Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times
I have paid and unpaid material out there. My free web site has averaged about 8 hits per day for the last 15 years. total count over that period is 44 thousand. My paid amazon book averages about one book sale every six weeks except for some unexplained bursts of sales. Steve has several books out there. He told me that the material is hard to move. No one wants to pay. Steve already knows this. I wish Steve good luck. I kept my day job because I knew that no serious money was to found in publications. I did the experiments and got no anomalous energy. I am beginning to think that Parksey has wisdom beyond his time. Frank Z
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times
Lets help Steve with his first published article. Lets see what will be in it. Widom Larson is the greatest. Rossi is conducting a scam. NASA loves Widom Larson McKurbre loves Widom Larson. I cant wait to get the first issue. -Original Message- From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Sep 2, 2012 10:01 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times I have paid and unpaid material out there. My free web site has averaged about 8 hits per day for the last 15 years. total count over that period is 44 thousand. My paid amazon book averages about one book sale every six weeks except for some unexplained bursts of sales. Steve has several books out there. He told me that the material is hard to move. No one wants to pay. Steve already knows this. I wish Steve good luck. I kept my day job because I knew that no serious money was to found in publications. I did the experiments and got no anomalous energy. I am beginning to think that Parksey has wisdom beyond his time. Frank Z
RE: [Vo]:New Energy Times
LOL. The only one you missed is: Helium data doesn't match excess heat From: fznidar...@aol.com Lets help Steve with his first published article. Lets see what will be in it. Widom Larson is the greatest. Rossi is conducting a scam. NASA loves Widom Larson McKurbre loves Widom Larson. I cant wait to get the first issue.
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times
Who reads cold fusion material? From the responses to my web page I found the following. Nuclear Scientists NO! Robert Park NO! Women NO! Academics NO! Young white males between the ages or 14 and 20.YES!
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times
And its the nerds of that age group. Rest of that group are reading playboy and related material... On Sunday, September 2, 2012, wrote: Who reads cold fusion material? From the responses to my web page I found the following. Nuclear Scientists NO! Robert Park NO! Women NO! Academics NO! Young white males between the ages or 14 and 20.YES!
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times
From Jones: ... Krivit, like it or not - has the most credibility in the field, since Sterling is deemed as way too gullible, and the others have been mostly me too with a few exceptions ... even if SK's standards are not sufficient for us, here on vortex. It seems to me that Mr. Krivit has attempted to present himself as an investigative reporter cutting through all the bull sh*t in order to get to the nittygritty of controversial subjects. The problem with this portrayal is when Mr. Krivit at one point deliberately portrayed an obviously controversial individual like Rossi in terms of someone who can't think clearly by focusing on Rossi's hesitant command of the English language (such as by quoting his broken phrases verbatum) and In my view Krivit's portrayal of himself leaves something to be desired. IMHO, Krivit showed me someone who has not yet acquired the capacity to cut through some of his own bull sh*t, let alone the bull sh*t of others. Keep in mind that we all have personal bull sh*t to contend with. It's not as if Mr. Krivit has tons of it and the rest of us don't, including myself. That is clearly not the case. With that said, I'd read NET for free. I just hope that individuals who cannot afford the service can get fairly rapid access to the same information - which of course they can, if they can wait a day or two. It's all about perceived value, including time. Me too. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: It seems to me that Mr. Krivit has attempted to present himself as an investigative reporter cutting through all the bull sh*t in order to get to the nittygritty of controversial subjects. I question the need for investigative reporting in academic science. If a claim is true, it will remain true. If it is false, it makes little difference to me whether it is a mistake or a lie. The personalities and peccadilloes of the researchers are irrelevant. Most of them are dull people. About on par with programmers. Does anyone see a need for investigative reports of leading Linux programmers? Linus Torvalds is the only colorful one in the bunch, and he's not exactly Hollywood. I see the need for hard-hitting investigations of business deals or politics because real money and real power is at stake. But who cares what physicists or programmers do? I also see no need for breaking news. News seldom breaks in cold fusion. Physics moves at the same pace as farming. The shortest meaningful segment of time is a growing season. When cold fusion becomes big business, with thousands of researchers and investors, and real money on the scale of semiconductor research ($130 million per day) *then* there will be breaking news. Then we will need trade magazines, business section special reports, investigations, scandal sheets and rumor mills. There will be ample opportunity for politics, thieves and scoundrels. As things stand today, investigating cold fusion -- or for that matter stealing information about it -- is a lot like smuggling ordinary paperback books out of the public library. You don't have to do that. You just take the books to the front desk and hand them your library card. They let you take home as many as you like. - Jed
[Vo]:New Energy Times
There is an interesting update on Krivit's site - about the site itself, not about LENR. Jeff
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times
Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: There is an interesting update on Krivit's site - about the site itself, not about LENR. Don't be shy! Tell us what it says. Here: http://newenergytimes.com/ QUOTE: Major Site Re-Design and New Subscription Service Launch Sept. 1, 2012 Dear Readers, I am pleased to announce that, on Sept. 15, we will launch a major re-design of the New Energy Times Web site and News Service. We will also start our new subscription service then. Where We've Been I started New Energy Times 12 years ago after I learned, to my great surprise, that researchers were still pursuing the mysteries of low-energy nuclear reactions. . . . Because New Energy Times is a primary journalistic resource on LENRs, our expertise has been sought by and provided to the American Nuclear Society, American Chemical Society, Royal Society of Chemistry, Wiley and Sons (publisher of the Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia), . . . Where We're Going Over the years, we have attracted the generous support of philanthropists who recognized our work and helped us in our early development. We are switching to a subscriber-based service and will continue to provide cutting-edge, in-depth reporting to our readers. We will continue our mission to investigate, analyze, educate, and report on the progress of new, sustainable, and environmentally friendly energy sources and research, primarily LENRs. After Sept. 15, most of our feature articles and exclusive news content will be available to subscribers only. You will be able to read the first paragraph or two of all articles, but then the articles for subscribers will display a lock icon and a login prompt. Once you log in, the full article will become visible. . . . END QUOTE Summary: He is going to subscription mode. I think it may be a little early for that. I doubt that people will pay for information on cold fusion. At this point we still have to beg people to read it. I have not seen an upsurge in traffic at LENR-CANR.org that indicates people are now more interested than they were a year ago. I could be wrong, but my guess is that you will not find more than ~100 people willing to pay for information. The thing is, most people interested in the field get all the information they want, from LENR-CANR.org, iscmns.org and the various newsletters about Rossi, which seem to be multiplying like rabbits. As they say, on the Internet, information wants to be free. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times
On 2012-09-01 23:58, Jed Rothwell wrote: Summary: He is going to subscription mode. I think it may be a little early for that. I doubt that people will pay for information on cold fusion. At this point we still have to beg people to read it. I have not seen an upsurge in traffic at LENR-CANR.org that indicates people are now more interested than they were a year ago. There has been a significant rise in general (non-technical) interest about LENR however, at least according to Google: http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=lenrcmpt=q http://www.google.com/trends/?q=lenr Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times
note that e-catworld.com too, created a spinoff commercial site, a social network around business LENR note that is is flourishing on linked-in, viadeo... getting serious, despite our stockholm syndrom doubts 2012/9/1 Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com There is an interesting update on Krivit's site - about the site itself, not about LENR. Jeff
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times
Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: There has been a significant rise in general (non-technical) interest about LENR however, at least according to Google: http://www.google.com/**insights/search/#q=lenrcmpt=qhttp://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=lenrcmpt=q http://www.google.com/trends/?**q=lenrhttp://www.google.com/trends/?q=lenr Well, Google would know! They know all. That's good news. Still, I kinda doubt many people will pay for Krivit's wisdom. More power to him if they will. Speaking of knowing all, someone told me that several retail companies such as Target now know so much about their customers they can sometimes tell that women are pregnant even before the women themselves know. Their computers know this by tracking purchasing patterns. I have not found an article describing this exactly, but here is something: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/ - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times
In my view, the point is whether Mr. Krivit can convince potential customers that only his website contains important timely information that could not be obtained from non-subscription websites. If that were not the case why would anyone want to pay a subscription fee for information already available for free. The question that needs to be answered is whether Mr. Krivit has the ability to deliver on such a promise. In my view the problem that Mr. Krivit may have to contend with is that, due to past interactions, certain researchers may not feel particularly interested (or enamored) with the notion of opening up and giving him an exclusive scoop. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:New Energy Times
Actually, regardless of how it works out for Steve, this is a good sign, showing maturation of the field. In fact it is a very good sign. I can foresee several hundred corporations, labs, universities, overseas parties, other journalists, governments, military and so forth signing up. They will pay this service gladly, so long as he can provide it without the deep crap of the others. It is not a cake-walk into town to misquote Taj but if he adds the staff, he can pull it off. IOW - this would be a convenience worth paying for, if Steve can cut through the clutter and BS of the normal PR release, 99% of Rossi's BS, etc. and provide only relevant info to serious parties with good journalism and real interviews. In fact, one thousand subscribers is my estimate. Krivit, like it or not - has the most credibility in the field, since Sterling is deemed as way too gullible, and the others have been mostly me too with a few exceptions ... even if SK's standards are not sufficient for us, here on vortex. I just hope that individuals who cannot afford the service can get fairly rapid access to the same information - which of course they can, if they can wait a day or two. It's all about perceived value, including time. Jones -Original Message- From: Akira Shirakawa Jed Rothwell wrote: Summary: He is going to subscription mode. I think it may be a little early for that. I doubt that people will pay for information on cold fusion. At this point we still have to beg people to read it. I have not seen an upsurge in traffic at LENR-CANR.org that indicates people are now more interested than they were a year ago. There has been a significant rise in general (non-technical) interest about LENR however, at least according to Google: http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=lenrcmpt=q http://www.google.com/trends/?q=lenr Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times
Sorry, didn't know if copying it was the right thing to do, didn't want to paraphrase and get it wrong. He also says: *Reference and Archival Information Will Remain Free *All of our reference information and archives (5,000 documents, images, recordings and news stories) will remain free and accessible to the public. All news stories published before Sept. 15 will also remain free. Jeff On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: There is an interesting update on Krivit's site - about the site itself, not about LENR. Don't be shy! Tell us what it says. Here: http://newenergytimes.com/ QUOTE: Major Site Re-Design and New Subscription Service Launch Sept. 1, 2012 Dear Readers, I am pleased to announce that, on Sept. 15, we will launch a major re-design of the New Energy Times Web site and News Service. We will also start our new subscription service then. Where We've Been I started New Energy Times 12 years ago after I learned, to my great surprise, that researchers were still pursuing the mysteries of low-energy nuclear reactions. . . . Because New Energy Times is a primary journalistic resource on LENRs, our expertise has been sought by and provided to the American Nuclear Society, American Chemical Society, Royal Society of Chemistry, Wiley and Sons (publisher of the Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia), . . . Where We're Going Over the years, we have attracted the generous support of philanthropists who recognized our work and helped us in our early development. We are switching to a subscriber-based service and will continue to provide cutting-edge, in-depth reporting to our readers. We will continue our mission to investigate, analyze, educate, and report on the progress of new, sustainable, and environmentally friendly energy sources and research, primarily LENRs. After Sept. 15, most of our feature articles and exclusive news content will be available to subscribers only. You will be able to read the first paragraph or two of all articles, but then the articles for subscribers will display a lock icon and a login prompt. Once you log in, the full article will become visible. . . . END QUOTE Summary: He is going to subscription mode. I think it may be a little early for that. I doubt that people will pay for information on cold fusion. At this point we still have to beg people to read it. I have not seen an upsurge in traffic at LENR-CANR.org that indicates people are now more interested than they were a year ago. I could be wrong, but my guess is that you will not find more than ~100 people willing to pay for information. The thing is, most people interested in the field get all the information they want, from LENR-CANR.org, iscmns.org and the various newsletters about Rossi, which seem to be multiplying like rabbits. As they say, on the Internet, information wants to be free. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: I can foresee several hundred corporations, labs, universities, overseas parties, other journalists, governments, military and so forth signing up. Honestly, I can't. He does not seem all that credible to me. I do not have it in for him, as some people do. He does good work. I linked up to him extensively in a recent paper I wrote about CalTech. More to the point, if the field really does begin to take off -- as you suspect -- people will find this kind of information in Wired, New Scientist or the New York Times. They won't need Krivit. They won't need me, either. That would be fine. It is not a cake-walk into town to misquote Taj Misquote? Sound right to me. Hmmm? IOW - this would be a convenience worth paying for, if Steve can cut through the clutter and BS of the normal PR release, 99% of Rossi's BS, etc. . . . He has not shown a noteworthy ability to do that, in my opinion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times
It's good to think that if I decide to blow my brains out there will be an ad for a cheap gun and ammo. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2012 3:15 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: There has been a significant rise in general (non-technical) interest about LENR however, at least according to Google: http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=lenrcmpt=q http://www.google.com/trends/?q=lenr Well, Google would know! They know all. That's good news. Still, I kinda doubt many people will pay for Krivit's wisdom. More power to him if they will. Speaking of knowing all, someone told me that several retail companies such as Target now know so much about their customers they can sometimes tell that women are pregnant even before the women themselves know. Their computers know this by tracking purchasing patterns. I have not found an article describing this exactly, but here is something: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/ - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times
I think New Energy Times is a publication of high quality, the investigations made by Steve were simply excellent. However if he has no access, prioritary access to primary sources in LENR I doubt he will be able to compete with the free publications that are plenty. Steve's decision to ignore completely and for ever (?) Rossi's stuff is interesting but very risky. Anyway, I wish him and New Energy Times all well. Peter On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Kelley Trezise ktrez2...@ssvecnet.comwrote: ** It's good to think that if I decide to blow my brains out there will be an ad for a cheap gun and ammo. - Original Message - *From:* Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, September 01, 2012 3:15 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: There has been a significant rise in general (non-technical) interest about LENR however, at least according to Google: http://www.google.com/**insights/search/#q=lenrcmpt=qhttp://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=lenrcmpt=q http://www.google.com/trends/?**q=lenrhttp://www.google.com/trends/?q=lenr Well, Google would know! They know all. That's good news. Still, I kinda doubt many people will pay for Krivit's wisdom. More power to him if they will. Speaking of knowing all, someone told me that several retail companies such as Target now know so much about their customers they can sometimes tell that women are pregnant even before the women themselves know. Their computers know this by tracking purchasing patterns. I have not found an article describing this exactly, but here is something: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/ - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:New Energy Times claim
I read through all of this - and still do not understand how Rossi will get rich without a working device. Can anyone explain it ?
