[Vo]:Branly's Effect

[pagnucco]

An interesting paper just appeared on Arxiv.org entitled -

 "Understanding Branly's effect through Induced Tunnelling"
  arxiv.org/abs/1312.7464

The Branly effect occurs when a small electromagnetic wave induces a
very large current flow in granular medium of metallic microparticles.
It is very sensitive to the grain-grain separation, the grain surface
and to phase and amplitude of the excitation wave.
An extremely "finicky" phenomenon.

Several similarities to some LENR experiments are apparent.
So I googled the string "Branly fusion OR LENR" - and found that
someone had already noticed the parallels. See the posting at -

 "Thread: Cold Fusion and Branly effect"
  www.thescienceforum.com/physics/19671-cold-fusion-branly-effect.html

The Branly effect could explain low-energy tunneling effects when the
particle pairs involved receive a properly timed e-m momentum kick while
in a common collective phase of oscillation.

It may complement, rather than contradict, some current theories.

If anyone is interested, the abstract and an extract from the above
paper are below, along with related references.  Comments are welcome.

-- Lou Pagnucco

ABSTRACT: At the end of the nineteenth century Edouard Branly discovered
that the electrical resistance of a granular metallic conductor could
drop by several orders of magnitude when excited by the electromagnetic
field emitted by a distant electrical spark. Despite the fact that this
effect was used to detect radio waves in the early days of wireless
telegraphy and more recently, studied in the field of granular materials,
no satisfactory explanation of the physical origin of the effect has been
proposed. In this contribution, we relate the Branly effect to the induced
tunnelling effect first described by Francois Bardou and Dominique Boose.

EXTRACT:
"In a work published in 2001, Bardou and Boose established theoretically
that the probability of a particle tunnelling through a barrier of
potential could be increased significantly by gently striking the
particle at the time when the centroid of its wave packet is reflecting
on the barrier... These authors have shown that the excitation of the
particle at the time of its reflection on a barrier of potential
increases it transmission probability by several orders of magnitude."

Related -

"Understanding the Branly effect"
http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0703495

"A quantum evaporation effect" - Bardou, Boose
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0103095
ABSTRACT: A small momentum transfer to a particle interacting with a
steep potential barrier gives rise to a quantum evaporation effect which
increases the transmission appreciably. This effect results from the
unexpectedly large population of quantum states with energies above the
height of the barrier. Its characteristic properties are studied and an
example of physical system in which it may be observed is given.

RE: [Vo]:RE: Proton Mass not stable?

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

LoL
Good one Jones!
That made my evening...
-mi

_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 7:36 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:RE: Proton Mass not stable?


_
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 

One of the KEY elements to the referenced paper is a
specific resonant condition... which is exactly what I've been saying for
years.  
That (or those) resonant condition(s) are exceedingly rare
in normal matter, but when they do occur, throw the standard model out the
window! The impossible suddenly becomes possible...

Whenever resonant conditions come up for discussion at the atomic scale, the
fine structure constant - alpha - tends to ... well ... resonate. And
curiously the mass of 137 protons is not that far off from a Kibble boson
:-) 

(I started calling a hypothetical transitory particle for LENR a "Kibble",
since Higgs himself gets wy too much credit and Tom Kibble is just as
deserving). 

The Kibble boson is of course the dog-particle. Grrr And to be honest,
it seemed like there "should be" an anti-particle for the Higgs (I have
since learned that elemental bosons do not necessarily have
anti-particles) but it sounded good at the time... and that the dog
particle would occasionally form when the correct number of protons happened
to fill an exciton or quantum dot of nickel. 

Actually one would indeed suspect the number of entrained protons in a
quantum dot of nickel to be in the range of the mass of the Kibble, since
these are composed of 100 atoms of nickel and up  

And then again, since vorticians are the epicenter of Cargo Cult Science,
there is Feynmanium... which would explain Rossi's meltdown.

Anyway, some version of this finely structured scenario is not yet ruled
out... and this old dog is trying to learn a few new tricks for 2014. 

I was almost certain that this riddle would have been solved in 2013, but
alas ... it is an uncertain world. Fleas Navidad, 

Jones
<>

Re: [Vo]:RE: Proton Mass not stable?

[ChemE Stewart]

Or maybe the 5th is really the 4th and it is ionizing/decaying space in our
1-3 which is what we percieve as time/aging  That leaves the 5-10 for the
6-D torroid at the Earth's core brane and Solar Brane which makes 10 and we
are slinging the 4th back and forth between our branes we perceive
as gravity and our weather and we are inside the 11th which completes M
theory...

Luckily I think these branes suffer chronic indigestion and constipation
which gives us a playground

Stewart


On Monday, December 30, 2013, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:

> Thanks for the posting Jones...
>
> One of the KEY elements to the referenced paper is a specific resonant
> condition... which is exactly what I've been saying for years.
> That (or those) resonant condition(s) are exceedingly rare in normal
> matter,
> but when they do occur, throw the standard model out the window! The
> impossible suddenly becomes possible...
>
> There have been a number of recent theoretical papers by people who are
> outside the LENR field... thus, this is a positive sign that the
> theoretical
> 'world' is beginning to take this seriously... granted, this may not be
> coming fast enough for those of us who have followed LENR since the
> beginning, but as more competent theoretical outsiders jump in the frying
> pan, the more it will attract attention and that can only help... albeit,
> slowly.
>
> -Mark
>
> _
> From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net ]
> Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 5:35 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
> Subject: [Vo]:RE: Proton Mass not stable?
>
>
>
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/139182265/Theories-of-variable-mass-particles-and-
> low-energy-nuclear-phenomena
>
> "Theories of variable mass particles and low energy nuclear phenomena"
>
> Published by Mark Davidson
>
> Conclusion of Paper:  "We want to emphasize that there is no direct
> experimental evidence yet that masses of electrons, nucleons, or nuclei can
> change significantly in a condensed matter setting Nevertheless, it is
> this author's opinion that Fock-Stueckelberg or other type of
> off-mass-shell
> theories are a possible explanation for such variations and that all of the
> experiments in LENR can potentially be explained if they are occurring."
>
>
> This is a very deep paper and Davidson is careful to spread the credit
> around and not ruffle too many feathers, even though his conclusion
> essentially devastates most the popular theories for LENR, when taken to
> the
> limit. He is probably too circumspect and one hopes that there will be more
> from Davidson.
>
> Apparently, using the old Fock-Stueckelberg theories mentioned (circa
> 1941),
> opens up modern solutions for the relativistic bound state problem and so
> on
> (as we are hearing again in the Higgs discussions) providing an
> understanding for gain in LENR without the need for fusion (but he does not
> really want to go that far in the paper)... but we also realize that a
> generalization of Maxwell's theory is required in order that the
> electromagnetic interaction be incorporated into the theory which it has to
> be. The resulting broader theory involves a fifth gauge field... shades of
> Kaluza's conclusion - and he was saying this twenty years ahead of F&S.
>
> Theodor Kaluza was an extraordinarily genius - possibly on the same level
> as
> Dirac and Einstein, if not higher. But that is a discussion for another
> day.
>
> Anyway... there could be an echo in the recent threads ... or is that the
> 800 pound gorilla in the closet? (make that 125 GeV)...anyway, it looks
> like
> we are back to the some version of a fifth dimension in order to adequately
> explain LENR, not to mention the Higgs... which is sure to engender the
> usual negativity.
>
> In a way, it could be looking more and more like the billions spent on LHC
> may yet have some kind of surprising payoff for understanding LENR, but we
> are not there yet. What an irony if it plays out that way.
>
> As for now - perhaps we can sum up best by pleading the fifth. :-)
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:RE: Proton Mass not stable?

[Jones Beene]

_
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint 

One of the KEY elements to the referenced paper is a
specific resonant condition... which is exactly what I've been saying for
years.  
That (or those) resonant condition(s) are exceedingly rare
in normal matter, but when they do occur, throw the standard model out the
window! The impossible suddenly becomes possible...

Whenever resonant conditions come up for discussion at the atomic scale, the
fine structure constant - alpha - tends to ... well ... resonate. And
curiously the mass of 137 protons is not that far off from a Kibble boson
:-) 

(I started calling a hypothetical transitory particle for LENR a "Kibble",
since Higgs himself gets wy too much credit and Tom Kibble is just as
deserving). 

The Kibble boson is of course the dog-particle. Grrr And to be honest,
it seemed like there "should be" an anti-particle for the Higgs (I have
since learned that elemental bosons do not necessarily have
anti-particles) but it sounded good at the time... and that the dog
particle would occasionally form when the correct number of protons happened
to fill an exciton or quantum dot of nickel. 

Actually one would indeed suspect the number of entrained protons in a
quantum dot of nickel to be in the range of the mass of the Kibble, since
these are composed of 100 atoms of nickel and up  

And then again, since vorticians are the epicenter of Cargo Cult Science,
there is Feynmanium... which would explain Rossi's meltdown.

Anyway, some version of this finely structured scenario is not yet ruled
out... and this old dog is trying to learn a few new tricks for 2014. 

I was almost certain that this riddle would have been solved in 2013, but
alas ... it is an uncertain world. Fleas Navidad, 

Jones
<>

Re: [Vo]:from Rossi's blog -- destructive tests -- 1MW in 10 secs

[Axil Axil]

Could it be that Rossi is using words in the wrong way to describe his
invention as follows:

It might be that Rossi is meaning that when the temperature of the Cat
raises, the mouse is turned off. When the temperature of the cat lowers,
the Mouse is turned on.


Otherwise. "the temperature of the Cat raises when the Mouse is turned off"

If these words are being used correctly, then the Mouse is a negative
feedback device that dampens the Cat like a nuclear control rod. The Cat is
therefore supercritical.

 "lowers when the Mouse is turned on" is also consistent with a dampening
mechanism.


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

> From: "Daniel Rocha" 
> Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 10:13:46 AM
>
> The "mouse" is nothing more than a ceramic canister within his SS tube
> full of (most probably) MgH and Ni acting as a catalyst to brake the
> released H2 to atomic from its solid state MgH at high temperatures. If H
> or Mg are in contact with air or moister then a Lungmuir toarch reaction
> (reaching 3400C) and/or a violent reaction of Mg with H20 give such
> "explosing" results lasting for some seconds. Such are not desirable
> results but accidents due to poor controllability.
>
> - - -
>
> You might be right on that one :
>
> Andrea Rossi
> December 29th, 2013 at 6:10 PM
>
> Hank Mills:
> ...
> 4- the temperature of the Cat raises when the Mouse is turned off, lowers
> when the Mouse is turned on
>
>

RE: [Vo]:RE: Proton Mass not stable?

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Thanks for the posting Jones...

One of the KEY elements to the referenced paper is a specific resonant
condition... which is exactly what I've been saying for years.  
That (or those) resonant condition(s) are exceedingly rare in normal matter,
but when they do occur, throw the standard model out the window! The
impossible suddenly becomes possible...

There have been a number of recent theoretical papers by people who are
outside the LENR field... thus, this is a positive sign that the theoretical
'world' is beginning to take this seriously... granted, this may not be
coming fast enough for those of us who have followed LENR since the
beginning, but as more competent theoretical outsiders jump in the frying
pan, the more it will attract attention and that can only help... albeit,
slowly.

-Mark

_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 5:35 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:RE: Proton Mass not stable?


http://www.scribd.com/doc/139182265/Theories-of-variable-mass-particles-and-
low-energy-nuclear-phenomena

"Theories of variable mass particles and low energy nuclear phenomena"

Published by Mark Davidson

Conclusion of Paper:  "We want to emphasize that there is no direct
experimental evidence yet that masses of electrons, nucleons, or nuclei can
change significantly in a condensed matter setting Nevertheless, it is
this author's opinion that Fock-Stueckelberg or other type of off-mass-shell
theories are a possible explanation for such variations and that all of the
experiments in LENR can potentially be explained if they are occurring."


This is a very deep paper and Davidson is careful to spread the credit
around and not ruffle too many feathers, even though his conclusion
essentially devastates most the popular theories for LENR, when taken to the
limit. He is probably too circumspect and one hopes that there will be more
from Davidson.

