ed Storms thinks we should recommend his book to Gibbs. I second the motion. There is no reason for us to compile lists when the book already has them. Some of the information Gibbs asks for is not available, such as observers and affiliations. I know that dozens of important observers have visited SRI, for example, and I expect many have visited Mitsubishi. But I do not have any list of names and it is none of my business. I understand why Gibbs asks this. This is the kind of thing a reporter wants to know. But a scientist would consider it irrelevant, and would say the experiments should be judged on their own merits. Some of the information Gibbs asked for has no technical significance, such as the COP (as I pointed out elsewhere). You might compile it, but that is about as informative as listing the color of the wallpaper in the laboratory. If the information is not listed in of the Tables in the Storms book, it probably is not important. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Mark Gibbs asks for recommended papers and experiments
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Ed Storms thinks we should recommend his book to Gibbs. I second the motion. http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/6425 So, let's buy it for him. I'll contribute. Do we know where to send it?
Re: [Vo]:The Media and their LENR Responsibility
“Gibbs comment about being useful really has me inflamed.” Hot fusion has been in development for 70 years now and it has not done anything useful, yet that field is well respected. And cold fusion is 10,000 times more complicated than hot fusion. It is no wonder why few scientists and engineers take on the pain that this field imposes. A cold fusion journalist would be hard pressed to simplify enough to explain this field to the laymen An interested observer of cold fusion engineering must understand, apply, and be experimentally competent in the following fields: chemistry(standard, quantum, and electrochemistry), quantum mechanics, metallurgy, crystallography, nuclear physics and engineering, solid state physics, condensed matter physics, electronics(vacuum tube and thermionic), plasma physics, superconductivity, nano-materials and engineering, and dusty plasma physics. These are only some of the fields of knowledge required to name a few among many. And cold fusion is subdivided into a dozen sub-categories and specialties with numerous hybrids thereof. “I don't care if the scientist is a 5-time Nobel laureate; if he has not done his homework, and he does not know the instruments, methods and results, he is no more qualified to judge cold fusion than an cop on the corner or a stockbrocker would be.” The complex nature of cold LENR came home to me when McKubre said at a recent Papp engine demo how he had no idea how that reaction works, It was a complete mystery to him like magic and yet, spark generation in high pressure gases is used to initiate the DGT reaction. The field of electrical discharge alone has generated a half dozen Nobel prizes at the start of the 20th century alone along with the birth of the vacuum tube business. There are few vacuum tube experts around anymore, with that field unneeded and now being lost to the ages. A cold fusion journalist has his work cut out for him to say the least. Cheers: Axil On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Gibbs comment about being *useful* really has me inflamed. For so very long the Media has reported that LENR is not real. They were the reason Pons is sequestered on the South of France. They did not give Fleischmann the recognition that he deserved before he died. Now Gibbs comes out and says that this is the first time it might be able to do something useful. Well it is clear that he thinks it is real. I hope he does. You never know. He seems to have moved the goalposts. I expect he will now belittle cold fusion even though it is real because it is not yet practical. This is infuriating, as you say. Gibbs is not the first to do this. In 1993, Hagelstein wrote: Scientists in the field have gone to extremes in attempts to satisfy skeptics. Cells were stirred, blanks were done, extremely elaborate closed cell calorimeters have been developed (in which the effect has been demonstrated), the signal to noise ratio has been improved so that positive results can now be claimed at the 50 sigma level, the reproducibility issue has been laid to rest; but still it is not enough. I have heard some skeptics saying that a commercial product is the next hurdle to be jumped through before any significant funding can be justified. This is simply not right. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinsummaryofi.pdf Well, now the Media has a responsibility to shout to the world that LENR is real. I am sure they don't see it that way! Anyway, if they did start shouting, many mainstream scientists would come down on them like a ton of bricks. The APS and the DoE would beat up on them. Let's face facts. If Gibbs were to publish an unequivocal statement that cold fusion is real, it is important, and it deserves funding, he would soon lose his job. I honestly can't blame mass media reporters for kissing up to the establishment. We cannot expect them to martyr themselves the way Eugene Mallove did. He was one in a million! And he had no idea how difficult this would be or long it would take. He was far too optimistic. (I told him that, but only occasionally, because he had enough problems without hearing that from me.) My guess is that roughly half of professional scientists are still convinced that cold fusion is fraud or lunacy or what-have-you. The opponents themselves assume they represent 99% of scientists, but I have some fragmentary evidence that they represent a smaller fraction. I do not blame the mass media for these distortions. I don't blame Gibbs for publishing mush and half-truths. I only wish he would publish *technically accurate* mush. What I mean is: describe what the cold fusion researchers claim, not a made-up version that you pull out of your hat. You can follow that with counterclaims made by ignorant skeptics, or even with your own half-baked speculation. Go ahead and attack the field. Ridicule it
Re: [Vo]:Godes / Brillouin patent thoughts, with Spice simulation
Jeff, thanks for this. I had considered something like this with a microcontroller that I have which will generate square waves of 3.3V up to 120Khz. I'm not quite sure what you mean by this: My circuit contains no remedy for the lack of symmetry about ground in the electrolysis cell. According to the text of the patent application, this is a show stopper that would need to be remedied before my design could be used in a real cell, even for experimentation. What do you mean by lack of symmetry about the ground? I want to try to build this, and your work is helpful in deconstructing how to do it. Thanks, Jack On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I finished writing up a few thoughts about the Godes / Brillouin patent application, and published them on our blog: http://pdxlenr.blogspot.com/2012/10/thoughts-about-godes-brillouin-patent.html In the posting I acknowledge Abd directly and the rest of vortex. Thanks again for helping get over a couple of spots I couldn't scratch my head hard enough to get past on my own. Jeff
Re: [Vo]:Mark Gibbs asks for recommended papers and experiments
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 7:15:29 PM Ed Storms thinks we should recommend his book to Gibbs. I second the motion. http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/6425 So, let's buy it for him. I'll contribute. Do we know where to send it? Curiously, the print version is $95, electronic version is $124 Unfortunately I've blown my discretionary budget for the month. Amazon has it for $71, used $65 http://www.amazon.com/Edmund-Storms/e/B001JO8G6Q/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1350873751sr=1-2-ent
Re: [Vo]:Mark Gibbs asks for recommended papers and experiments
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 7:15:29 PM Ed Storms thinks we should recommend his book to Gibbs. I second the motion. http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/6425 So, let's buy it for him. I'll contribute. Do we know where to send it? Curiously, the print version is $95, electronic version is $124 Unfortunately I've blown my discretionary budget for the month. Amazon has it for $71, used $65 http://www.amazon.com/Edmund-Storms/e/B001JO8G6Q/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1350873751sr=1-2-ent Hell, I have a prime account and will send it to him. Hey, Mark, if I buy you the book, will you read it? If so, send me a snail mail address privately.
Re: [Vo]:Godes / Brillouin patent thoughts, with Spice simulation
Awesome. Glad. I thought about putting more words in about this symmetrical thing, but decided the posting was long enough already. In Mr. Godes' design, the driver circuitry (the part similar to my toy circuit, shown on the left in figure 3C) and the electrolytic cell (the back end, on the right in 3C) are not connected electrically. They are literally air-gapped by isolation transformer T8. The gap is crossed only in the sense of the electromagnetic coupling inside the transformer, which is shown in the middle of figure 3C. This means that in particular, the entire system can contain more than one ground. If you look at my circuit, the pulses shown in Figure 1 are about 25 volts tall, but they are referenced to the supply voltage: they never go below 0 volts. My toy circuit has no transformer isolation. It includes only one ground, which serves as ground for both the digital input signal and the Q-pulses. My circuit shows no electrolytic cell, no back end part. Now look at paragraph 0045 in the patent application. What he actually says there is a bit more complicated, but what he's getting at is that he wants the core to see Q-pulses that alternate between some +V and some -V, symmetrically around ground. But the ground in this case is what the core sees, which is separate from the ground of the digital input / driver / primary of T8. This is shown more clearly in both of his figures 3A and 3B, where it's easy to see that the whole electrolytic cell is a completely separate loop from the controller and driver. I should note a further complication. The electrolytic back end is shown as providing feedback signals to the controller. You can see these signals at lower left in figure 3B, e.g. the lines labelled 50a, 50b, 50c. I believe, though