[Vo]:New Energy Times claim
I certainly cannot explain it.Just finished reading it. Still waiting on the bit where Krivit says he will reveal "Followers of the Rossi story ask, "What is Rossi's endgame? If the Energy Catalyzer doesn't work, how could he stand to profit?" This analysis will answer these questions."Annoyed that I won't get those 15 minutes of my life back.One thing that bugs me is why does Krivit describe himself as "Senior Editor"? In all the time I've read anything on New Energy Times there doesn't appear to be any other staff other than Krivit to be senior to, unless the cleaner has a column hidden somewhere. Original Message ---- Subject: [Vo]:New Energy Times claim From: "Jones Beene" jone...@pacbell.net Date: Thu, March 08, 2012 7:49 am To: vortex-l@eskimo.com I read through all of this - and still do not understand how Rossi will get rich without a working device. Can anyone explain it ?
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times claim
he needs a gullible investor, or a fraudulent investor wanting to find a bigger gullible investor, he's probably learned the game with his previous fraudulent work On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: I read through all of this - and still do not understand how Rossi will get rich without a working device. Can anyone explain it ?
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times claim
Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote: he needs a gullible investor, or a fraudulent investor wanting to find a bigger gullible investor, he's probably learned the game with his previous fraudulent work He has not learned it very well, has he? If he is a con-man, he is the most inept con-man in Italy and Florida, which is saying a lot. Consider one thing that Krivit wrote: These people have also been impressed with the fact that Rossi has entered into discussions with prestigious companies such as National Instruments and institutions such as NASA. Although Rossi has managed to get his foot in the door, none of those discussions has led to research agreements. Rossi has, however, used those discussions to boost his credibility. Krivit described the NASA visit in some of his earlier columns. I have discussed the visit with several other people, and I confirm many aspects of Krivit's description. This visit was a flaming fiasco. If this is how Rossi boosts his credibility how could he diminish his credibility? Perhaps by meeting the NASA people at the door naked, with a shotgun? As far as I know Rossi has done absolutely nothing to boost his credibility. On the contrary, everything he has done has blasted his credibility to ribbons. I get the impression he does care about credibility, or about what other people think. No con-man can survive with this attitude. Regarding the NASA visit, the one aspect of it that I think Krivit reported incorrect is the impression of the NASA people have of Rossi. They did not leave the place thinking Rossi is a fake or that the steam from his device is insufficient. They left thinking that Rossi is a strange person who did not show them what he said he would. They cannot judge his claims. Naturally, they were upset, but they were not convinced he is a fraud. I do not think there is any evidence he is a fraud. There are appearances or an impression he makes, but that is not evidence. Like Jones Beene, I cannot imagine any method by which he could defraud people with this, and I have not heard that anyone has been defrauded. As far as I know, no one has even paid for a machine, but I could be wrong about that. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:New Energy Times claim
Using the phrase "gullible investors" is the equivalent of the "swamp gas" excuse in UFO literature.Investors take risks, and they have the money to do so - that is the whole nature of being an investor. The anti free energy brigade try to paint investors as dear old ladies about to lose their life savings to dodgy doorstep salesmen. Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times claim From: Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com Date: Thu, March 08, 2012 8:16 am To: vortex-l@eskimo.com he needs a gullible investor, or a fraudulent investor wanting to find a bigger gullible investor, he's probably learned the game with his previous fraudulent work On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: I read through all of this - and still do not understand how Rossi will get rich without a working device. Can anyone explain it ?
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times claim
I meant to say Rossi DOES NOT care about credibility. Here is an astounding statement from Krivit: How did highly educated professionals in the scientific community not recognize the multiple contradictions in the Rossi story? How did they not see the scientific failure of Rossi's claim? Is there any person familiar with Rossi who does not recognize the multiple contradictions in the Rossi story?!? Who the hell is Kivit talking about? I and other have compiled lists of contradictory technical statements made by Rossi. There is such a flood of these, I can't keep up with them. I would not try to keep up with his contradictory assertions about his personal business. Krivit seems to think that he alone sees this, and the rest of us are blind to it. This is like looking at Niagara falls and thinking you are the only person who notices all that water and everyone else is oblivious to it. Fortunately, these multiple contradictions have no bearing on the scientific success or failure of the claim. That can only be established with reference to instrument readings, palpable heat, physical laws and other objective evidence. Despite the poor quality of Rossi's tests, they have proved beyond doubt that the claims are true. Rossi's personality and his contradictory claims about his business cannot affect this conclusion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times claim
In anyone's opinion (especially Jed), and in order of convincingness for an investor that wants to invest, which should be the most convincing Rossi tests (include the date to reduce confusion)? Also, are there any competent scientists who have *carefully* looked at any Defkalion tests and put the weight of their reputation behind it? Christos Stremmenos? What I mean by carefully is did they check every wire and work closely with the calibration? I suppose no one really knows but what is the best answer to this? On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I meant to say Rossi DOES NOT care about credibility. Here is an astounding statement from Krivit: How did highly educated professionals in the scientific community not recognize the multiple contradictions in the Rossi story? How did they not see the scientific failure of Rossi's claim? Is there any person familiar with Rossi who does not recognize the multiple contradictions in the Rossi story?!? Who the hell is Kivit talking about? I and other have compiled lists of contradictory technical statements made by Rossi. There is such a flood of these, I can't keep up with them. I would not try to keep up with his contradictory assertions about his personal business. Krivit seems to think that he alone sees this, and the rest of us are blind to it. This is like looking at Niagara falls and thinking you are the only person who notices all that water and everyone else is oblivious to it. Fortunately, these multiple contradictions have no bearing on the scientific success or failure of the claim. That can only be established with reference to instrument readings, palpable heat, physical laws and other objective evidence. Despite the poor quality of Rossi's tests, they have proved beyond doubt that the claims are true. Rossi's personality and his contradictory claims about his business cannot affect this conclusion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times claim
At 04:49 PM 3/7/2012, Jones Beene wrote: I read through all of this - and still do not understand how Rossi will get rich without a working device. Can anyone explain it ? Krivit isn't totally explicit. But you get money for research and development. Which somehow is all spent. Rossi did it before, that's a big part of Krivit's report. Good job for Steve, by the way. If the money goes to a corporation, Rossi can get salary and other benefits from the corporation, and only if fraud is proven can he get nailed. The public claims he makes mean nothing, legally, because an investor is supposed to do due diligence. The actual representations *in writing* are what count. Verbal representations might count in a fraud action, if not contradicted by the writing, and if they can be proven. Often, though the actual contract will say that the parties are not bound by verbal representations, and the skilled, legal con artist will look at the customer and say, Of course, my lawyer requires me to have this in here, and quite a few, even some smart people, will fall for it. But look at his eyes, how could a man with such a face be lying through his teeth? Easily. Some people are really good at it. Look at the video Lewan took in that alledged excess heat demonstration, where Lewan turns quickly back to Rossi, who certainly looks as if he's been manipulating the heat. So Lewan then looks back at the bucket, to check if things are the same, not realizing that Rossie would probably have been doing the opposite of what Lewan may have immediately suspected. *Restoring* the former settings, not changing them from them. The first change wasn't observed. Rossi's face, at that point, looked to me like he'd been caught in the act, but he knew how to keep up the appearance of innocence. If he was doing something legitimate in the middle of the test, simple: he'd have disclosed it. He'd have said to Lewan, I need to turn down the heat, because ... , or the reverse. Rossi, however, looks like a con artist, it is blatant. Rossi might also end up slammed. So? People go to jail all the time because they thought they could get away with stuff. That he might be risking a fraud charge is, in no way, a proof that there is no fraud! This is what is very, very clear: if Rossi is not a con artist, he has gone far out of his way to appear to be one. We have speculated that he might have a commercial motive for this, and it's a possibility. However, we should, most of his, treat him as if the appearance he has created is real. There is another important possibility, that Rossi did find some substantial excess heat, but hasn't been able to make it reliable, see below. Since he needs to make demonstrations, he nudges them when he needs to,under this theory. Absent conclusive proof, we cannot know for sure. I wish that certain prominent cold fusion researchers, real scientists, had followed my advice about caution, early last year. It looks really, really bad, having spent some recent time with a pile of pseudoskeptics. They take this stuff and run with it. Not that we should care that much, but it helps to maintain the general skepticism, whenever a prominent cold fusion researcher demonstrates what certainly looks like gullibility. The rest of the field gets discredited by association. That Rossi is following a known possibility, NiH, doesn't change this at all. Just because that possibility exists does not mean that Rossi has found the secret of exploiting it. Further, he might even be getting some serious heat, sometimes. That doesn't mean that he's found a way to make the reaction reliable, and that's the real Holy Grail of Cold Fusion, reliability. We know the effect exists, there is serious proof for that -- or at least for some kind of deuterium fusion in PdD, through the helium correlation -- but what has been totally elusive, from the beginning, is reliability as to the magnitude of the effect, and sustaining it long-term. Those are requirements for any commercial product, with little exception. (one could make a chaotic, relatively unpredictable reaction, work in a product by vastly scaling it down and then running vastly redundant cells, so that an overall average reaction rate is very reliable, and a massively increased reaction rate is effectively impossible. In fact, this is what is effectively done in many products, but it's concealed, it doesn't look like that. It looks reliable. Nuclear process in general are unpredictable at the individual reaction level! They are only predictable, overall, statistically.) Bottom line, there is no evidence that anyone has done this, as to what has been published. I'm seeing some stuff, but privately. So maybe. But that I say this here means nothing as to what people should accept and trust. It's a rumor, hearsay, unverifiable at present, right?
RE: [Vo]:New Energy Times claim
This is not a good job by Steve. It borders on bogosity. Yes - Rossi may manage to draw a decent salary for a few years for RD by creating a scam - but that is NOT even close to getting rich. -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax I read through all of this - and still do not understand how Rossi will get rich without a working device. Can anyone explain it ? Krivit isn't totally explicit. But you get money for research and development. Which somehow is all spent. Rossi did it before, that's a big part of Krivit's report. Good job for Steve, by the way. If the money goes to a corporation, Rossi can get salary and other benefits from the corporation, and only if fraud is proven can he get nailed. The public claims he makes mean nothing, legally, because an investor is supposed to do due diligence. The actual representations *in writing* are what count. Verbal representations might count in a fraud action, if not contradicted by the writing, and if they can be proven. Often, though the actual contract will say that the parties are not bound by verbal representations, and the skilled, legal con artist will look at the customer and say, Of course, my lawyer requires me to have this in here, and quite a few, even some smart people, will fall for it. But look at his eyes, how could a man with such a face be lying through his teeth? Easily. Some people are really good at it. Look at the video Lewan took in that alledged excess heat demonstration, where Lewan turns quickly back to Rossi, who certainly looks as if he's been manipulating the heat. So Lewan then looks back at the bucket, to check if things are the same, not realizing that Rossie would probably have been doing the opposite of what Lewan may have immediately suspected. *Restoring* the former settings, not changing them from them. The first change wasn't observed. Rossi's face, at that point, looked to me like he'd been caught in the act, but he knew how to keep up the appearance of innocence. If he was doing something legitimate in the middle of the test, simple: he'd have disclosed it. He'd have said to Lewan, I need to turn down the heat, because ... , or the reverse. Rossi, however, looks like a con artist, it is blatant. Rossi might also end up slammed. So? People go to jail all the time because they thought they could get away with stuff. That he might be risking a fraud charge is, in no way, a proof that there is no fraud! This is what is very, very clear: if Rossi is not a con artist, he has gone far out of his way to appear to be one. We have speculated that he might have a commercial motive for this, and it's a possibility. However, we should, most of his, treat him as if the appearance he has created is real. There is another important possibility, that Rossi did find some substantial excess heat, but hasn't been able to make it reliable, see below. Since he needs to make demonstrations, he nudges them when he needs to,under this theory. Absent conclusive proof, we cannot know for sure. I wish that certain prominent cold fusion researchers, real scientists, had followed my advice about caution, early last year. It looks really, really bad, having spent some recent time with a pile of pseudoskeptics. They take this stuff and run with it. Not that we should care that much, but it helps to maintain the general skepticism, whenever a prominent cold fusion researcher demonstrates what certainly looks like gullibility. The rest of the field gets discredited by association. That Rossi is following a known possibility, NiH, doesn't change this at all. Just because that possibility exists does not mean that Rossi has found the secret of exploiting it. Further, he might even be getting some serious heat, sometimes. That doesn't mean that he's found a way to make the reaction reliable, and that's the real Holy Grail of Cold Fusion, reliability. We know the effect exists, there is serious proof for that -- or at least for some kind of deuterium fusion in PdD, through the helium correlation -- but what has been totally elusive, from the beginning, is reliability as to the magnitude of the effect, and sustaining it long-term. Those are requirements for any commercial product, with little exception. (one could make a chaotic, relatively unpredictable reaction, work in a product by vastly scaling it down and then running vastly redundant cells, so that an overall average reaction rate is very reliable, and a massively increased reaction rate is effectively impossible. In fact, this is what is effectively done in many products, but it's concealed, it doesn't look like that. It looks reliable. Nuclear process in general are unpredictable at the individual reaction level! They are only predictable, overall, statistically.) Bottom line, there is no evidence that anyone has done this, as to what has been published. I'm seeing some stuff, but privately. So maybe. But
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times claim
I think that the total scam is not an option, however it is clear that Rossi is overconfident, overanticipating. It is possible and even probable that he lied more or less, even possible he make fake demo jus to get time to find the working recipe... I'm afraid he is lying much, but just to get time to find what he expect to be the easy to find result. maybe I'm wrong, but both the total scam, or the working device des not match the fact. IMHO something have worked so well that convince him to bend the facts to get time. How far bend ? note that this behavior is typical of scientist when they have the usual funding problem, and they are convinced something huge is near their finger... In books by BroadWade (La Souris Truquee in French, maybe Betrayer of the Truth... dunno) they talk about such a researcher that finally paint a mouse to look genetically patched... stupid fraud that burned his career... I've made a long post on the question of collective delusion, scientific frauds, here http://184.171.250.170/~lenrforu/lenrforum/viewtopic.php?f=3t=40 but it also contains references that can match the individual delusion and fraud. just a point, forget about black white TRUTH, truthers and liers... as Dr House says, everybody lies... and as attorneys, (cited by a famous french blogging attorney, Maitre Eolas) your first reflex will be to lie, your second will be to lie, then maybe you will do what we advise you to do. (sorry to cite TV series, but they gather some basic human knowledge. about scam artist, White Collar gather many classic data about scam artist... about real case, note that scam artist are mostly short term brilliant, and long term stupid) about Roland Benabou theory of self delusion, note that initial belief is normally based on truth and rational analysed of expected benefit. the delusion came only when things look like they are different and you will lose much. Delusion protect your perceived asset from crash, for some time. 2012/3/8 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net This is not a good job by Steve. It borders on bogosity. Yes - Rossi may manage to draw a decent salary for a few years for RD by creating a scam - but that is NOT even close to getting rich.