Apparently, using the old Fock-Stueckelberg theories mentioned (circa 1941),
opens up modern solutions for the relativistic bound state problem and so on
(as we are hearing again in the Higgs discussions) providing an
understanding for gain in LENR without the need for fusion (but he does not
really want to go that far in the paper)... but we also realize that a
generalization of Maxwell's theory is required in order that the
electromagnetic interaction be incorporated into the theory which it has to
be. The resulting broader theory involves a fifth gauge field... shades of
Kaluza's conclusion - and he was saying this twenty years ahead of F&S. 

Theodor Kaluza was an extraordinarily genius - possibly on the same level as
Dirac and Einstein, if not higher. But that is a discussion for another day.

Anyway... there could be an echo in the recent threads ... or is that the
800 pound gorilla in the closet? (make that 125 GeV)...anyway, it looks like
we are back to the some version of a fifth dimension in order to adequately
explain LENR, not to mention the Higgs... which is sure to engender the
usual negativity. 

In a way, it could be looking more and more like the billions spent on LHC
may yet have some kind of surprising payoff for understanding LENR, but we
are not there yet. What an irony if it plays out that way.

As for now - perhaps we can sum up best by pleading the fifth. :-)




<>

Re: [Vo]:from Rossi's blog -- destructive tests -- 1MW in 10 secs

[mixent]

In reply to  Alan Fletcher's message of Mon, 30 Dec 2013 12:26:47 -0800 (PST):
Hi,
[snip]
>From: "Daniel Rocha"  
>Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 10:13:46 AM 
>
>The "mouse" is nothing more than a ceramic canister within his SS tube full of 
>(most probably) MgH and Ni acting as a catalyst to brake the released H2 to 
>atomic from its solid state MgH at high temperatures. If H or Mg are in 
>contact with air or moister then a Lungmuir toarch reaction (reaching 3400C) 
>and/or a violent reaction of Mg with H20 give such "explosing" results lasting 
>for some seconds. Such are not desirable results but accidents due to poor 
>controllability. 
>
>- - - 
>
>You might be right on that one :
>
>Andrea Rossi
>December 29th, 2013 at 6:10 PM
>
>Hank Mills:
>... 
>4- the temperature of the Cat raises when the Mouse is turned off, lowers when 
>the Mouse is turned on

I can think of nothing other than an active cooling system which would behave
this way.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

[Vo]:RE: Proton Mass not stable?

[Jones Beene]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/139182265/Theories-of-variable-mass-particles-and-
low-energy-nuclear-phenomena

"Theories of variable mass particles and low energy nuclear phenomena"

Published by Mark Davidson

Conclusion of Paper:  "We want to emphasize that there is no direct
experimental evidence yet that masses of electrons, nucleons, or nuclei can
change significantly in a condensed matter setting Nevertheless, it is
this author's opinion that Fock-Stueckelberg or other type of off-mass-shell
theories are a possible explanation for such variations and that all of the
experiments in LENR can potentially be explained if they are occurring."


This is a very deep paper and Davidson is careful to spread the credit
around and not ruffle too many feathers, even though his conclusion
essentially devastates most the popular theories for LENR, when taken to the
limit. He is probably too circumspect and one hopes that there will be more
from Davidson.

Apparently, using the old Fock-Stueckelberg theories mentioned (circa 1941),
opens up modern solutions for the relativistic bound state problem and so on
(as we are hearing again in the Higgs discussions) providing an
understanding for gain in LENR without the need for fusion (but he does not
really want to go that far in the paper)... but we also realize that a
generalization of Maxwell's theory is required in order that the
electromagnetic interaction be incorporated into the theory which it has to
be. The resulting broader theory involves a fifth gauge field... shades of
Kaluza's conclusion - and he was saying this twenty years ahead of F&S. 

Theodor Kaluza was an extraordinarily genius - possibly on the same level as
Dirac and Einstein, if not higher. But that is a discussion for another day.

Anyway... there could be an echo in the recent threads ... or is that the
800 pound gorilla in the closet? (make that 125 GeV)...anyway, it looks like
we are back to the some version of a fifth dimension in order to adequately
explain LENR, not to mention the Higgs... which is sure to engender the
usual negativity. 

In a way, it could be looking more and more like the billions spent on LHC
may yet have some kind of surprising payoff for understanding LENR, but we
are not there yet. What an irony if it plays out that way.

As for now - perhaps we can sum up best by pleading the fifth. :-)




<>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and David Roberson Model

[Alan Fletcher]

At 02:17 PM 12/30/2013, you wrote:
It would be great if David Roberson's services were retained by the 
companies engineering the E-Cat.  It is hard to say whether his 
publishing his spice model would increase this likelihood or reduce it.


OK then, publish a "toy" model which shows similar behaviour. 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and David Roberson Model

[James Bowery]

It would be great if David Roberson's services were retained by the
companies engineering the E-Cat.  It is hard to say whether his publishing
his spice model would increase this likelihood or reduce it.


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

> > There have been many posts on Vortex-l where I have attempted to explain
> this behavior and it still remains a mystery to most.
>
> I have no expertise in control theory (excepting some basic knowledge of
> feedback in electronic systems --- poles and all that), and admit that your
> claims remain a mystery to me.
>
> This could have been eased considerably had you presented a short summary
> of the specific aspects of control theory that you are applying, some Spice
> output plots to indicate how your model is behaving and, golly gosh, the
> spice code you are using.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Godes patent application and rejection

[Jed Rothwell]

 quoted the patent examiner:


> "...The Declaration does not provide such evidence as is necessary to
> render credible low energy nuclear reactions, in particular fusion
> reactions, given the overwhelming body of experimental data and theoretical
> arguments against fusion under circumstances well below the Coulomb
> barrier."
>

I think the examiner is right. The declaration does not provide such
evidence. Godes should have presented such evidence, in the form of
affidavits from scientists and engineers testifying that the machine works.



>
> "... The finding of lack of utility and enablement may be overcome if an
> independent committee of peers in the pertinent fields, such as a third
> peer review by the U.S. Department of Energy, were to conclude that cold
> fusion or low energy nuclear reactions were shown by the basic research
> continued after the latest Review by the U.S. Department of Energy
> (December 1, 2004...) to be reproducible and thus to have utility.
> Applicant could have his invention tested by such organizations as the
> U.S. Department of Energy or NIST."
>

Again, I agree with the examiner.