not sure, that all of these feedback signals will have to be similarly isolated from the computer / microcontroller ground, perhaps using optical isolation. If they are not so isolated, they will force the computer and drive circuitry to have a common ground with the back end, which screws up all the reasoning above. And these are analog signals, which means the suggested optical isolation will introduce error. A personal side note: in the late 1970s and early 1980s, I worked on sonar systems that had some characteristics in common with Mr. Godes design. A sonar makes noise in the water with a piezo transducer, which requires high voltages. But transistor amplifiers are generally low-voltage, high current. So a step-up / isolation transformer was required, and like Mr. Godes design, its primary coil could be leveraged to act as an inductor, providing signal shaping across the amplifier output in addition to isolation. The problem was actually harder back then, because we didn't have the benefit of these amazing power FET devices that appear in Mr. Godes design and in my toy design. I guess this was all quite serendipitous because it was easy for me to recognize what was going on here, despite the fact that I'm not a trained electronic engineer. And in closing I can say that I recognize one other thing too. It took that sonar company quite a while to polish the designs I'm referring to, and the folks working on it were very good indeed. So I can say with some authority that Mr. Godes is deadly, deadly good at what he does. This is a deeply complex design, one that I could never even imagine doing for myself, although I can recognize it. We are very fortunate that Mr. Godes is pursuing LENR. Even if this isn't the design that prevails (the patent has other embodiments), I have high hopes for Brillouin. I would love to hear more about where you take this. We here in Portland are also considering such things. Our biggest issue is lack of instrumentation (we can't afford it). Even tiny parasitic capacitance or inductance on the load - and I mean tiny, like the inductance that might result from sloppy wiring - change the behavior of that circuit. Without decent instrumentation, I think it will be very difficult to figure out exactly what the core is seeing. It's the usual CF/LENR issue: no money. Jeff On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Jeff, thanks for this. I had considered something like this with a microcontroller that I have which will generate square waves of 3.3V up to 120Khz. I'm not quite sure what you mean by this: My circuit contains no remedy for the lack of symmetry about ground in the electrolysis cell. According to the text of the patent application, this is a show stopper that would need to be remedied before my design could be used in a real cell, even for experimentation. What do you mean by lack of symmetry about the ground? I want to try to build this, and your work is helpful in deconstructing how to do it. Thanks, Jack On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I finished writing up a few thoughts about the Godes / Brillouin patent application,
Re: [Vo]:Godes / Brillouin patent thoughts, with Spice simulation
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: Now look at paragraph 0045 in the patent application. What he actually says there is a bit more complicated, but what he's getting at is that he wants the core to see Q-pulses that alternate between some +V and some -V, symmetrically around ground. But the ground in this case is what the core sees, which is separate from the ground of the digital input / driver / primary of T8. Just to speculate off the cuff, here, there could be a kind of resonance that is activated with the symmetric signal about ground. I have in my mind a violin bow across a bow string. You have to draw it back and forth at the right speed. Too fast or too slow and you just get the kind of ineffective screechy sound that a beginner learning the violin makes. Eric
[Vo]:(Audio) NASA Chief Scientist on space exploration and LENR
Courtesy of website LENR COLD FUSION New Audio interview with Dennis Bushnell http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2012/10/22/dennis-bushnell-lenr/ Dr. Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist at NASA Langley Research Center, discusses space exploration and (beginning at 8:22) NASA LENR research. (Audio) http://www.americanantigravity.com/news/space/dennis-bushnell-on-space-exploration.html
Re: [Vo]:(Audio) NASA Chief Scientist on space exploration and LENR
Thanks for this. If anyone comes across a transcript of the portion where he talks about LENR, it would be very handy. On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 3:20 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Courtesy of website LENR – COLD FUSION New Audio interview with Dennis Bushnell http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2012/10/22/dennis-bushnell-lenr/ Dr. Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist at NASA Langley Research Center, discusses space exploration and (beginning at 8:22) NASA LENR research. (Audio) http://www.americanantigravity.com/news/space/dennis-bushnell-on-space-exploration.html -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