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times claim
I am kind of tired of hearing about Rossi. I would really like to hear more about Defkalion. They waged a pretty good PR compaign with their announcements and forum while it was operating. They published professional looking specs. They showed some actual lab equipment and test benches not just some carpenter tools like Rossi. To me they lend more credibility to Rossi than Rossi does himself (ie. there must have been some kW heat output albeit unstable from Rossi before the contract was terminated) and they have advanced it. Krivit has been very quiet about Defkalion. Everyone else seems to only claim 10s to 100s of Watts of output vs 10s to 100s of kWatts out for Defkalion (and Rossi). DGT is my last best hope that this thing(LENR) is almost ready for prime time... On Wednesday, March 7, 2012, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: I think that the total scam is not an option, however it is clear that Rossi is overconfident, overanticipating. It is possible and even probable that he lied more or less, even possible he make fake demo jus to get time to find the working recipe... I'm afraid he is lying much, but just to get time to find what he expect to be the easy to find result. maybe I'm wrong, but both the total scam, or the working device des not match the fact. IMHO something have worked so well that convince him to bend the facts to get time. How far bend ? note that this behavior is typical of scientist when they have the usual funding problem, and they are convinced something huge is near their finger... In books by BroadWade (La Souris Truquee in French, maybe Betrayer of the Truth... dunno) they talk about such a researcher that finally paint a mouse to look genetically patched... stupid fraud that burned his career... I've made a long post on the question of collective delusion, scientific frauds, here http://184.171.250.170/~lenrforu/lenrforum/viewtopic.php?f=3t=40 but it also contains references that can match the individual delusion and fraud. just a point, forget about black white TRUTH, truthers and liers... as Dr House says, everybody lies... and as attorneys, (cited by a famous french blogging attorney, Maitre Eolas) your first reflex will be to lie, your second will be to lie, then maybe you will do what we advise you to do. (sorry to cite TV series, but they gather some basic human knowledge. about scam artist, White Collar gather many classic data about scam artist... about real case, note that scam artist are mostly short term brilliant, and long term stupid) about Roland Benabou theory of self delusion, note that initial belief is normally based on truth and rational analysed of expected benefit. the delusion came only when things look like they are different and you will lose much. Delusion protect your perceived asset from crash, for some time. 2012/3/8 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net This is not a good job by Steve. It borders on bogosity. Yes - Rossi may manage to draw a decent salary for a few years for RD by creating a scam - but that is NOT even close to getting rich.
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times claim
maybe a question of language (Rossi is more anglo-saxon introduced) or prevalence (first on the market). clearly for an engineer Defkalion have a more clear behavior, even when silent. note that my conviction of DGT is that the independent testers are so afraid to talk alone that they ask for total radio silence until they all gather their result and talk together each backing the other results... (for detail on my reasoning see that post http://184.171.250.170/~lenrforu/lenrforum/viewtopic.php?f=3t=61#p107 ) anyway rossi have something, simply : - he makes awful translation mistakes, fast writing... - he lies to hoide problems, and maybe even fraud a little to win time - he is a bad engineer, ignoring modern methodology, and most important using other competence. but he seems to have learned recently to use help (maybe by force). 2012/3/8 Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com I am kind of tired of hearing about Rossi. I would really like to hear more about Defkalion. They waged a pretty good PR compaign with their announcements and forum while it was operating. They published professional looking specs. They showed some actual lab equipment and test benches not just some carpenter tools like Rossi. To me they lend more credibility to Rossi than Rossi does himself (ie. there must have been some kW heat output albeit unstable from Rossi before the contract was terminated) and they have advanced it. Krivit has been very quiet about Defkalion. Everyone else seems to only claim 10s to 100s of Watts of output vs 10s to 100s of kWatts out for Defkalion (and Rossi). DGT is my last best hope that this thing(LENR) is almost ready for prime time... On Wednesday, March 7, 2012, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: I think that the total scam is not an option, however it is clear that Rossi is overconfident, overanticipating. It is possible and even probable that he lied more or less, even possible he make fake demo jus to get time to find the working recipe... I'm afraid he is lying much, but just to get time to find what he expect to be the easy to find result. maybe I'm wrong, but both the total scam, or the working device des not match the fact. IMHO something have worked so well that convince him to bend the facts to get time. How far bend ? note that this behavior is typical of scientist when they have the usual funding problem, and they are convinced something huge is near their finger... In books by BroadWade (La Souris Truquee in French, maybe Betrayer of the Truth... dunno) they talk about such a researcher that finally paint a mouse to look genetically patched... stupid fraud that burned his career... I've made a long post on the question of collective delusion, scientific frauds, here http://184.171.250.170/~lenrforu/lenrforum/viewtopic.php?f=3t=40 but it also contains references that can match the individual delusion and fraud. just a point, forget about black white TRUTH, truthers and liers... as Dr House says, everybody lies... and as attorneys, (cited by a famous french blogging attorney, Maitre Eolas) your first reflex will be to lie, your second will be to lie, then maybe you will do what we advise you to do. (sorry to cite TV series, but they gather some basic human knowledge. about scam artist, White Collar gather many classic data about scam artist... about real case, note that scam artist are mostly short term brilliant, and long term stupid) about Roland Benabou theory of self delusion, note that initial belief is normally based on truth and rational analysed of expected benefit. the delusion came only when things look like they are different and you will lose much. Delusion protect your perceived asset from crash, for some time. 2012/3/8 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net This is not a good job by Steve. It borders on bogosity. Yes - Rossi may manage to draw a decent salary for a few years for RD by creating a scam - but that is NOT even close to getting rich.
[Vo]:New Energy Times News Service - LENR and Cold Fusion Theory Index
Wonder if Krivit sent the email to Rossi, Focardi, Celani, Levi and Piantelli? AG Jan. 15, 2012 * *LENR and Cold Fusion Theory Index * *I continue to receive mixed responses about the media attention I give to the Widom-Larsen theory of LENRs. Regardless, my confidence in that theory has not changed. However, I have decided that it is both useful as well as fair to provide an opportunity to help present other LENR theories on the /New Energy Times/ Web site. Therefore, I have built portal pages for the following theories: Bazhutov-Vereshkov Theory Chubb (Scott) Theory Chubb (Talbot) Theory De Ninno Theory Fisher Theory Gareev Theory Hagelstein Theory Hora-Miley Theory Kim-Zubarev Theory Kirkinskii-Novikov Theory Kozima Theory Li Theory Sinha-Meulenberg Theory Szpak Theory Takahashi Theory You will find a link to each of these pages through the index page which is listed on the left-hand menu of the /New Energy Times /Web site under *LENR Theory Index*. If I am missing a theory in this index, please let me know. Note that I have omitted Randall Mills' theory because he does not associate his work with LENR. I have notified (where possible) the authors of these theories. I have sent them e-mails and requested them to contribute with additional information so I may better inform the public about their theories. But anyone can help out. Through the /New Energy Times /News Service, I am sending this message to nearly every LENR researcher in the world, to all the members of the CMNS e-mail list, as well as thousands of LENR fans worldwide. Please have a look at each of the sections for each of theories. If you can help provide factual and useful information about any of these theories, please send it to me. Please note, the purpose of these pages are to help promote the work of each theorist. The pages are not to be used to criticize the work of competing theorists. Thank you for your help. Steven B. Krivit Senior Editor, /New Energy Times / Editor-In-Chief, Wiley Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia 369-B Third Street | Suite 556 | San Rafael, California | USA 94901 T 310.470.8189 | M 310.721.5919 | F 213.226.4274 www.newenergytimes.com http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=7610273msgid=577106act=URR0c=229442destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newenergytimes.com%2F --- /Original reporting on leading-edge energy research and technologies /
RE: [Vo]:New Energy Times News Service - LENR and Cold Fusion Theory Index
From Aussie: Wonder if Krivit sent the email to Rossi, Focardi, Celani, Levi and Piantelli? AG Good question. What IS the name of the theory Rossi's camp endorses these days? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times News Service - LENR and Cold Fusion Theory Index
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 12:03 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: What IS the name of the theory Rossi's camp endorses these days? Proton capture. See Summary of Invention, particularly para 26: http://ecatnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/USeCatPatentApplication.pdf But, as others have pointed out, electron/positron annihilation (para 35) results in a 511 keV photon and Rossi would be dead. T
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times News Service - LENR and Cold Fusion Theory Index
The links are here: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/Theories/TheoryIndex.shtml Krivit wrote: I continue to receive mixed responses about the media attention I give to the Widom-Larsen theory of LENRs. Regardless, my confidence in that theory has not changed. In my opinion, Krivit is not qualified to have a strong opinion about cold fusion theory. I am not qualified either, so it is difficult for me to judge, but he does not appear to know enough about physics to evaluate theory. I know several experimentalists such as Mizuno and Ohmori who told me they are not qualified to judge this. Mizuno told me he has no idea which theory, if any, might explain cold fusion. Mizuno knows far more about chemistry and physics than I do, or than Krivit does. If he cannot make head or tail of these theories, I would be very surprised if Krivit can. The arguments in favor of the W-L theory that Krivit makes merely parrot what Larsen says. What I am saying is that if you were to force Krivit to take an undergraduate written test with questions about modern nuclear theory, I expect he would fail it. He is in way over his head. I say that based on what I have heard him say on his own. Anyone can parrot what Larsen says, or Takahashi says. I have edited enough theory papers that I could probably write a convincing-sounding summary of some theories, and it might give you the mistaken impression I know what I am talking about. I know I would fail such a test. My knowledge of nuclear physics ended with undergraduate physics and books such as Teller and Latter, Our Nuclear Future (1958) which I recommend, and Asimov, The Atom (1991). See: http://www.amazon.com/Atom-Journey-Across-Subatomic-Cosmos/dp/0452268346 Click on Look inside and table of contents and you will see how much I know about nuclear physics. I have read comments here and elsewhere by people who do not know this much. I advise them to read this book or something similar. A person should know his own limitations. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:New Energy Times News Service - LENR and Cold Fusion Theory Index
Jed sez: ... I know I would fail such a test. My knowledge of nuclear physics ended with undergraduate physics and books such as Teller and Latter, Our Nuclear Future (1958) which I recommend, and Asimov, The Atom (1991). See: http://www.amazon.com/Atom-Journey-Across-Subatomic-Cosmos/dp/0452268346 Click on Look inside and table of contents and you will see how much I know about nuclear physics. I have read comments here and elsewhere by people who do not know this much. I advise them to read this book or something similar. A person should know his own limitations. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CG2cux_6Rcw Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:New Energy Times - A Conversation With Thomas Blakeslee
Many of us have given Steven the same sound advice but you can't make him drink.