They could never get it tested by the DoE or NIST, but there are plenty of
other authoritative places that would test it, such as EPRI or ELFORSK. Or
any of a hundred major industrial corporations. Or SRI. They should have
attached a positive report from McKubre, if they have one.



> The reviewer then goes on to question Godes' electron-capture hypothesis.
> He could similarly argue that all LENR theories are wrong since all violate
> conventional beliefs.
>

David French and other patent experts say it was huge mistake for Godes to
mention his theory in the patent. He should have described only how to make
the machine and that it produces heat. I have often heard this advice. I do
not understand why Godes did not follow it. Either he did not consult with
an expert or someone gave him terrible advice.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Is Lewis the decisive cause of LENR denial, and the possible 2014 scapegoat

[James Bowery]

We could argue the fine points of Mammon vs God until the cows come home,
Ed.  The bottom line, for me, is that the biological organization of humans
into eusocial specialization exchanges individual integrity for group
integrity.  If this exchange did not entail such things as the destruction
of natural 
heritage,
it would be a lot more tolerable.


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> As Steven noted, I was being sarcastic. But to get serious, God gave
> religion permission to torture, burn at the stake, and kill. Money is only
> used to make poor and marginalize. I think you would agree, this is
> progress.
>
> Ed
>
> On Dec 30, 2013, at 1:32 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>
> Money as God is as old as civilization and it has a name that is, too, as
> old as civilization:
>
> Mammon Worship.
>
> In many ways, money is a far more seductive religion in that it has the
> appearance of rationality.
>
> I don't call this progress.
>
> On the other hand, the State as God is little better.
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> Well Jed, I guess it is nice to know we are no worse off than we would
>> have been in 1513. Of course, then people had the Church to fight, which
>> had God on its side. Now, the fight is with politicians who only have money
>> on their side.  I call this progress. :-)
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> On Dec 30, 2013, at 8:21 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>> Edmund Storms  wrote:
>>
>> Yes, and both Lewis and Koonin went on to high office and were well
>>> rewarded for not rocking the boat on any subject.  There was and is no
>>> reward in advocating for cold fusion.
>>>
>>
>> "There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to
>> conduct, or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in the
>> introduction of a new order of things, because the innovator has for
>> enemies all those who have done well under the old condition, and lukewarm
>> defenders in those who may do well under the new."
>>
>> - Machiavelli, 1513
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Is Lewis the decisive cause of LENR denial, and the possible 2014 scapegoat

[Foks0904 .]

Ed,

The God of politics is money. Mass murder and similar atrocities continue
to be carried out 3rd-hand by corrupt politicians daily in various guises.
In parallel we use "national self interest" to validate our actions, just
as the medieval church leveraged "god's will" to stress necessity of
harming others and empowering lunatics. Just the same kind of dominator
mentality in different garb.

I am however not a complete cynic and realize progress has been made, just
at an unfortunate cost. I will take the present over medieval times most
days.

Regards,
John


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> As Steven noted, I was being sarcastic. But to get serious, God gave
> religion permission to torture, burn at the stake, and kill. Money is only
> used to make poor and marginalize. I think you would agree, this is
> progress.
>
> Ed
> On Dec 30, 2013, at 1:32 PM, James Bowery wrote:
>
> Money as God is as old as civilization and it has a name that is, too, as
> old as civilization:
>
> Mammon Worship.
>
> In many ways, money is a far more seductive religion in that it has the
> appearance of rationality.
>
> I don't call this progress.
>
> On the other hand, the State as God is little better.
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:
>
>> Well Jed, I guess it is nice to know we are no worse off than we would
>> have been in 1513. Of course, then people had the Church to fight, which
>> had God on its side. Now, the fight is with politicians who only have money
>> on their side.  I call this progress. :-)
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> On Dec 30, 2013, at 8:21 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>> Edmund Storms  wrote:
>>
>> Yes, and both Lewis and Koonin went on to high office and were well
>>> rewarded for not rocking the boat on any subject.  There was and is no
>>> reward in advocating for cold fusion.
>>>
>>
>> "There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to
>> conduct, or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in the
>> introduction of a new order of things, because the innovator has for
>> enemies all those who have done well under the old condition, and lukewarm
>> defenders in those who may do well under the new."
>>
>> - Machiavelli, 1513
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Is Lewis the decisive cause of LENR denial, and the possible 2014 scapegoat

[Edmund Storms]

As Steven noted, I was being sarcastic. But to get serious, God gave  
religion permission to torture, burn at the stake, and kill. Money is  
only used to make poor and marginalize. I think you would agree, this  
is progress.


Ed
On Dec 30, 2013, at 1:32 PM, James Bowery wrote:

Money as God is as old as civilization and it has a name that is,  
too, as old as civilization:


Mammon Worship.

In many ways, money is a far more seductive religion in that it has  
the appearance of rationality.


I don't call this progress.

On the other hand, the State as God is little better.


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms  
 wrote:
Well Jed, I guess it is nice to know we are no worse off than we  
would have been in 1513. Of course, then people had the Church to  
fight, which had God on its side. Now, the fight is with politicians  
who only have money on their side.  I call this progress. :-)


Ed

On Dec 30, 2013, at 8:21 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Edmund Storms  wrote:

Yes, and both Lewis and Koonin went on to high office and were well  
rewarded for not rocking the boat on any subject.  There was and is  
no reward in advocating for cold fusion.


"There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to  
conduct, or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in  
the introduction of a new order of things, because the innovator  
has for enemies all those who have done well under the old  
condition, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under  
the new."


- Machiavelli, 1513

Re: [Vo]:Rossi and David Roberson Model

[Alan Fletcher]

> There have been many posts on Vortex-l where I have attempted to explain this 
> behavior and it still remains a mystery to most.

I have no expertise in control theory (excepting some basic knowledge of 
feedback in electronic systems --- poles and all that), and admit that your 
claims remain a mystery to me.

This could have been eased considerably had you presented a short summary of 
the specific aspects of control theory that you are applying, some Spice output 
plots to indicate how your model is behaving and, golly gosh, the spice code 
you are using.

