Re: [Vo]:Defkalion's changing stance on whether this is cold fusion
Am 01.12.2011 21:44, schrieb Terry Blanton: On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Peter Heckert wrote: I think, they mean the "Wilson chamber" (aka nebula chamber). Obviously their translator has no clue about technics and physics. Ah! aka "cloud chamber"! Yes, we made those in high school physics using supersaturated alcohol. Yes, I did not know the proper english word. The german word is "Nebelkammer". The latin word for "chamber" is "camera". Probably the same in italian. We nowadays say "camera" for a photographic apparatus, but this is an abbreviation for "camera obscura". If a translator does not now the scientific and technical language, then he is easily confused ;-) Peter
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion's changing stance on whether this is cold fusion
Craig Haynie wrote: > > Whenever I've read of people studying this effect who've disavowed 'cold > fusion', it wasn't that they were disavowing a nuclear reaction . . . In this case they have disavowed any connection to other research: "The science behind the products of Defkalion is not related to cold fusion, even though it is identified as such in current media coverage." - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion's changing stance on whether this is cold fusion
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Peter Heckert wrote: > I think, they mean the "Wilson chamber" (aka nebula chamber). > Obviously their translator has no clue about technics and physics. Ah! aka "cloud chamber"! Yes, we made those in high school physics using supersaturated alcohol. Thanks, Peter. T
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion's changing stance on whether this is cold fusion
On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 14:15 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: > When I read that I thought: "Who are they trying to kid? Of course it > is cold fusion." I base that on what McKubre calls the conservation of > miracles. I assume they were trying to avoid the negative connotations > of cold fusion. Their statement is understandable . . . but lame. I > regard this as doubletalk. I agree with Jones Beene that it is > annoying. Whenever I've read of people studying this effect who've disavowed 'cold fusion', it wasn't that they were disavowing a nuclear reaction, but rather the idea that this type of fusion is the 'same' type of fusion found by combining deuterium molecules into helium. I don't think they mean that it isn't a nuclear reaction. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion's changing stance on whether this is cold fusion
Am 01.12.2011 20:53, schrieb Terry Blanton: On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: The data was obtained from conventional, non-specifically designed for LENR instrumentation, such as mass-spectrometer, gas-chromatographer, Wilson camera, SEM spectra and others." I'm not familiar with the "Wilson camera". Do you know its purpose? I think, they mean the "Wilson chamber" (aka nebula chamber). Obviously their translator has no clue about technics and physics. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion's changing stance on whether this is cold fusion
And the description is more similar to Piantelli's understanding of the ptocess as described in the Pontignano Poster and/or WO 2010/068288. *Chemically asssisted* LENR seems to show that the added chemical (both Rossi's and their) is enhancing in some way the Ni-H reactions. Peter On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > This is a minor issue compared to the rest of the brouhaha, but I note > that Defkalion appears to be changing their tune regarding whether this is > cold fusion or something else. In their white paper released in June, they > said: > > "The field of energy research known as 'cold fusion' has positive and > negative connotations. It is also called LENR. Hundreds of man-years of > research have been committed to cold fusion, hoping to achieve the ultimate > energy dream: limitless energy. However, overall, a stigma has created > ambiguous feelings that the researchers aim to reach the end of the > rainbow. The science behind the products of Defkalion is not related to > cold fusion, even though it is identified as such in current media > coverage." > > When I read that I thought: "Who are they trying to kid? Of course it is > cold fusion." I base that on what McKubre calls the conservation of > miracles. I assume they were trying to avoid the negative connotations of > cold fusion. Their statement is understandable . . . but lame. I regard > this as doubletalk. I agree with Jones Beene that it is annoying. > > Now they say: > > "Defkalion’s scientific R&D team have successfully managed to trigger and > monitor Chemically Assisted Low Energy Nuclear Reactions caused by Nickel > and Hydrogen nuclei. Following extensive experimentation on the > preparation, cleaning and degassing of Nickel clusters and atomic Hydrogen > systems, valuable knowledge has been gained. The data was obtained from > conventional, non-specifically designed for LENR instrumentation, such as > mass-spectrometer, gas-chromatographer, Wilson camera, SEM spectra and > others." > > That's more like it. > > - Jed > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion's changing stance on whether this is cold fusion
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: The data was obtained from conventional, > non-specifically designed for LENR instrumentation, such as > mass-spectrometer, gas-chromatographer, Wilson camera, SEM spectra and > others." I'm not familiar with the "Wilson camera". Do you know its purpose? T
[Vo]:Defkalion's changing stance on whether this is cold fusion
This is a minor issue compared to the rest of the brouhaha, but I note that Defkalion appears to be changing their tune regarding whether this is cold fusion or something else. In their white paper released in June, they said: "The field of energy research known as 'cold fusion' has positive and negative connotations. It is also called LENR. Hundreds of man-years of research have been committed to cold fusion, hoping to achieve the ultimate energy dream: limitless energy. However, overall, a stigma has created ambiguous feelings that the researchers aim to reach the end of the rainbow. The science behind the products of Defkalion is not related to cold fusion, even though it is identified as such in current media coverage." When I read that I thought: "Who are they trying to kid? Of course it is cold fusion." I base that on what McKubre calls the conservation of miracles. I assume they were trying to avoid the negative connotations of cold fusion. Their statement is understandable . . . but lame. I regard this as doubletalk. I agree with Jones Beene that it is annoying. Now they say: "Defkalion’s scientific R&D team have successfully managed to trigger and monitor Chemically Assisted Low Energy Nuclear Reactions caused by Nickel and Hydrogen nuclei. Following extensive experimentation on the preparation, cleaning and degassing of Nickel clusters and atomic Hydrogen systems, valuable knowledge has been gained. The data was obtained from conventional, non-specifically designed for LENR instrumentation, such as mass-spectrometer, gas-chromatographer, Wilson camera, SEM spectra and others." That's more like it. - Jed