[Vo]:New Energy Times - A Conversation With Thomas Blakeslee
An interesting conversation: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/A-Conversation-With-Thomas-Blakeslee.shtml Is Krivit backing down a bit? AG
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times - A Conversation With Thomas Blakeslee
AG, Krivit has staked his reputation upon Rossi being a scammer and I have seen nothing to suggest that he believes otherwise. It all began with that June demonstration where Rossi made an attempt to snow Krivit. Krivit detected the games that Rossi was playing and tried to trap him and his friends. The trap backfired but Krivit does not seem to realize that to this day. Dave -Original Message- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 28, 2011 7:01 pm Subject: [Vo]:New Energy Times - A Conversation With Thomas Blakeslee An interesting conversation: ttp://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/A-Conversation-With-Thomas-Blakeslee.shtml Is Krivit backing down a bit? AG
[Vo]:New Energy Times..hmmmmmmmm
Greetings Vortex: I went to http://www.newenergytimes.com no insight...did some one kick the pluggg. Grins, Ron Kita
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times..hmmmmmmmm
What do you mean? Did something change there? I see nothing different... 2011/10/29 Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com Greetings Vortex: I went to http://www.newenergytimes.com no insight...did some one kick the pluggg. Grins, Ron Kita
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times..hmmmmmmmm
You have to check his web log: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/ T
[Vo]:New Energy Times and Rossi Portal down
The New Energy Times website and the Rossi Portal (http://rossiportal.com/) have been down since yesterday. If anyone knows how to contact Steve Krivit, you should tell him. My e-mail address for him is linked to his site, and I believe he has blocked me in any case. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times and Rossi Portal down
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The New Energy Times website and the Rossi Portal (http://rossiportal.com/) have been down since yesterday. If anyone knows how to contact Steve Krivit, you should tell him. My e-mail address for him is linked to his site, and I believe he has blocked me in any case. NET is still working but the rossiportal link is down. The actual portal link is: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/RossiECatPortal.shtml which is working. T
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times and Rossi Portal down
I sent a note to Krivit. T
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times and Rossi Portal down
I couldn't get newenergytimes.com either this morning. Tell Steve. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times and Rossi Portal down
I had accessed both more times today, placed a comment it must a different explanation. Verified just now it works Peter On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I couldn't get newenergytimes.com either this morning. Tell Steve. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times issue 35
As I said, I do not think much of Krivit's speculation about theory, but he has done a good job describing the dispute between Iwamura and Kidwell, something I could not follow from the lectures mainly because the whole dispute gives me a headache: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/SR35904nrl2008.shtmlhttp://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/SR35904nrl2008.shtml http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/SR35905nrl2009.shtml I think he is biased against Kidwell, but so am I. A little, anyway. I would not have made so many snarky comments about Kidwell, and these articles would be a lot better without them. In fact, Krivit's entire oeuvre would be better de-snarked. That's my opinion, but it's his stuff, not mine. I think Krivit does a better job in this analysis of the experiments because it is easier to grasp the hands-on technical aspects of this than to understand the theory debates between Hagelstein and Larsen, for example. I myself could not begin to grasp the latter, and I would never, ever pontificate about it or express my own opinions. I might report what someone else says, but that is as far as I would go. A person should know his own limitations. Krivit quotes me in some of these sub-articles in the Special Report, making way more of my comments than I intended. He fails to understand the point that I made, and that McKubre made in much more detail and with elegance, that we are only talking about the start and end product of the reaction in some (but not all) experiments, and that the intermediate products might include every element in the periodic table, but that would not change the thermodynamics. McKubre's statement is: A more subtle point is the presumption of mechanism. In thermodynamics, one is concerned with initial and final states only! The pathway (mechanism) is just important for rate predictions (and we are a long way from that). The fusion 'purists' (with their corrupt definition) want ownership of the products and process. However, to re-coin a phrase, 'the circumstances of cold fusion are not those of hot fusion.' Whatever reaction we are studying could (I would argue must) undergo a very large number of steps involving a very, very large number of participant species. But for definition, this is not important. Is the final state the result of 'joining two or more things together'? If yes, then I submit it is fusion. If it is spontaneous, then it is exothermic. If it is exothermic, then it consumes mass. . . . http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/SR35908neutroncapture.shtmlhttp://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/SR35908neutroncapture.shtml How hard is that to understand? Krivit also grossly mischaractorizes other people's arguments. He thinks other people are saying: Assumption #1: Helium-4 as the Sole Product http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/SR35902coldfusionisneither.shtml I have never heard anyone say that! That's ridiculous. Obviously there are other products such as tritium. There may well be transmutation. There are credible reports of light-water excess heat without palladium, from Patterson, Mills and others. BARC saw compelling nuclear evidence from Ti. Some people such as Violante and Kidwell dispute some of the transmutation claims. I think most others accept them to one degree or another, but I have not polled researchers, and I do not ascribe random or monolithic opinions to cold fusion researchers. Transmutation is a difficult subject with lots of gray areas, unknowns and large error bars. It is not amenable to Krivit's get-a-bigger-sledge-hammer, and let's-find-the-bad-guy style of analysis. Krivit ignores all of this and quotes me (of all people!) out of context asserting that in the Pd-D system, it seem obvious that D converts to helium-4. My reason couldn't be simpler. You start with A and B and you end with A and C. That means B is converting to C (ignoring intermediate products), and A is unchanged. I don't see how anyone can argue with that. I said nothing about the transmutations, light water reactions, titanium, possible shrinking hydrogen (the Mills effect) or any of the rest of it. Obviously I was referring to the Pd-D experiments in which no changes to the Pd are observed. I exclude experiments in which significant portions of Pd have apparently been transmuted, such as Mizuno. Some people question Mizuno's results, but assuming the results stand obviously something other than D+D = helium occurs. Does Krivit seriously believe I never realized that?!? Who is he trying to kid, and why? - Jed
[Vo]:New Energy Times issue 35
See: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/NET350.shtmlhttp://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/NET350.shtml This features an editorial and special report by Krivit Special Report: Cold Fusion is Neither. This has a great deal of theoretical speculation Krivit is unqualified to make, in my opinion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times continues the drama. Comment.
Nice post Abd. Just a terminology detail, I don't think Q factor is adequate for the heat released by a reaction. Q factor is a dimensionless factor used in resonance phenomena. I think you really mean Q value. Michel 2010/2/11 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: In a mail sent out, apparently, to NET subscribers, Steve Krivit continues his campaign about heat and helium. I did make an additional reply on his blog that he did not publish; it was published here when it did not show up there after a day. I don't know if it got lost somehow or he elected not to publish it, but other criticism contained in the other response that he *did* publish, besides the obvious error of imagining that 10 x 10^15 and 1 x 10^16 were different by an order of magnitude, was edited out by him. So, instead of submitting this response to NET, I'm putting it here, and I'm granting Krivit permission to publish this or non-misleading excerpts from this, according to his editorial judgment, provided that he provides a link to the original on the Vortex list. Cold Fusion (but not LENR) Claims Questioned Follow-up to New Energy Times Issue 34 Feb. 9, 2010 Dear Readers, We published Issue 34 of New Energy Times on Jan. 31. In it, we reveal how scientists at SRI International and MIT, claiming evidence for the theory of cold fusion, have misled the public, their peers, the Department of Energy and the reviewers of the 2004 DoE LENR review. That's a big claim. Was there any evidence provided that they actually misled anyone? What I've seen is that Krivit misinterprets what they've written, and then argues strongly against his own misinterpretation. The error he made where he imagined that a change between 10 x 10^15 and 1 X 10^15 represented a change in Violante's data (see below) revealed how much he was searching for inconsistencies and how little he was paying attention to what Violante was actually telling him. Since NET34 published, we have received no response, let alone corrections, from any of the principal subjects of the story, Michael McKubre (SRI International), Peter Hagelstein (MIT and Naval Postgraduate School) and Vittorio Violante (ENEA Frascati). The three are members of an informal consortium that has collaborated on research, publications, intellectual property claims and shared in federally funded LENR research. It is obvious from a careful review of the Violante report in NET that there was no reason for Violante to respond. He was improperly accused of stonewalling when, in fact, he'd answered Krivit's questions, as shown by Krivit's report and the original slide show and later-published conference paper, and then of making a huge error and of not retracting it. He'd already responded several times to what amounted to badgering, patiently explaining. The no response is, certainly for Violante, a non-story. As to McKubre and Hagelstein, I've examined those reports in much less detail, but where I have, so far, I've found that Krivit misinterprets and misrepresents what they actually wrote, and, I assume, by now, they are *so over* responding to Krivit. And that's a shame. It would be better if Krivit gets himself a real editorial board and listens to it. Otherwise he's likely to continue shooting himself in the foot, to imagine that a few people praising his boldness means that he's on the right track, and, in the end, see the collapse of NET. 1. 24 MeV/4He Does Not Exist Contrary to what the public has heard and believed, the purported best evidence for the theory of low-energy nuclear reactions as a cold fusion reaction, specifically the highly promoted http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=12443158msgid=222567act=3CD9c=229442destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iccf-14.org%2Fterminology.htmlclaim of ~24 MeV/4He, does not exist. With this, Krivit does effectively dismiss the strongest evidence for LENR (not for cold fusion, a much more complex subject that I will address as well). The evidence is not a claim of 24 MeV. It is correlation between excess heat as measured and excess helium as measured, at a Q value that is consistent with D-D fusion (which would ostensibly produce, if gamma emission is absent or other radiation where significant energy would escape measurement, 23.8 MeV/He-4, if helium is formed. Which Krivit correctly points out is not expected. However, helium *is* formed, it is correlated with excess energy, and the ratio of energy to helium is such that the conversion of deuterium to helium, by whatever process, would predict energy that is roughly the same as found. And this is multiply confirmed, many research groups, and not just Hagelstein and McKubre and Violante. That the ratio is in the right range for D-D fusion does not at all prove that the reaction is D-D fusion, what Krivit below calls thermonuclear fusion, nor have I seen claims that it does from any responsible
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times continues the drama. Comment.
At 08:11 AM 2/11/2010, you wrote: Nice post Abd. Just a terminology detail, I don't think Q factor is adequate for the heat released by a reaction. Q factor is a dimensionless factor used in resonance phenomena. I think you really mean Q value. Sure. I've been using factor as a synonym for value, and, yes, I was also aware of the other usage of Q. I'll be more careful, if value is clearer, I'll use it. Krivit is correct that a Q value of 23.8 or 24 has not been proven for LENR. It appears that he originally misunderstood the evidence and, in correcting his own misunderstanding, he then blamed it on everyone else. Here is Krivit's report of his personal history with this, from NET #29, http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/NET29-8dd54geg.shtml#FROMED When I wrote my first paper on this subject, The 2004 Cold Fusion Report, I asked Mallove to review and critique it. He vehemently disagreed with this sentence: It is now known that that the amounts of excess heat in cold fusion are consistent with the change in energy that results when heavy hydrogen is converted into helium-4. In other words, I was saying that it was fact that excess heat was now measured at 23.8 MeV per helium-4 atom produced. As I now know, I was inadvertently reinforcing the myth based on what I was told by some CMNS researchers. Mallove did not mince words with me. You're on VERY thin ice is stating that, he wrote. There is only ONE experiment in which such a fact has been even approximately proved, and that is the SRI International reproduction of the Case catalytic fusion work. Instead of saying consistent say correlated to some degree with. [Emphasis original] Mallove wasn't actually correct. The results are, indeed, consistent with 23.8 MeV for the predominant reaction, but consistent with does require allowing for various factors such as failure to detect all the helium (which will produce a higher number) or all the energy (which will produce a lower number). What would be incorrect would be a claim that 23.8 MeV had been proven to be the actual Q value. For example, see what Krivit then gets from Storms. I see in my notes that I rejected Mallove's critique after asking a prominent CMNS researcher, Edmund Storms, formerly of Los Alamos National Laboratory for comment. Mallove was wrong, according to Storms; he said that researchers at the U.S. Navy China Lake laboratory and an Italian government laboratory all quantitatively measured helium-4 that proved a 23.8 MeV reaction, because they all quantitatively measure helium-4 within a factor of two. I'm not arguing that Mallove was exactly wrong, for the core of Mallove's assertion was that only one experiment more closely nailed down the Q value, and that is the one that Mallove referred to. Other experiments have much higher error bars, and Storms refers to this with his within a factor of two. In other words, Storms is saying that the Q factor is within a factor of two of that expected from d-d fusion. Did Storms actually say that the reports from China Lake, etc., proved a 23.8 MeV reaction? Krivit does not supply an exact quote, and we already know from other examples recently that he's not reliable as to interpretation of what people are saying. However, if Storms wrote that, it was an error. Storms definitely knows better. Here is what's in The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (2007): Helium has been found in amounts consistent with energy production. (p. 86) The measured helium values are expected to have a negative bias because some unknown amount will be retained by the palladium. The values obtained by Miles et al. indicate 46% was retained in their study, a very reasonable amount if half of the emitted alphas went in the direction of the bulk material and were captured, while the other half went into solution and were detected. In addition, some extra energy might result from other reactions, such as transmutation without helium being produced. The values reported by Bush and Lagowski are consistent with 42% of the helium being retained by the metal -- a reasonable agreement with the Miles value. (pp. 87-88) His final comment on this is quite clear and correct: If the gross values are combined, an upper limit of 43 +/- 12 MeV/He is obtained. If 50% of the helium is assumed to be retained, this is reduced to 21 +/- 12 MeV. The value of 24.8 +/- 2.5 MeV, obtained after an effort was made to extract all the helium, is in excellent agreement with the corrected value. by combining all the measurements, a value of 25 +/- 5 MeV/4He is proposed to be the amount of heat produced by formation of each helium atom using the cold fusion process, whatever that process might be. Although this value is consistent with d-d fusion being the source of energy and helium, other reactions may also be consistent, as discussed in chapter 8. Nowhere does Storms claim that 23.8 MeV has been proven. If
[Vo]:New Energy Times continues the drama. Comment.