[Vo]:Rossi and David Roberson Model

[Alan Fletcher]

David Roberson
December 30th, 2013 at 11:54 AM

Dear Andrea,

I have been following your progress for a long time and wish to congratulate 
you for the hard work and amazing accompolishments. I wish that there were some 
way that your ECAT could be introduced to the world quickly since it will open 
many doors that are currently nearly shut by the high cost of energy.

As you may know, I have constructed a computer model of the ECAT type system 
which offers insight into the operation of your device and demonstrates many of 
the difficult problems which you must overcome in order to make your design 
practical. You continue to state that the COP will be at a minimum of 6 which 
is consistent with my model. To achieve a significantly higher COP and maintain 
stability, it will be necessary to push the internal temperature closer to the 
point at which the device undergoes thermal run away and that of course would 
offer difficult challenges.

The model strongly supports your operation statements where input power is 
applied for 1/4 of the time while the device runs in self sustaining mode for 
the other 3/4 of the time. This duty cycle should be adequate for operation 
within the region of thermal positve feedback, with a loop gain of greater than 
unity, provided the internal temperature is allowed to approach the run away 
point. The closer you operate to this temperature, the higher the net COP will 
be.

The control system must be able to enact a turn around to the direction that 
the internal temperature is moving at the correct times. The positive feedback 
takes over once the direction is changed and the ECAT internal temperature 
continues along that path until the next input power change is enacted. 
Operation of this type is not easy to visualize and I am confident that that is 
why so many can not grasp how heat can be used to control a greater amount of 
internally generated heat. There have been many posts on Vortex-l where I have 
attempted to explain this behavior and it still remains a mystery to most.

Several readers have asked what happens if you cut off the controlling heat 
source. They fear that thermal run away must begin at that point, but this is 
not the case. The model suggests that the device will immediately begin to 
cycle downwards in temperature until it cools down completely. The positive 
feedback will ensure that this occurs. Although it may seem strange, the fact 
that the drive power is applied at its full level is an important component to 
this behavior.

Your mention that the internal temperature must be in the vicinity of 1000 C in 
order to deliver heat into a coolant at 500 C or so makes perfect sense. That 
is one of the variables that you must control in order to set the internal 
thermal run away trip point at the ideal location. The input temperature and 
the flow rate of the coolant are other handles at your disposal.

So, I find it particularly interesting to follow your recent statements on this 
journal as you slowly reveal how the ECAT funcions. All of them have been 
supported by my computer model and I hope that you will continue to offer more 
insight to us. The wait for your product to be perfected may not be long now.

Thank you for your fine efforts,

David Roberson

- - - 


Andrea Rossi
December 30th, 2013 at 1:54 PM

David Robertson:
Thank you for your insight.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Re: [Vo]:Is Lewis the decisive cause of LENR denial, and the possible 2014 scapegoat

[James Bowery]

Money as God is as old as civilization and it has a name that is, too, as
old as civilization:

Mammon Worship.

In many ways, money is a far more seductive religion in that it has the
appearance of rationality.

I don't call this progress.

On the other hand, the State as God is little better.


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms wrote:

> Well Jed, I guess it is nice to know we are no worse off than we would
> have been in 1513. Of course, then people had the Church to fight, which
> had God on its side. Now, the fight is with politicians who only have money
> on their side.  I call this progress. :-)
>
> Ed
>
> On Dec 30, 2013, at 8:21 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Edmund Storms  wrote:
>
> Yes, and both Lewis and Koonin went on to high office and were well
>> rewarded for not rocking the boat on any subject.  There was and is no
>> reward in advocating for cold fusion.
>>
>
> "There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to
> conduct, or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in the
> introduction of a new order of things, because the innovator has for
> enemies all those who have done well under the old condition, and lukewarm
> defenders in those who may do well under the new."
>
> - Machiavelli, 1513
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Godes patent application and rejection

[pagnucco]

Jed,
Based on the list of patents this reviewer has approved, he appears to
specialize in semiconductor physics - not nuclear, or particle physics.

Here are a few quotes for the rejection indicating the reviewer followed
established rules in dismissing LENR -

"...The Declaration does not provide such evidence as is necessary to
render credible low energy nuclear reactions, in particular fusion
reactions, given the overwhelming body of experimental data and theoretical
arguments against fusion under circumstances well below the Coulomb barrier."

"... The finding of lack of utility and enablement may be overcome if an
independent committee of peers in the pertinent fields, such as a third
peer review by the U.S. Department of Energy, were to conclude that cold
fusion or low energy nuclear reactions were shown by the basic research
continued after the latest Review by the U.S. Department of Energy
(December 1, 2004...) to be reproducible and thus to have utility.
Applicant could have his invention tested by such organizations as the
U.S. Department of Energy or NIST."

The reviewer then goes on to question Godes' electron-capture hypothesis.
He could similarly argue that all LENR theories are wrong since all violate
conventional beliefs.

So, I wonder whether USDE or NIST would agree to test a device unless it
worked predictably and uniformly all of time.

Probably, Brillouin's claims will not be accepted until they agree to
open tests by scientists who are not known believers.

-- Lou Pagnucco


Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Application:
>
> http://www.google.com.au/patents/US20110122984
>
> Final rejection:
>
> http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Godes-US-patent-office-final-rejection-SN-12911586-14-May-121.pdf
>

Re: [Vo]:from Rossi's blog -- destructive tests -- 1MW in 10 secs

[Alan Fletcher]

From: "Daniel Rocha"  
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 10:13:46 AM 

The "mouse" is nothing more than a ceramic canister within his SS tube full of 
(most probably) MgH and Ni acting as a catalyst to brake the released H2 to 
atomic from its solid state MgH at high temperatures. If H or Mg are in contact 
with air or moister then a Lungmuir toarch reaction (reaching 3400C) and/or a 
violent reaction of Mg with H20 give such "explosing" results lasting for some 
seconds. Such are not desirable results but accidents due to poor 
controllability. 

- - - 

You might be right on that one :

Andrea Rossi
December 29th, 2013 at 6:10 PM

Hank Mills:
... 
4- the temperature of the Cat raises when the Mouse is turned off, lowers when 
the Mouse is turned on

Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes

[James Bowery]

When you're talking about photosynthesizing all of the CO2 effluent from US
power plants, you had better get into the details because in
macroengineering little things like, oh, say, phosphorus, can blow up in
your face as they saturate existing capacity.  So, yeah, the devil is in
the details.


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Brad Lowe  wrote:

> Wow James, that's a lot of detail. Maybe some of these costs could be
> offset by providing the service of algae removal from recreational
> lakes? Clear Lake, California could use a cleanup:
> https://www.google.com/search?q=clear+lake+algae&source=lnms&tbm=isch
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 10:07 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
> > Oh, and if you want to really get nasty, ask them if they've done a
> > quantitative analysis within an order of magnitude as comprehensive as
> this:
> >
> > http://diogenesinstitute.org/index.php/Fullspreadsheet
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:03 AM, James Bowery 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> None of these guys advertise their capex per area.
> >>
> >> That's the first question you should ask of anyone who claims they've
> >> solved the algae problem.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Patrick Ellul  >
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Just linking this company, which claim the same: http://solazyme.com/
> >>> The Fools have been billing it as a money maker:
> >>>
> http://stockgumshoe.com/reviews/motley-fool-hidden-gems/revealing-the-fools-silicon-valley-oil-superstar-1-company-pulling-profits-out-of-thin-air/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:46 PM, James Bowery 
> wrote:
> 
>  Actually, I was referring to "the world" as companies like Exxon which
>  wasted a huge amount of money on algae biofuels.  They could have had
> what
>  they wanted, no genetic engineering or special strains, for under
> $10M.
> 
> 
>  On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 7:53 PM,  wrote:
> >
> > In reply to  James Bowery's message of Thu, 19 Dec 2013 12:55:54
> -0600:
> > Hi,
> > [snip]
> > >The biomass production cost problem has been solved.  I don't know
> > > when the
> > >world will wake up.
> > >
> > ...when they start producing fuel cheaper than the oil companies.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Robin van Spaandonk
> >
> > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
> >
> 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Patrick
> >>>
> >>> www.tRacePerfect.com
> >>> The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect!
> >>> The quickest puzzle ever!
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>

[Vo]:Godes patent application and rejection

[Jed Rothwell]

Application:

http://www.google.com.au/patents/US20110122984

Final rejection:

http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Godes-US-patent-office-final-rejection-SN-12911586-14-May-121.pdf

[Vo]: Doppler Radar Results

[ChemE Stewart]

All,

I just wanted to share some preliminary results to open minded readers on
my year long research, primarily to see if we might have decaying vacuum
energy in our atmosphere along with air and water vapor.

After manually pushing pins in Google Earth for a year at night to keep me
out of the bars, I have come to the following observations/conclusions,
backed by some statistics with the help of a UNC Chapel Hill, NC, PhD
candidate.

1) Many/Most sinkholes open up in the Earth during/right after low pressure
weather disturbances

2) Many Fish Kills, Algae Blooms/Red Tide/Hypoxic conditions happen during
these same low pressure weather events, including persistent El Nino's, etc.

3) Based upon two years of Florida State Fish Kill data , a STATISTICALLY
significant (p-Value < 0.01)  number of fish kills are occurring within 50
miles of Doppler microwave radar towers. We confirmed what I was seeing by
selecting multiple random radar locations along the Florida coast and
inland and shuffling the data tags 10,000 times comparing them to the base
metric. This is over 95% of the fish kills occurring within 50 miles of the
towers (actually within 25 miles is also p<0.01). I have run multiple
10,000 iteration samples at this point. These towers have a 50-150 mile
reflection range.

The Doppler towers pulse anywhere between 250,000 watts(TDWR) and 750,000
watts(NEXRAD) of microwave radiation 24/7 into the atmosphere. Also, a
Klystron 9 tower in Tampa pulses 1,250,000 watts. I included a total of 14
radar locations, some at airports.  The radiation itself is supposed to be
non-ionizing.

The study does not say the Dopplers are causing the fish to die or the
blooms, it merely shows there is a statistically very significant
relationship between the locations. It does not just appear to be a human
population based effect because Melbourne, FL has had a significant number
of blooms/kills and is not one of the larger cities (but does have a NEXRAD
station)

There is also a very obvious visual significance that the locations of the
fish kills/algae blooms are located in the same areas that have the highest
concentration of sinkholes (60 year  data map) and waterspouts(1 year) in
the state. A link to my blog postings are at:

http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/12/24/silent-night/

I continue to think our low pressure weather systems contain a higher
concentration of weakly ionizing vacuum energy, which this study does not
prove but continues to point me in that direction. Doppler radiation may be
interacting with it and creating all of the anomalous signals detected as
well as possibly interacting with it. The vacuum energy is what creates the
low pressure troughs/precipitation and such in our atmosphere in my model.
Which supports M/string theory. This would be our quantum field.

I just wanted to share.  There was a tremendous amount of scientific
concern back in 1993 regarding these towers before they were all installed.
 If you read into the following document you will find the letters.

http://sdsimonson.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/sea1993-wsr-safety.pdf

We are going to publish some data in January

Stewart

RE: [Vo]:Is Lewis the decisive cause of LENR denial, and the possible 2014 scapegoat

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Ed sez:

 

> Well Jed, I guess it is nice to know we are no worse off than we

> would have been in 1513. Of course, then people had the Church to

> fight, which had God on its side. Now, the fight is with politicians

> who only have money on their side.  I call this progress. :-)

 

Your sarcasm is well placed. ;-)

 

I would only conjecture that from my perspective too many ultra-conservative
politicians (which by definition these days means they are most likely of
the Republican persuasion) claim they have God on their side when, in truth,
they have fallen under the seductive spell of worshipping the worst false
idol of them all:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id6oS3L-D9A

 

These days it's called worshipping the wrath of the debt ceiling. What
better way to show allegiance to such a seductive Idol than to stage another
dramatic filibuster.