In a mail sent out, apparently, to NET subscribers, Steve Krivit continues his campaign about heat and helium. I did make an additional reply on his blog that he did not publish; it was published here when it did not show up there after a day. I don't know if it got lost somehow or he elected not to publish it, but other criticism contained in the other response that he *did* publish, besides the obvious error of imagining that 10 x 10^15 and 1 x 10^16 were different by an order of magnitude, was edited out by him. So, instead of submitting this response to NET, I'm putting it here, and I'm granting Krivit permission to publish this or non-misleading excerpts from this, according to his editorial judgment, provided that he provides a link to the original on the Vortex list. Cold Fusion (but not LENR) Claims Questioned Follow-up to New Energy Times Issue 34 Feb. 9, 2010 Dear Readers, We published Issue 34 of New Energy Times on Jan. 31. In it, we reveal how scientists at SRI International and MIT, claiming evidence for the theory of cold fusion, have misled the public, their peers, the Department of Energy and the reviewers of the 2004 DoE LENR review. That's a big claim. Was there any evidence provided that they actually misled anyone? What I've seen is that Krivit misinterprets what they've written, and then argues strongly against his own misinterpretation. The error he made where he imagined that a change between 10 x 10^15 and 1 X 10^15 represented a change in Violante's data (see below) revealed how much he was searching for inconsistencies and how little he was paying attention to what Violante was actually telling him. Since NET34 published, we have received no response, let alone corrections, from any of the principal subjects of the story, Michael McKubre (SRI International), Peter Hagelstein (MIT and Naval Postgraduate School) and Vittorio Violante (ENEA Frascati). The three are members of an informal consortium that has collaborated on research, publications, intellectual property claims and shared in federally funded LENR research. It is obvious from a careful review of the Violante report in NET that there was no reason for Violante to respond. He was improperly accused of stonewalling when, in fact, he'd answered Krivit's questions, as shown by Krivit's report and the original slide show and later-published conference paper, and then of making a huge error and of not retracting it. He'd already responded several times to what amounted to badgering, patiently explaining. The no response is, certainly for Violante, a non-story. As to McKubre and Hagelstein, I've examined those reports in much less detail, but where I have, so far, I've found that Krivit misinterprets and misrepresents what they actually wrote, and, I assume, by now, they are *so over* responding to Krivit. And that's a shame. It would be better if Krivit gets himself a real editorial board and listens to it. Otherwise he's likely to continue shooting himself in the foot, to imagine that a few people praising his boldness means that he's on the right track, and, in the end, see the collapse of NET. 1. 24 MeV/4He Does Not Exist Contrary to what the public has heard and believed, the purported best evidence for the theory of low-energy nuclear reactions as a cold fusion reaction, specifically the highly promoted http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=12443158msgid=222567act=3CD9c=229442destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iccf-14.org%2Fterminology.htmlclaim of ~24 MeV/4He, does not exist. With this, Krivit does effectively dismiss the strongest evidence for LENR (not for cold fusion, a much more complex subject that I will address as well). The evidence is not a claim of 24 MeV. It is correlation between excess heat as measured and excess helium as measured, at a Q value that is consistent with D-D fusion (which would ostensibly produce, if gamma emission is absent or other radiation where significant energy would escape measurement, 23.8 MeV/He-4, if helium is formed. Which Krivit correctly points out is not expected. However, helium *is* formed, it is correlated with excess energy, and the ratio of energy to helium is such that the conversion of deuterium to helium, by whatever process, would predict energy that is roughly the same as found. And this is multiply confirmed, many research groups, and not just Hagelstein and McKubre and Violante. That the ratio is in the right range for D-D fusion does not at all prove that the reaction is D-D fusion, what Krivit below calls thermonuclear fusion, nor have I seen claims that it does from any responsible researcher, including McKubre, Hagelstein, and Violante. 2. Helium-4 is Not Expected* Helium-4 is a rare product of D-D thermonuclear fusion. Its finding in LENR in significant quantities is inconsistent with thermonuclear fusion. Its promotion by the
RE: [Vo]:New Energy Times HTML version of DIA report
From Jed: Handy! See: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/DIALENRReport.shtml I found the DIA-PAO email attachment near the end of the link amusing. Say, what's been happening over in Wiki Land? Are they still fussing over the provenance of DIA document? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:New Energy Times HTML version of DIA report
At 08:50 AM 12/8/2009, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: Say, what's been happening over in Wiki Land? Are they still fussing over the provenance of DIA document? At least one of those editors, Hipocrite, will fuss over any objection he can invent. Others are more likely to allow something, given enough decent discussion. Hard to come by when the most knowledgeable editors have been banned. But Pcarbonn comes of his topic ban this month, maybe he'll jump in. There would actually be more protection now, if he's careful.
[Vo]:New Energy Times HTML version of DIA report
Handy! See: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/DIALENRReport.shtml
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released
Harry Veeder wrote: - Original Message From: Steven Krivit stev...@newenergytimes.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, November 17, 2009 4:07:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released At 07:37 AM 11/17/2009, you wrote: Is the DIA a parody of the CIA? They're a spy shop run out of the DOD, as I recall; the CIA is independent, sort of. They're real, all right. profound question Honestly, I had never heard of agency until now. Googling DIA didn't produce any relevant links. This was surprising since googling CIA produces many relevant links. The CIA is far more above board about a lot of their activities, and they do stuff like publish the CIA Factbook which has heaps of useful information about the political world around us. As far as I know the DIA doesn't do anything public. Now I see if you google Defense Intelligence Agency you do get some relevant links. ;-) harry __ Connect with friends from any web browser - no download required. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA at http://ca.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released
On Nov 16, 2009, at 5:17 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: What I found particularly interesting: If rapid, explosive energy output can occur in one or several modes, could LENR serve as a new high-energy-density explosive? LOL! DIA and DOD interest. Where's DOE? A belly-buster, IMO. Cheeze! Terry It is ironic isn't it? CF dismissed by DOE and the patent office, and yet potentially important to DOD. However, I think the potential for concern is very real. Thermal excursions and particularly thermal excursions producing neutrons have been noted by various researchers. I now think there is a theoretical basis for such events. See pages 9-10 of draft #3 of Cold Fusion Nuclear Reactions, located here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released
Is the DIA a parody of the CIA? harry From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, November 17, 2009 8:00:57 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released On Nov 16, 2009, at 5:17 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: What I found particularly interesting: If rapid, explosive energy output can occur in one or several modes, could LENR serve as a new high-energy-density explosive? LOL! DIA and DOD interest. Where's DOE? A belly-buster, IMO. Cheeze! Terry It is ironic isn't it? CF dismissed by DOE and the patent office, and yet potentially important to DOD. However, I think the potential for concern is very real. Thermal excursions and particularly thermal excursions producing neutrons have been noted by various researchers. I now think there is a theoretical basis for such events. See pages 9-10 of draft #3 of Cold Fusion Nuclear Reactions, located here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ __ Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com
RE: [Vo]:New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released
From: Horace Heffner If rapid, explosive energy output can occur in one or several modes, could LENR serve as a new high-energy-density explosive? It is ironic isn't it? CF dismissed by DOE and the patent office, and yet potentially important to DOD. However, I think the potential for concern is very real. Yup. Absolutely. Going back to Robert Forward we find the idea of really cold fusion . plus the realization that bosons could be involved in LENR in a higher temp range than with the Bose condensate (i.e. a transient condensate at ambient) . and the realization that the very high effective pressure inside a metal matrix is essentially the same effect as cryogenic confinement, in terms of limiting degrees of freedom - plus realizing that palladium-hydride is superconductive at low temperature . are any of these factors synergistic? . it very likely that near absolute zero the rate of reaction could possibly be poised to go into a rapid chain-reaction mode, if there is a stable BEC and extremely high loading. That is the scary part, especially if it were perfected by our enemies first and the first evidence we see of it is Tel Aviv being leveled, for instance. That scenario is likely one of many reasons why the Israelis have been deeply involved in the RD, and we probably only see the tip of that iceberg. From time to time, there have been divergent opinions expressed here on whether or not this military aspect is actually already well-known to a few in the Pentagon, from a black project perhaps (assuming it is real) - and then that secret knowledge is what has translated down the food chain into what we see as the incredible level of official neglect given to the whole field since 1989 .? IIRC - Jed has led the chorus for the argument that goes something like this: our military bureaucracy is really not that smart and there is no high-level conspiracy to quash LENR - just basic ignorance. The bureaucrats could not keep it secret, in any event. I hope that argument turns out to be correct, but I suspect something more sinister. They cannot keep many secrets, but there are a few that could be worth protecting at extraordinary cost. Jones
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released
At 07:37 AM 11/17/2009, you wrote: Is the DIA a parody of the CIA? profound question
RE: [Vo]:New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released
Jones, I believe you meant Robert Carroll, not Robert Forward. --- On Tue, 11/17/09, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net Subject: RE: [Vo]:New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Tuesday, November 17, 2009, 7:47 AM From: Horace Heffner If rapid, explosive energy output can occur in one or several modes, could LENR serve as a new high-energy-density explosive? It is ironic isn't it? CF dismissed by DOE and the patent office, and yet potentially important to DOD. However, I think the potential for concern is very real. Yup. Absolutely. Going back to Robert Forward we find the idea of “really cold fusion” … plus the realization that bosons could be involved in LENR in a higher temp range than with the Bose condensate (i.e. a “transient condensate” at ambient) … and the realization that the very high effective pressure inside a metal matrix is essentially the same effect as cryogenic confinement, in terms of limiting degrees of freedom – plus realizing that palladium-hydride is superconductive at low temperature … are any of these factors synergistic? … it very likely that near absolute zero the rate of reaction “could possibly” be poised to go into a rapid chain-reaction mode, if there is a stable BEC and extremely high loading. That is the scary part, especially if it were perfected by our enemies first and the first evidence we see of it is Tel Aviv being leveled, for instance. That scenario is likely one of many reasons why the Israelis have been deeply involved in the RD, and we probably only see the tip of that “iceberg”. From time to time, there have been divergent opinions expressed here on whether or not this military aspect is actually already well-known to a few in the Pentagon, from a black project perhaps (assuming it is real) – and then that secret knowledge is what has translated down the food chain into what we see as the incredible level of “official neglect” given to the whole field since 1989 …? IIRC - Jed has led the chorus for the argument that goes something like this: our military bureaucracy is really “not that smart” and there is no high-level conspiracy to quash LENR – just basic ignorance. The bureaucrats could not keep it secret, in any event. I hope that argument turns out to be correct, but I suspect something more sinister. They cannot keep many secrets, but there are a few that could be worth protecting at extraordinary cost. Jones
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released
- Original Message From: Steven Krivit stev...@newenergytimes.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, November 17, 2009 4:07:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released At 07:37 AM 11/17/2009, you wrote: Is the DIA a parody of the CIA? profound question Honestly, I had never heard of agency until now. Googling DIA didn't produce any relevant links. This was surprising since googling CIA produces many relevant links. Now I see if you google Defense Intelligence Agency you do get some relevant links. ;-) harry __ Connect with friends from any web browser - no download required. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA at http://ca.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php
[Vo]:New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released
What I found particularly interesting: If rapid, explosive energy output can occur in one or several modes, could LENR serve as a new high-energy-density explosive? LOL! DIA and DOD interest. Where's DOE? A belly-buster, IMO. Cheeze! Terry
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released
Terry Blanton wrote: What I found particularly interesting: If rapid, explosive energy output can occur in one or several modes, could LENR serve as a new high-energy-density explosive? Answer: No! Definitely not. Probably definitely not. LOL! DIA and DOD interest. It go boom they likee. Where's DOE? See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LENRCANRthedoelies.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Sun, 12 Jul 2009 07:41:25 -0700: Hi, [snip] There is a table on the Wiki entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_susceptibility ... showing the negative value of helium, which should offer a clue as to another possible technique. Since Mills is tight lipped on this subject for a variety of reasons, I wonder if it would be productive to email John Farrell for guidance. My question to Robin: have you been in touch with Farrell - and does he freely offer this kind of advice- or is he under some kind of NDA ? Jones AFAIK both Mills and Farrell will answer questions on the SCQM list, though Mills' time is very limited. However I wouldn't count on Farrell to give any real info that hadn't already been published. have you actually asked Mills this specific question, or are you just assuming he won't tell you? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
RE: [Vo]:New Energy Times
-Original Message- From: Horace Heffner One solution to a large D+ (m/Q) = 2 peak would be to filter the gas to be tested through palladium, which readily adsorbs ordinary D2 and thus removes it, and then test the residual gas for He, etc. This could have the drawback that dideuterinos may be able to diffuse through palladium even without an ionizing adsorbtion process. This problem can be addressed by this procedure ... Yes. We must assume that with a much smaller effective 'electron cloud' dideuterinos would easily diffuse - BUT this feature can probably be put to good use with a second filter that blocks deuterium molecules only - a few ceramics like magnesium oxide and some polymers come to mind as possibilities. I would add the following points to your suggestions of how this process of distinguishing the two can be done more accurately, and this will assume that the mass-spec instrument being used cannot make an accurate determination (which actually I think it can make, but for a different reason - related to magnetic susceptibility and the quadrupole interaction) There are two physical properties which are claimed to be spectacularly different between the hydrogen and the hydrino state. One is magnetic susceptibility and the other is effective spatial volume. The differences can be assumed to be huge, according to occasional comments from experts like John Farrell, department chair at Franklin and Marshall College, Mills first alma mater and the only expert from the Mills camp who seems to speak to these issues on occassion. A third likely difference is a higher boiling point but we can neglect that one for now since the first two are so substantial that nothing else will be needed, and Mills has not published the data on this. Unlike the monatomic atom, hydrogen gas is very weakly magnetic since- when bonded to form the molecule, the angular momentum of one electron is opposite in direction to that of the other. The same must be assumed to be true of dideuterinos. This is not known to me, but Farrell might know, and I doubt if Mills would tell us. However, once ionized (perhaps by the mass spec itself) there should be a big difference - which might mean many things. Including the fact that many instruments will see it. There is a table on the Wiki entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_susceptibility ... showing the negative value of helium, which should offer a clue as to another possible technique. Since Mills is tight lipped on this subject for a variety of reasons, I wonder if it would be productive to email John Farrell for guidance. My question to Robin: have you been in touch with Farrell - and does he freely offer this kind of advice- or is he under some kind of NDA ? Jones