 

PS: I am not bashing Republicans. I've spoken to Republicans who tell me
they are pissed off at how their party has been taken over and abused by a
minority of irrational conservatives. I sincerely hope the more rational
portions will be able to once again reclaim the party's good name. Shoot! I
used to be a republican myself .that is until conservative activists like
Phyllis Schlafly took over way back the Regan era. It was all downhill after
that. I had had enuf.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/

Re: [Vo]:Electron assisted neutron exchange in solid state

[H Veeder]

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:08 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  pagnu...@htdconnect.com's message of Fri, 20 Dec 2013
> 00:54:51
> -0500 (EST):
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >In case they were not cited in Vortex earlier, the two authors have a
> >number of papers on Arxiv that may be relevant to LENR - at URL:
> >http://arxiv.org/find/nucl-th/1/au:+Keszthelyi_T/0/1/0/all/0/1
> >
> >One of these is -
> >"Nuclear processes in solids: basic 2nd-order processes"
> >http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.1078
>
>
> I am troubled by the first line in section II.
>
> "In the low-energy range (kR ?á 1, where R is the radius of a nucleon) and
> for
> |r| . R
> the long wavelength approximation
> |'(r)| = |'(0)| = fjk(k)/?ãV (6)"
>
> (Poor reproduction in ASCII text - please see original to make sense of
> this).
>
> If R is the radius of a nucleon, then it is something less than 1 fm. If
> the
> approximation in (6) is only valid when |r| < R, then is it only valid for
> distances less than 1 fm. However at these distances, the nuclear force
> reigns
> supreme, and nuclear reactions happen near instantaneously anyway. IOW by
> the
> time the approximation takes effect, it is useless. Besides, how does one
> get
> that close in the first place?
>
>

There are two ways to shrink the distance between H nuclei. The first is to
bring the H nuclei closer together. The second is to enlarge the H nuclei.
The latter option seems impossible but since there is now some tentative
evidence that the radius of a proton shrinks by 8% if it is orbited by a
muon, perhaps the radius of proton can also swell the right environment.
The question is how much would a proton need to swell appreciable boost the
rate of fusion.



> >
> >ABSTRACT
> >Nuclear processes in solid environment are investigated. It is shown that
> >if a slow, quasi-free heavy particle of positive charge interacts with a
> >"free" electron of a metallic host, it can obtain such a great magnitude
> >of momentum in its intermediate state that the probability of its nuclear
> >reaction with an other positively charged, slow, heavy particle can
> >significantly increase. It is also shown that if a quasi-free heavy
> >particle of positive charge of intermediately low energy interacts with a
> >heavy particle of positive charge of the solid host, it can obtain much
> >greater momentum relative to the former case in the intermediate state and
> >consequently, the probability of a nuclear reaction with a positively
> >charged, heavy particle can even more increase. This mechanism opens the
> >door to a great variety of nuclear processes which up till know are
> >thought to have negligible rate at low energies. Low energy nuclear
> >reactions allowed by the Coulomb assistance of heavy charged particles is
> >partly overviewed. Nuclear pd and dd reactions are investigated
> >numerically. It was found that the leading channel in all the discussed
> >charged particle assisted dd reactions is the electron assisted d+d?¨ 4He
> >process.
> >
> >
> >> Perhaps of interest:
> >>
> >> Electron assisted neutron exchange process in solid state environment
> >> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.5498v1.pdf
> >
> >
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Is Lewis the decisive cause of LENR denial, and the possible 2014 scapegoat

[Edmund Storms]

Well Jed, I guess it is nice to know we are no worse off than we would  
have been in 1513. Of course, then people had the Church to fight,  
which had God on its side. Now, the fight is with politicians who only  
have money on their side.  I call this progress. :-)


Ed
On Dec 30, 2013, at 8:21 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Edmund Storms  wrote:

Yes, and both Lewis and Koonin went on to high office and were well  
rewarded for not rocking the boat on any subject.  There was and is  
no reward in advocating for cold fusion.


"There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to  
conduct, or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in  
the introduction of a new order of things, because the innovator has  
for enemies all those who have done well under the old condition,  
and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new."


- Machiavelli, 1513

Re: [Vo]:Biofuel from Algae in Minutes

[Brad Lowe]

Wow James, that's a lot of detail. Maybe some of these costs could be
offset by providing the service of algae removal from recreational
lakes? Clear Lake, California could use a cleanup:
https://www.google.com/search?q=clear+lake+algae&source=lnms&tbm=isch


On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 10:07 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
> Oh, and if you want to really get nasty, ask them if they've done a
> quantitative analysis within an order of magnitude as comprehensive as this:
>
> http://diogenesinstitute.org/index.php/Fullspreadsheet
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:03 AM, James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>> None of these guys advertise their capex per area.
>>
>> That's the first question you should ask of anyone who claims they've
>> solved the algae problem.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Patrick Ellul 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Just linking this company, which claim the same: http://solazyme.com/
>>> The Fools have been billing it as a money maker:
>>> http://stockgumshoe.com/reviews/motley-fool-hidden-gems/revealing-the-fools-silicon-valley-oil-superstar-1-company-pulling-profits-out-of-thin-air/
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:46 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

 Actually, I was referring to "the world" as companies like Exxon which
 wasted a huge amount of money on algae biofuels.  They could have had what
 they wanted, no genetic engineering or special strains, for under $10M.


 On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 7:53 PM,  wrote:
>
> In reply to  James Bowery's message of Thu, 19 Dec 2013 12:55:54 -0600:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >The biomass production cost problem has been solved.  I don't know
> > when the
> >world will wake up.
> >
> ...when they start producing fuel cheaper than the oil companies.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Patrick
>>>
>>> www.tRacePerfect.com
>>> The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect!
>>> The quickest puzzle ever!
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:PESN: S.Korean manufacturer licenses Brillouin LENR

[pagnucco]

Brillouin is offering to let Sterling Allan to observe and report on their
prototype.  Godes has offered access to critics before as well.

I would suggest to Brillouin to also invite someone like Mark Gibbs and
a few non-hostile scientific critics.  Positive reports would generate a
big splash.

-- Lou Pagnucco

Jed Rothwell wrote:
> The article says they are getting $750,000 for a license. That's a small
> amount, but you have to start somewhere. Once they gain credibility by
> doing this they can change much more to other customers.
>
> I hope these Korean people really have done due diligence correctly, and
> the effect is real.
>
> The article says:
>
> "What Bob is most keen to secure by contract is a "stranded asset" power
> plant in the range of 5-10 MW willing to beta test their HHT system as a
> retrofit solution to replace their coal-, or biomass-, or other polluting
> source that has had to be shut down due to environmental regulations."
> [...]