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 9 Jul 2009 18:39:58 -0700: Hi, [snip] However, the fact that Frascati found mostly 4He make Mills' 1994 contention, mentioned below - almost untenable - UNLESS - the shrunken D2 also lost almost exactly the correct amount of mass to confuse the instrument. and no it could NOT lose the entire 22-24 MeV under Mills' theory AFAIK . begging the question of how much would confuse the instrument? [snip] The difference in mass between a completely shrunken Deuterino molecule and an ordinary Deuterium molecule is at most a few hundred keV. The mass difference between the latter and a Helium molecule OTOH, is about 24 MeV, so it's possible to confuse Deuterino molecules with ordinary molecules, but not with Helium. IOW if they can distinguish ordinary D2 from Helium, then can also distinguish Deuterino molecules from Helium. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 10 Jul 2009 04:10:13 -0800: Hi, [snip] If you fully ionize a dideuterino, if that is readily feasible, since it ostensibly takes around 70 eV , then you still get mass 2 deuterium nuclei, not a mass 4 He nucleus. It takes 70 eV to remove the second electron from the negative Hydrino ion. To remove both electrons from a maximally shrunken Deuterino molecule resulting in two Deuterium nuclei costs several hundred keV. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times
On Jul 11, 2009, at 3:42 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 10 Jul 2009 04:10:13 -0800: Hi, [snip] If you fully ionize a dideuterino, if that is readily feasible, since it ostensibly takes around 70 eV , then you still get mass 2 deuterium nuclei, not a mass 4 He nucleus. It takes 70 eV to remove the second electron from the negative Hydrino ion. To remove both electrons from a maximally shrunken Deuterino molecule resulting in two Deuterium nuclei costs several hundred keV. First, I would point out that if removing the first electron from a hydrino molecule (which for convenience I take here as a class which includes one or two deuterino atoms) takes excessive voltage then it will not ionize in the mass spectrograph and thus not show up in a mass spectrogram at all. Beyond that, and I expect this is my weakness that you are addressing, I can't see how it is within reason to expect the formation of hydrinos below N=1/2 from typical cold fusion experiments. That is the context within which the discussion lies (see original comments from Jones Beene below), i.e. that it is not He that is being observed in CF experiments, but hydrino molecules. I don't really see how it is within reason to expect all CF experiments (at least all those in which He has been measured) to create hydrinos, much less hydrino molecules which are readily singly ionized in a mass spectrograph. However, given my limited vision in this matter, I still stand by the following: In approximate terms, suppose we say the m/Q ratio for He+ is (4/1) = 4. The m/q ratio for He++ is then (4/2) = 2. The m/Q ratio for a singly charged dideuterino is (4/1) = 4, thus it masquerades as a He +. If the ionization potential is pushed far enough, then the dideuterino breaks down and becomes ordinary deuterium D+ (or at least one of the deuterons does, since there is only one electron) with a mass/charge ratio of (2/1) = 2, thus it masquerades (not very well in a precision mass spec.) as He++. Suppose the singly charged dideuterino breaks down at a very high voltage, much higher than where He+ loses its last electron. Suppose very little helium is present in a sample, but a lot of dideuterinos. This would be readily detected by comparing the mass spectrographs for (average) ionization energies just above He+ and then just above He++, both in a high precision mass spec. The helium will migrate from the m/Q = 4 peak down into the m/Q =2 peak.If the singly charged dihydrinos require a large ionization energy, then they will all remain in the m/Q = 4 peak. This lack of any migration would be recognizable as anomalous. The above assumption of a differing second ionization energy is not needed to make the determination of the presence of dihydrinos though. Suppose you then push the ionization energy well beyond the dihydrino's full ionization energy. This will result in an increase in deuterons in the m/Q = 2 peak, but these, necessarily being *ordinary* D+ deuterons, will be readily distinguished from any small amount of He+ that would remain. In other words, as you push up the ionization energy, He+ will disappear from their (m/Q) = 2 peak, while, if any dihydrinos are present, they will *increase* the size of the m/Q = 2 deuterium peak. Further, if the ionization energies for He+ and singly charged dihydrinos differ, then the m/Q = 2 migrations will occur at definitively different ionization voltages, which would provide even further confirmation of an anomalous (hydrino based) process. Even if the first ionization potential of the CF experiment created hydrino molecules was in range of the spectrograph ionization chamber, and even if the second hydrino molecule electron continues to bind both atoms and not stick with just one, and even if the second ionization potential of the hydrino molecule is hundreds of keV, the hydrino molecule presence will still be disclosed by the lack of migration from the m/Q=4 peak to the m/Q=2 peak when the ionization potential is sufficient to double ionize most all He that is in the sample. That proves the m/Q=4 peak is not from singly ionized helium. This is in stark disagreement with the statement attributed to Mills (below). On Jul 9, 2009, at 4:36 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Which is to say that when 4He is measured as the ash from LENR, and this has been assumed to be real helium, it could instead consist of one molecule of ”two fractional hydrogen isotopes” - better known as the Mills hydrino, or more specifically the Mills’ “di- deuterino.” Back circa 1994, if memory serves, Mills mentioned this possibility in Fusion Technology. The ionization potential for the “di-deuterino” would be extremely high according to Mills, in the case of deep redundancy – and essentially there is little way they could ever be
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times
Correction noted below. I continue to make errors willy nilly as usual. Sorry! On Jul 11, 2009, at 6:19 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: First, I would point out that if removing the first electron from a hydrino molecule (which for convenience I take here as a class which includes one or two deuterino atoms) takes excessive voltage then it will not ionize in the mass spectrograph and thus not show up in a mass spectrogram at all. Beyond that, and I expect this is my weakness that you are addressing, I can't see how it is within reason to expect the formation of hydrinos below N=1/2 from typical cold fusion experiments. That is the context within which the discussion lies (see original comments from Jones Beene below), i.e. that it is not He that is being observed in CF experiments, but hydrino molecules. I don't really see how it is within reason to expect all CF experiments (at least all those in which He has been measured) to create hydrinos, much less hydrino molecules which are readily singly ionized in a mass spectrograph. However, given my limited vision in this matter, I still stand by the following: In approximate terms, suppose we say the m/Q ratio for He+ is (4/1) = 4. The m/q ratio for He++ is then (4/2) = 2. The m/Q ratio for a singly charged dideuterino is (4/1) = 4, thus it masquerades as a He+. If the ionization potential is pushed far enough, then the dideuterino breaks down and becomes ordinary deuterium D+ (or at least one of the deuterons does, since there is only one electron) with a mass/charge ratio of (2/1) = 2, thus it masquerades (not very well in a precision mass spec.) as He++. Suppose the singly charged dideuterino breaks down at a very high voltage, much higher than where He+ loses its last electron. Suppose very little helium is present in a sample, but a lot of dideuterinos. This would be readily detected by comparing the mass spectrographs for (average) ionization energies just above He+ and then just above He++, both in a high precision mass spec. The helium will migrate from the m/Q = 4 peak down into the m/Q =2 peak.If the singly charged dihydrinos require a large ionization energy, then they will all remain in the m/Q = 4 peak. This lack of any migration would be recognizable as anomalous. The above assumption of a differing second ionization energy is not needed to make the determination of the presence of dihydrinos though. Suppose you then push the ionization energy well beyond the dihydrino's full ionization energy. This will result in an increase in deuterons in the m/Q = 2 peak, but these, necessarily being *ordinary* D+ deuterons, will be readily distinguished from any small amount of He+ that would remain. In other words, as you push up the ionization energy, He+ will disappear from their (m/Q) = 2 peak, while, if any dihydrinos are present, they will *increase* the size of the m/Q = 2 deuterium peak. The above sentence has a typo and lacks clarity. It should read: In other words, as you push up the ionization energy, He+ will disappear from their (m/Q) = 4 peak and migrate into their distinguishable He++ (m/Q) = 2 peak, while, if any fully ionizable dihydrinos are present, the deuterons freed by the dihydrino ionization will increase the size of their separate and identifiable (m/Q) = 2 deuterium peak. Further, if the ionization energies for He+ and singly charged dihydrinos differ, then the m/Q = 2 migrations will occur at definitively different ionization voltages, which would provide even further confirmation of an anomalous (hydrino based) process. Even if the first ionization potential of the CF experiment created hydrino molecules was in range of the spectrograph ionization chamber, and even if the second hydrino molecule electron continues to bind both atoms and not stick with just one, and even if the second ionization potential of the hydrino molecule is hundreds of keV, the hydrino molecule presence will still be disclosed by the lack of migration from the m/Q=4 peak to the m/Q=2 peak when the ionization potential is sufficient to double ionize most all He that is in the sample. That proves the m/Q=4 peak is not from singly ionized helium. This is in stark disagreement with the statement attributed to Mills (below). On Jul 9, 2009, at 4:36 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Which is to say that when 4He is measured as the ash from LENR, and this has been assumed to be real helium, it could instead consist of one molecule of ”two fractional hydrogen isotopes” - better known as the Mills hydrino, or more specifically the Mills’ “di-deuterino.” Back circa 1994, if memory serves, Mills mentioned this possibility in Fusion Technology. The ionization potential for the “di-deuterino” would be extremely high according to Mills, in the case of deep redundancy – and essentially there is
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times
One problem with the methods I suggested for distinguishing dideuterinos from Helium in CF experiments is the possible large amount of deuterium that might be present. This would could make the D + (m/Q) = 2 peak too large to accurately distinguish the amount of added deuterons from a dideuterino ionization process. It should not prevent the accurate detection and concentration determination of Helium, however, because the He++ (m/Q) = 2 peak is still distinguishable from the D+ (m/Q) = 2 peak. One solution to a large D+ (m/Q) = 2 peak would be to filter the gas to be tested through palladium, which readily adsorbs ordinary D2 and thus removes it, and then test the residual gas for He, etc. This could have the drawback that dideuterinos may be able to diffuse through palladium even without an ionizing adsorbtion process. This problem can be addressed by this procedure: (1) measure the He content by ordinary mass spec. (2) filter out the D2, and possibly some dideuterinos in the process, using Pd filters (3) measure He and dideutrino content from residual gas (4) any large reduction in apparent Helium concentration is due to dideutrino loss through the Pd filter One thing that may help the process, if dideuterinos don't readily diffuse through the cathode material, is to allow the CF cathodes to degass the interior D2 prior to digesting of the cathode to obtain the Helium/dideuterino gas for the mass spec. What a lot of work! Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times
On Jul 9, 2009, at 4:36 PM, Jones Beene wrote: One comment on The Letter to the Editor from John Sutherland - Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. It raises a point that should be clarified. He may be unaware that we can tolerate mention of Randell Mills or Blacklight Power here. Actually, welcome mention might apply, since it is so very much on list topic. Which is to say that when 4He is measured as the ash from LENR, and this has been assumed to be real helium, it could instead consist of one molecule of ”two fractional hydrogen isotopes” - better known as the Mills hydrino, or more specifically the Mills’ “di- deuterino.” Back circa 1994, if memory serves, Mills mentioned this possibility in Fusion Technology. The ionization potential for the “di-deuterino” would be extremely high according to Mills, in the case of deep redundancy – and essentially there is little way they could ever be distinguished from helium except for the small mass difference which we have talked about here before - and which has actually shown up in very sophisticated Mass Spec charts before, as that small blip. This makes no sense to me Jones. Mass Spectrometers work on ionized species. There would thus have to exist a reduced energy orbital for a D2+ dideuterino species. Further, even if such a species exists, to the degree no He is present, no mass 4 He++ species will show up in the mass spectrograph. This would be a very evident feature of the mass spectrograph. If you fully ionize a dideuterino, if that is readily feasible, since it ostensibly takes around 70 eV , then you still get mass 2 deuterium nuclei, not a mass 4 He nucleus. To the extent you don't ionize dideuterionss, then they remain neutral, and thus not in the mass spectrograph, or show up as mass 4 singly charged species. Any in-between condition, i.e. a mixture of species, would still show up as mass spectrograph which would be mysterious or anomalous without a hydrino explanation, and thus to most CF researchers that did He mass spec. , other than possibly Mills' staff. It may be of use to look at US Patent 6,024,935, which discusses much about dihydrino isolation and mass spec. , and which also makes no sense to me for the same reasons. Maybe I'm just missing something obvious. I didn't take much time to look at it. I recall posting the reference to that chart, years ago, to vortex, and if memory serves it was done at Frascatti but I cannot find the reference now. Jones Following is the beginning of a fairly long old thread, Mass Spec. question, which may be of interest. On Dec 2, 2002, at 11:56 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Here is a question for Ed Storms or anyone else who has done mass spectrometry on ash from a cold fusion cell. My apology if this question has been answered previously. I remember it having been brought up in the past, but couldn't find a satisfactory direct answer in searching the vortex archives or on LENR-CANR. Question: Have experimenters absolutely eliminated the possibility that the 4He atom that is found in CF cells, and is usually identified through mass spectrometry - and is offered as evidence of D+D fusion - could not instead be a tightly bound below ground state deuterium pair, a.k.a. the di-deuterino molecule? According to Mills, the first ionization energy of the dihydrino molecule is 62.27 eV and IP2 is 65.39 eV which, of course, are far higher than D2 and higher than Helium, but IP2 is fairly close. The mass of a di-deuterino molecule would be somewhere between 4He= 4.0026 amu and that of the deuteron molecular mass of 4.0280 amu, but exactly where is not clear. AFAIK, Mills doesn't specify that a di-deuterino ionization energy would be any different than a di-hydrino, but then again, he seldom mentions below ground state deuterium at all. I suspect that lack of mention is for reasons that relate to protecting his intellectual property. I know Ed has proposed that the lack of O2 buildup in his closed cells is indicative of no deuterinos, and that is a good argument that would have to be answered by anyone wishing to equate Mills work with cold fusion - but this question relates *only* to mass spectrometry results and whether or not the putative di-deuterino has been eliminated. Regards, Jones Beene On Dec 2, 2002, at 12:01 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: Most mass spectrometers used to detect He are able to distinguish between He and D2. In addition, the D2 is removed chemically from the gas. We would have to assume that the di-deuterino molecule was not chemically active so that it remained in the gas and was mistaken for He. In addition, we would have to assume this molecule can be ionized to the +1 ion by 70 eV electron bombardment. According to Mills, the first ionization energy of the dihydrino molecule is 62.27 eV and IP2 is 65.39 eV which, of course, are far
RE: [Vo]:New Energy Times
Horace, * This makes no sense to me Jones. Mass Spectrometers work on ionized species. There would thus have to exist a reduced energy orbital for a D2+ dideuterino species. Further, even if such a species exists, to the degree no He is present, no mass 4 He++ species will show up in the mass spectrograph. OK - does it makes more sense to suggest the ionization potential at 54.4 eV can be identical for both species in many cases? Jones
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times
I wrote: So, in the absence of a continuous catalytic process of some kind, one which provides energy from some source other than dropping to the fractional state (e.g. from ZPE expansion of the orbital), the two processes should be readily sorted out by energy production alone, without the use of mass spectrometry. To clarify, continuous catalytic process above means one which continuously recycles the hydrogen. I also wrote: This does admittedly require the assumption that the full measure of 23.9 MeV per He atom created is obtained. This measure of energy production is not guaranteed at all under various theories, including deflation fusion, which predicts the energy obtained in a given reaction to be sampled from a random distribution with 23.9 MeV to be a maximal and therefore improbable amount, the mean being much lower. The above is meant to address studies which showed a close approximation of heat/reaction = 23.9 MeV/He atom and in which mass spec. was performed. I don't mean to imply that all studies result in a 23.9 MeV per reaction number. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times
On Jul 10, 2009, at 4:55 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Horace, Ø This makes no sense to me Jones. Mass Spectrometers work on ionized species. There would thus have to exist a reduced energy orbital for a D2+ dideuterino species. Further, even if such a species exists, to the degree no He is present, no mass 4 He++ species will show up in the mass spectrograph. OK – does it makes more sense to suggest the ionization potential at 54.4 eV can be identical for both species in many cases? Jones In approximate terms, suppose we say the m/Q ratio for He+ is (4/1) = 4. The m/q ratio for He++ is then (4/2) = 2. The m/Q ratio for a singly charged dideuterino is (4/1) = 4, thus it masquerades as a He +. If the ionization potential is pushed far enough, then the dideuterino breaks down and becomes ordinary deuterium D+ (or at least one of the deuterons does, since there is only one electron) with a mass/charge ratio of (2/1) = 2, thus it masquerades (not very well in a precision mass spec.) as He++. Suppose the singly charged dideuterino breaks down at a very high voltage, much higher than where He+ loses its last electron. Suppose very little helium is present in a sample, but a lot of dideuterinos. This would be readily detected by comparing the mass spectrographs for (average) ionization energies just above He+ and then just above He++, both in a high precision mass spec. The helium will migrate from the m/Q = 4 peak down into the m/Q =2 peak.If the singly charged dihydrinos require a large ionization energy, then they will all remain in the m/Q = 4 peak. This lack of any migration would be recognizable as anomalous. The above assumption of a differing second ionization energy is not needed to make the determination of the presence of dihydrinos though. Suppose you then push the ionization energy well beyond the dihydrino's full ionization energy. This will result in an increase in deuterons in the m/Q = 2 peak, but these, necessarily being *ordinary* D+ deuterons, will be readily distinguished from any small amount of He+ that would remain. In other words, as you push up the ionization energy, He+ will disappear from their (m/Q) = 2 peak, while, if any dihydrinos are present, they will *increase* the size of the m/Q = 2 deuterium peak. Further, if the ionization energies for He+ and singly charged dihydrinos differ, then the m/Q = 2 migrations will occur at definitively different ionization voltages, which would provide even further confirmation of an anomalous (hydrino based) process. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:New Energy Times
Subscribers got the link last week...For the rest of you... EDITORIALS AND OPINION 1. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/NET32833xj$.shtml#FROMEDFrom the Editor: Nuclear but Not Fusion 2. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/NET32833xj$.shtml#TOEDTo the Editor NEWS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 3. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/NET32833xj$.shtml#N1Welcome to New Energy Timeshttp://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/NET32833xj$.shtml#N1 2.0! 4. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/NET32833xj$.shtml#N2LENR Conferences, Past and Future 5. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/NET32833xj$.shtml#N3Arata-Zhang Gas Loading Experiment Replicated 6. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/NET32833xj$.shtml#N4News of the Weird: NIF Will Prove Cold Fusion 7. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/NET32833xj$.shtml#N5Got Clean Coal? Neither Does the Coal Industry 8. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/NET32833xj$.shtml#N6Journal of CMNS Vol. 2 Electronically Published 9. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/NET32833xj$.shtml#N72008 DARPA Document: LENR Research Budgeted 10. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/NET32833xj$.shtml#N8Recent Additions to the New Energy Timeshttp://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/NET32833xj$.shtml#N8 Archive ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVES 11. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/NET32833xj$.shtml#A12009 First Quarter Review and Update 12. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/NET32833xj$.shtml#hullekesChallenges of Coherence in LENR 13. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/NET32833xj$.shtml#A2Review of Adamenko Book by Thomas Dolan 14. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/NET32833xj$.shtml#A3Successful Replication but Not Very Independent 15. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/NET32833xj$.shtml#A4University of Missouri School of Journalism Student Goofs; Scientific Americanhttp://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/NET32833xj$.shtml#A4 Learns to Listen 16. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/NET32833xj$.shtml#A5Peer Review From Science Fans 17. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/NET32833xj$.shtml#A6Coming Out of the Woodwork 18. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/NET32833xj$.shtml#A7The End of Innovative Energy Solutions 19. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/NET32833xj$.shtml#A8He's Back - Russ George Tries Again 20. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/NET32833xj$.shtml#A9ICCF-14 Visa Problem Explained, Yet Again http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/NET32833xj$.shtml#pubsPUBLICATIONS http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/NET32833xj$.shtml#newsSCIENCE AND ENERGY NEWS
RE: [Vo]:New Energy Times
One comment on The Letter to the Editor from John Sutherland - Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. It raises a point that should be clarified. He may be unaware that we can tolerate mention of Randell Mills or Blacklight Power here. Which is to say that when 4He is measured as the ash from LENR, and this has been assumed to be real helium, it could instead consist of one molecule of two fractional hydrogen isotopes - better known as the Mills hydrino, or more specifically the Mills' di-deuterino. Back circa 1994, if memory serves, Mills mentioned this possibility in Fusion Technology. The ionization potential for the di-deuterino would be extremely high according to Mills, in the case of deep redundancy - and essentially there is little way they could ever be distinguished from helium except for the small mass difference which we have talked about here before - and which has actually shown up in very sophisticated Mass Spec charts before, as that small blip. I recall posting the reference to that chart, years ago, to vortex, and if memory serves it was done at Frascatti but I cannot find the reference now. Jones
RE: [Vo]:New Energy Times
This could be of interest to some: The bump on the chart of slide 6 of this PPT document is residual D2 http://www.frascati.enea.it/nhe/link%20spettrometria.ppt The instrument used here is state of the art, and in a system with perhaps a 7 figure price tag, but it is easily possible for lesser quality mass-spec instrument to confuse the two - IF - the D2 has an extraordinarily high ionization potential, as does the Mills' (putative) species . and especially if the Dy2 has lost mass - having given up lots of energy, and shrunken into deep redundancy. Anyway the slide presentation describes the very complex and accurate mass spectrometer system put together by ENEA, the Italian National Agency for New Technologies, a divisions of the famous Frascati national Lab. http://www.enea.it/com/ingl/default.htm The mass spectrometer system was designed specificallyto find and document 4-He coming off of cold fusion experiments, and to distinguish that from deuterium, both of which have a mass near 4 amu. The problem is that D2 and 4-He have very similar masses, the difference being only 6 parts per thousand. Even after carefully scrubbing and gettering the CF cell output gas ahead of this instrument, so as to eliminate most of D2, there will be some residual. Consequently, in the slide there is a bump which is supposedly the remnants of D2 that couldn't be scrubbed. However, the fact that Frascati found mostly 4He make Mills' 1994 contention, mentioned below - almost untenable - UNLESS - the shrunken D2 also lost almost exactly the correct amount of mass to confuse the instrument. and no it could NOT lose the entire 22-24 MeV under Mills' theory AFAIK . begging the question of how much would confuse the instrument? One comment on The Letter to the Editor from John Sutherland - Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. It raises a point that should be clarified. He may be unaware that we can tolerate mention of Randell Mills or Blacklight Power here. Which is to say that when 4He is measured as the ash from LENR, and this has been assumed to be real helium, it could instead consist of one molecule of two fractional hydrogen isotopes - better known as the Mills hydrino, or more specifically the Mills' di-deuterino. Back circa 1994, if memory serves, Mills mentioned this possibility in Fusion Technology. The ionization potential for the di-deuterino would be extremely high according to Mills, in the case of deep redundancy - and essentially there is little way they could ever be distinguished from helium except for the small mass difference which we have talked about here before - and which has actually shown up in very sophisticated Mass Spec charts before, as that small blip. I recall posting the reference to that chart, years ago, to vortex, and if memory serves it was done at Frascatti but I cannot find the reference now. Jones
[Vo]:New Energy Times Issue 32
Steve, In regard to #9 on your list of subjects 2008 DARPA Document: LENR Research Budgeted You say Hidden deep inside a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency budget justification document is a notice http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/Darpa2008.pdf for LENR funding. It's on page 18 in the pdf or page 216 in the original document: determine the correlation between excess heat observations and production of nuclear by-products. You just need to know where to look -- or know an insider at DARPA to help you out. My reading of this is slightly different from yours. Actually it is very different, if you throw in the bit about General Atomic, and let you imagination run rampant with JASON involvement .. OTOH if you had the help of a DARPA insider, then you are probably correct (let's hope not being played?) Anyway, I think this paragraph you site relates solely to a process called MISER, and that the LENR situation might have been an inadvertent finding, such as possibly from a prior report in that program, where maybe there was an energy anomaly - which they are now trying to understand using LENR as a hypothesis/ Of course, I could be reading too much into this ;-) It can be noted that the contractor for MISER is General Atomic. In 2008 they were to demonstrate a pilot-scale Mobile Integrated Sustainable Energy Recovery (MISER) process for converting waste to 5 kilowatts electric power, and then to scale up to 60 kW. I looks to me like - somewhere during the course of this work, the contractor found an excursion into an excess heat regime. Since they are located not far from SPAWAR - this might be the how and why they were inclined to link it to LENR. Probably a coincidence, but it could be a situation calling for more investigative journalism . if you can dodge the spooks, and if not - hey, work on your tan. Not a bad place to visit. According to Wiki: General Atomics was conceived in 1955 at San Diego, California for the purpose of harnessing the power of nuclear technologies for the benefit of the United States of America. It was founded as the General Atomic division of General Dynamics. It was sold to Gulf Oil and renamed Gulf General Atomic. In 1973, it was renamed General Atomic Company when Shell was a partner. Shell left the venture in 1982 and Gulf named it GA Technologies Inc. Chevron purchased Gulf in 1984. Then: In 1986, it was sold to a company owned by Neal Blue and Linden Blue when it assumed its current name. http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2001/jul/12/general-atomics-color-it-blue / This is where the spooks, JASON and all that, may have entered the picture. If you believe in that kind of stuff. Hey, maybe Morgan Freeman got his start down there. It would make a clever sequel to Chain Reaction. The initial projects at GA were the TRIGA nuclear reactor and Project Orion. In 1978, it published a pamphlet for new employees that stated, in part, that we expect to have several commercial fusion reactors online and producing electricity by the year 2000. In 2007, General Atomics was developing a next generation nuclear power plant design, the Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR). They also make the Predator. Well this tale of chain-reactions could get curiouser and curiouser .. Jones
Re: [Vo]:New ENERGY TIMES (tm) May 10, 2008 -- Issue #28
It may be of a side interest here that Kasagi produced up to 17 MeV protons from the (assumed) reaction: D + D + D - p + n + alpha + 21.62 MEV via bombardment of a deuterium loaded titanium rod target with deuterium ions at up to 150 KeV. See: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg01517.html Note also that the above post is coincidentally relevant also to Jones Beene's phenol discussion in the thread [Vo]:Biomimicry redux. It could be that an effective means of co-deposition involves use of a bicarbonate of soda electrolyte, containing iron catalyst, at 200 C and high pressure. On May 15, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Steven Krivit wrote: Robin, I have discussed this with the author of the article and you are correct, we will issue a correction in the next issue of NET. Shall we credit you for noticing this? Why is the shrub always a plant? Steve At 12:26 PM 5/13/2008 +1000, you wrote: In reply to Steven Krivit's message of Sun, 11 May 2008 23:10:06 -0800: Hi, [snip] 1. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/ NET28.htm#FROMEDOpinion: Fusion of deuterium into helium-4 gives a yield of 17 MeV. No it doesn't. It gives a yield of 23.85 MeV. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:New ENERGY TIMES (tm) May 10, 2008 -- Issue #28
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Thu, 15 May 2008 14:08:54 -0400: Hi, [snip] On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Steven Krivit [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why is the shrub always a plant? I think it is Donk's way of saying that your president (bush/shrub) is no smarter than any occupant of the rose garden. [snip] plant has second meaning in US slang. The President is, IMHO, a double minded man (who is unstable in all his ways). It would appear that he has an alt. Rumor has it that the alt has a homosexual lover (butt buddy), that personality is clearly not the Christian family man that the dominate personality claims to be. When George H W was inaugurated many Regan appointees were summarily dismissed by the transition team. That team was headed by George W. IMHO, that anecdote speaks volumes, particularly given the free spending, globalist, government expanding, behavior of his administration. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:New ENERGY TIMES (tm) May 10, 2008 -- Issue #28
This was the appearance and structure of the wheels: They sparkled like chrysolite, I've heard allusions to beryl and sapphire, a blue glow, sort of like spent nuclear fuel rods in water, eh? --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:New ENERGY TIMES (tm) May 10, 2008 -- Issue #28