Re: [Vo]:Is Lewis the decisive cause of LENR denial, and the possible 2014 scapegoat

[Alain Sepeda]

BTW after Lewis stirring questions, some still moan on recombination

and some event talk of what I identify as Cudes CCS...
are there good/short rebuttal to those claims (I prepare my tool box)

One possible I see (from absence of data... not good argument) is that it
was not proven experimentally at the required level.. Is it true?


2013/12/30 Jed Rothwell 

> Edmund Storms  wrote:
>
> Yes, and both Lewis and Koonin went on to high office and were well
>> rewarded for not rocking the boat on any subject.  There was and is no
>> reward in advocating for cold fusion.
>>
>
> "There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to
> conduct, or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in the
> introduction of a new order of things, because the innovator has for
> enemies all those who have done well under the old condition, and lukewarm
> defenders in those who may do well under the new."
>
> - Machiavelli, 1513
>

Re: [Vo]:PESN: S.Korean manufacturer licenses Brillouin LENR

[Alain Sepeda]

I agree it looks idiotic, but technology change happen that way...
sail and steam engine...
electric taxi planes...
luminescent watch...
porn BBS...

first usage of technology is often niche and shy


2013/12/30 Jed Rothwell 

> The article says they are getting $750,000 for a license. That's a small
> amount, but you have to start somewhere. Once they gain credibility by
> doing this they can change much more to other customers.
>
> I hope these Korean people really have done due diligence correctly, and
> the effect is real.
>
> The article says:
>
> "What Bob is most keen to secure by contract is a "stranded asset" power
> plant in the range of 5-10 MW willing to beta test their HHT system as a
> retrofit solution to replace their coal-, or biomass-, or other polluting
> source that has had to be shut down due to environmental regulations."
>
> In my opinion that is an idiotic use of this technology. That is inventing
> an automobile engine and using it exclusively to augment teams of horses
> pulling stage coaches, instead of making automobiles without horses. Once
> people realize this technology is real, stranded asset power plants will be
> worth nothing. No one will want to spend any money preserving them or
> upgrading them.
>
> - Jed
>

Re: [Vo]:PESN: S.Korean manufacturer licenses Brillouin LENR

[H Veeder]

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>
>
> In my opinion that is an idiotic use of this technology. That is inventing
> an automobile engine and using it exclusively to augment teams of horses
> pulling stage coaches, instead of making automobiles without horses. Once
> people realize this technology is real, stranded asset power plants will be
> worth nothing. No one will want to spend any money preserving them or
> upgrading them.
>
> - Jed
>


Maybe some will be maintained like heritage sites or pioneer villages.

Harry

RE: [Vo]:PESN: S. Korean manufacturer licenses Brillouin LENR

[Jones Beene]

From: Jed Rothwell 

The article says they are getting $750,000 for a license.
That's a small amount, but you have to start somewhere. Once they gain
credibility by doing this they can charge much more to other customers.

I hope these Korean people really have done due diligence
correctly, and the effect is real.

The article says:

"What Bob is most keen to secure by contract is a "stranded
asset" power plant in the range of 5-10 MW willing to beta test their HHT
system as a retrofit solution to replace their coal-, or biomass-, or other
polluting source that has had to be shut down due to environmental
regulations."

In my opinion that is an idiotic use of this technology.
That is inventing an automobile engine and using it exclusively to augment
teams of horses pulling stage coaches, instead of making automobiles without
horses. Once people realize this technology is real, stranded asset power
plants will be worth nothing. No one will want to spend any money preserving
them or upgrading them.

This Korean retrofit venture may not be a bad strategy for a start, if they
truly have a working proof-of-concept. Did you get the impression that it
was more than an entry-level tactic to get a prototype device into operation
ASAP ... one where the risks for all parties are minimal?

What appears to have been a poor choice here ... for Brillouin, if they
really have what they say they have and wish to attract other funding - was
to promote the technology next to dozens of nutty-and-nuttier free energy
scams. That choice makes Godes' story look more like an act of desperation
than a breakthrough. 

If the tests at SRI were successful, which is the implication - then test
data alone would be invaluable - worthy of at least getting coverage in a
respectable journal. DoE would jump on this development, if it were true.
Something smells funny here, no?

Why not simply release the summary SRI test data to the public? Even if they
choose to filter out early failures, there must be reliable data - to get
this kind of additional funding, no? The fact that relevant information from
a top-flight R&D concern is NOT being shared - is suspicious in itself.

After all this was reportedly $2 million for testing which went to SRI - and
if that work was not successful, how could the Korean company be using due
diligence? 

<>

Re: [Vo]:Is Lewis the decisive cause of LENR denial, and the possible 2014 scapegoat

[Jed Rothwell]

Edmund Storms  wrote:

Yes, and both Lewis and Koonin went on to high office and were well
> rewarded for not rocking the boat on any subject.  There was and is no
> reward in advocating for cold fusion.
>

"There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct,
or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in the introduction
of a new order of things, because the innovator has for enemies all those
who have done well under the old condition, and lukewarm defenders in those
who may do well under the new."

- Machiavelli, 1513

Re: [Vo]:PESN: S.Korean manufacturer licenses Brillouin LENR

[Jed Rothwell]

The article says they are getting $750,000 for a license. That's a small
amount, but you have to start somewhere. Once they gain credibility by
doing this they can change much more to other customers.

I hope these Korean people really have done due diligence correctly, and
the effect is real.

The article says:

"What Bob is most keen to secure by contract is a "stranded asset" power
plant in the range of 5-10 MW willing to beta test their HHT system as a
retrofit solution to replace their coal-, or biomass-, or other polluting
source that has had to be shut down due to environmental regulations."

In my opinion that is an idiotic use of this technology. That is inventing
an automobile engine and using it exclusively to augment teams of horses
pulling stage coaches, instead of making automobiles without horses. Once
people realize this technology is real, stranded asset power plants will be
worth nothing. No one will want to spend any money preserving them or
upgrading them.

- Jed