- Original Message - From: thomas malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 11:23 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New ENERGY TIMES (tm) May 10, 2008 -- Issue #28 Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Thu, 15 May 2008 14:08:54 -0400: Hi, [snip] On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Steven Krivit [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why is the shrub always a plant? I think it is Donk's way of saying that your president (bush/shrub) is no smarter than any occupant of the rose garden. [snip] plant has second meaning in US slang. The President is, IMHO, a double minded man (who is unstable in all his ways). It would appear that he has an alt. Rumor has it that the alt has a homosexual lover (butt buddy), that personality is clearly not the Christian family man that the dominate personality claims to be. When George H W was inaugurated many Regan appointees were summarily dismissed by the transition team. That team was headed by George W. IMHO, that anecdote speaks volumes, particularly given the free spending, globalist, government expanding, behavior of his administration. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html --- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1446 - Release Date: 5/16/2008 7:42 AM
Re: [Vo]:New ENERGY TIMES (tm) May 10, 2008 -- Issue #28
Robin, I have discussed this with the author of the article and you are correct, we will issue a correction in the next issue of NET. Shall we credit you for noticing this? Why is the shrub always a plant? Steve At 12:26 PM 5/13/2008 +1000, you wrote: In reply to Steven Krivit's message of Sun, 11 May 2008 23:10:06 -0800: Hi, [snip] 1. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#FROMEDOpinion: Fusion of deuterium into helium-4 gives a yield of 17 MeV. No it doesn't. It gives a yield of 23.85 MeV. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:New ENERGY TIMES (tm) May 10, 2008 -- Issue #28
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Steven Krivit [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why is the shrub always a plant? I think it is Donk's way of saying that your president (bush/shrub) is no smarter than any occupant of the rose garden. Terry
Re: [Vo]:New ENERGY TIMES (tm) May 10, 2008 -- Issue #28
Terry sez: I think it is Donk's way of saying that your president (bush/shrub) is no smarter than any occupant of the rose garden. Terry MPATHG said it best: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_who_say_Ni PS: My spouse and I have tickets to see Spamalot tomorrow night. Can't wait! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:New ENERGY TIMES (tm) May 10, 2008 -- Issue #28
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Thu, 15 May 2008 14:08:54 -0400: Hi, [snip] On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Steven Krivit [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why is the shrub always a plant? I think it is Donk's way of saying that your president (bush/shrub) is no smarter than any occupant of the rose garden. [snip] plant has second meaning in US slang. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:New ENERGY TIMES (tm) May 10, 2008 -- Issue #28
Steven Krivit wrote: Excellent posting Steven! Thanks! Is John Bockris still alive? I've not heard any death announcements yet. Do you have contact information? Yes I do. I've already given them to Esko, presumably he's contacted JOMB, he was eager to do so. s Who is Esko? I'd like to talk to John. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:New ENERGY TIMES (tm) May 10, 2008 -- Issue #28
Who is Esko? I'd like to talk to John. Thomas, I believe you did not get the notification of the latest issue of New Energy Times magazine because we had an old e-mail address for you. I will correct that in our db now. Esko: http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#rabbit Steve
Re: [Vo]:New ENERGY TIMES (tm) May 10, 2008 -- Issue #28
Excellent posting Steven! Thanks! Is John Bockris still alive? I've not heard any death announcements yet. Do you have contact information? Yes I do. I've already given them to Esko, presumably he's contacted JOMB, he was eager to do so. s
[Vo]:New ENERGY TIMES (tm) May 10, 2008 -- Issue #28
49fe8670.jpg Original reporting on leading-edge energy research and technologies May 10, 2008 -- Issue #28 EDITORIALS AND OPINION 1. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#FROMEDOpinion: Letter to http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#FROMEDNatuurwetenschappen en Techniek 2. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#TOEDTo the Editor NEWS ANNOUNCEMENTS 3. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#niCold Fusion Hot Again in India 4. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#darpaDefense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Takes LENR Seriously 5. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#iccmnsInternational Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science-14 6. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#acsAmerican Chemical Society Symposium on New Energy Technology 7. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#sochi15th Russian Conference on Cold Nuclear Transmutation and Ball-Lightning 8. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#booksCold Fusion, LENR, CMNS Book Index 9. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#siteindexLENR, CMNS Online Site Index 10. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#ficAnnouncing Hal Fox's Fusion Information Center Data Archive 11. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#preparataTribute to Giuliano Preparata 12. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#purduePurdue University Professor Rusi Taleyarkhan Files Legal Complaint 13. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#cernteaEuropean Research Center for New Clean Energy Technologies 14. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#chubbNew Cold Fusion Manuscript, Company and Web Sites from Talbot Chubb ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVES 15. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#rabbitCarbon Arc Meets Quantum Rabbit 16. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#modelA Model to Quantify the Independence of Scientific Replications 17. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#scamReview of TIME Magazine's April 7, 2008, article The Clean Energy Scam 18. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#wikiSignificant Progress on the Wikipedia Cold Fusion Page 19. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#pubsPUBLICATIONS 20. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#newsSCIENCE AND ENERGY NEWS ___ inline: 49fe8670.jpg
Re: [Vo]:New ENERGY TIMES (tm) May 10, 2008 -- Issue #28
Heads-Up: There is an article tucked away near the end of this issue which could be of extreme importance in a variety of non-obvious ways ... (like ultra-high efficiency electrolysis) : 15. Carbon Arc Meets Quantum Rabbit By Steven B. Krivit This article discusses possible nuclear transmutations in carbon electrodes One of those non-obvious ways, and one of the reasons why this RD niche could be of extreme importance - is when a carbon rod serves as a cathode for water electrolysis, which is normally about 60-70% efficient... ... but if done properly can produce three times the gas for the same power input: http://67.76.235.52/electrodes.asp BTW these electrodes are available from 'The Graphite Store' http://www.graphitestore.com Now, obviously much more needs to be done in this situation before one goes out on a limb to claim overunity, but for anyone out-there in Volandia who may be experimenting with variations on the water fuel theme, many of which are based on ultra-high efficiency electrolysis ... well these results speak for themself ... and beg for a complete thermodynamic accounting... Jones
Re: [Vo]:New ENERGY TIMES (tm) May 10, 2008 -- Issue #28
In reply to Steven Krivit's message of Sun, 11 May 2008 23:10:06 -0800: Hi, [snip] 1. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#FROMEDOpinion: Fusion of deuterium into helium-4 gives a yield of 17 MeV. No it doesn't. It gives a yield of 23.85 MeV. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:New ENERGY TIMES (tm) May 10, 2008 -- Issue #28
In reply to Steven Krivit's message of Sun, 11 May 2008 23:10:06 -0800: Hi, [snip] 1. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#FROMEDOpinion: A study that costs no more than one industrial windmill or a B2-stealth bomber can ask and answer crucial questions within a year. Somehow I doubt very seriously that an industrial windmill costs the same as a B2-stealth bomber. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:New ENERGY TIMES (tm) May 10, 2008 -- Issue #28
In reply to Steven Krivit's message of Sun, 11 May 2008 23:10:06 -0800: Hi, I wrote: 1. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET28.htm#FROMEDOpinion: A study that costs no more than one industrial windmill or a B2-stealth bomber can ask and answer crucial questions within a year. Somehow I doubt very seriously that an industrial windmill costs the same as a B2-stealth bomber. [snip] However the original Dutch text: Een onderzoek dat niet meer kost dan één industriële windmolen, laat staan een Apache-helikopter en/of een B2-stealthbommenwerper, en naar een vraag die binnen een jaar beantwoord kan worden. ... says: An investigation that would cost no more than an industrial windmill, let alone an Apache helicopter and/or a B2-stealth bomber, and to a question that could be answered within a year. (The latter part of this is a little confused, however the first part is clearer). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:New ENERGY TIMES (tm) May 10, 2008 -- Issue #28
Steven Krivit wrote: Excellent posting Steven! Is John Bockris still alive? Do you have contact information? --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
[Vo]:New ENERGY TIMES (tm) March 10, 2008 -- Issue #27
Emacs! The leader in news and information on low energy nuclear reactions March 10, 2008 -- Issue #27 ISSUE #27 is available online at http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET27.htm EDITORIALS AND OPINION 1. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET27.htm#FROMEDFrom the Editor: Will India Surprise the U.S. (Again)? 2. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET27.htm#TOEDTo the Editor: Comments on Iyengar Video Interview NEWS ANNOUNCEMENTS 3. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET27.htm#docDoc Patterson, Light Water LENR Pioneer 4. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET27.htm#forsleyMy Recollections of Jim Patterson by Lawrence P.G. Forsley 5. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET27.htm#pioneersConversations: Pioneers of and Contributors to Cold Fusion, CMNS /LENR 6. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET27.htm#apsAmerican Physical Society March 2008 Meeting 7. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET27.htm#acsAmerican Chemical Society Fall 2008 National Meeting Exposition 8. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET27.htm#iccf1414th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 9. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET27.htm#oralNew Energy Foundation Announces Cold Fusion Oral History Project 10. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET27.htm#groupsNew Energy Times http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET27.htm#groupsIndex of Commercial LENR Research Groups 11. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET27.htm#enecoENECO Files for Chapter 11 Protection 12. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET27.htm#d2fRuss George's D2Fusion Disappears; Planktos Runs Aground 13. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET27.htm#psasPublic Service Announcements ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVES 14. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET27.htm#indiaThe 2008 India LENR Lecture Tour 15. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET27.htm#wikiDrama On Wikipedia Street 16. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET27.htm#curieEnergy Agency Review Panel Decides Against Funding Curie Discovery 17. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET27.htm#futureNews From the FutureCongress Makes History 18. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET27.htm#koldamasovThe Koldamasov Cavitation Device 19. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET27.htm#studentExcerpts of Student Paper: Report on the Work of A.I. Koldamasov 20. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET27.htm#protonProton-21 Research Presented in University of Illinois Seminar 21. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET27.htm#pubsPUBLICATIONS 22. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET27.htm#newsSCIENCE AND ENERGY NEWS http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET24.htm#thewiz New Energy Times (tm) is a project of New Energy Institute, an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation which provides information and educational services to help bring about the clean-energy revolution. The New Energy Times (tm) magazine, Web site, and documentary projects are made possible by the generous contributions of our sponsors and supporters. -- If you have received this announcement from a colleague and you wish to be added to the New Energy Times (tm) mailing list, or if you would like to unsubscribe, click here http://newenergytimes.com/news/news.htm. inline: 9a41762f.jpg
[Vo]:New ENERGY TIMES (tm) Nov. 8, 2007 -- Issue #25
Emacs! The leader in news and information on low energy nuclear reactions November 8, 2007 -- Issue #25 ISSUE #25 is available online at http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET25.htm EDITORIALS AND OPINION 1. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET25.htm#FROMEDFrom the Editor 2. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET25.htm#TOEDTo the Editor NEWS ANNOUNCEMENTS 3. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET25.htm#sandiegoLENR Seminar at San Diego State University 4. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET25.htm#journalJournal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science 5. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET25.htm#apsAmerican Physical Society LENR Session 6. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET25.htm#iccf14International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science - 14 ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVES 7. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET25.htm#enesco2007 International Conference on Emerging Nuclear Energy Sciences 8. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET25.htm#anomalies8th International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen- and Deuterium-Loaded Metals 9. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET25.htm#frisoneIntroducing the Fulvio Frisone Foundation 10. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET25.htm#galileo2007 Galileo Project Report 11. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET25.htm#violanteA Visit With Vittorio Violante of ENEA Frascati 12. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET25.htm#collabInternational Collaboration Advances LENR Frontier 13. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET25.htm#tritiumTritium Discoveries 14. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET25.htm#stormsEdmund Storms' Letter to Sciencehttp://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET25.htm#storms, June 25, 1990 15. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET25.htm#bockrisBockris' Letter to Sciencehttp://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET25.htm#bockris, June 29, 1990 16. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET25.htm#iyengarNuclear Power and the Indo-U.S. Nuclear Deal 17. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET25.htm#macyMarianne Macy, Oral Historian 18. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET25.htm#pubsPUBLICATIONS 19. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET25.htm#newsSCIENCE AND ENERGY NEWS http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET24.htm#thewiz New Energy Times (tm) is a project of New Energy Institute, an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation which provides information and educational services to help bring about the clean-energy revolution. The New Energy Times (tm) magazine, Web site, and documentary projects are made possible by the generous contributions of our sponsors and supporters. -- If you have received this announcement from a colleague and you wish to be added to the New Energy Times (tm) mailing list, or if you would like to unsubscribe, click here http://newenergytimes.com/news/news.htm. inline: 27a791a2.jpg
Re: [Vo]:New ENERGY TIMES (tm) Nov. 8, 2007 -- Issue #25
Wow Steve. Best issue yet ! and Terry will be delighted that you managed to spice up the science journalism with a more provocative diversion: Working Sex - An Odyssey into (another variety) of Cultural Underworld, as some might opine. I was certain there was way to get a Monica joke squeezed in here somewhere ... Oh yeah... It seems Monica is teaming up with HBO to do a documentary about her relationship with the former President. It's not really a documentary. It will be more of an oral history. —Jay Leno
[Vo]:New ENERGY TIMES (tm) Sept. 10, 2007 -- Issue #24
Emacs! The leader in news and information on low energy nuclear reactions Late breaking news folks... Lewis Larsen sent out the following announcement and two attached papers (http://newenergytimes.com/Library/2007WidomA-EnergeticElectrons.pdfWidom, Larsen, Srivastava) and (http://newenergytimes.com/Library/1922Wendt-Irion.pdfWendt and Irion) yesterday. Apparently they have just submitted this paper, their fifth in a http://newenergytimes.com/wltheoryseries, to a journal for peer review. The subject of exploding wires first got my attention at the Marseilles, France http://newenergytimes.com/ICCF11/ICCF11.htmICCF11 conference when I asked a question to a presenter at the end of one of his talks. He flat out declined to answer me! I also reported briefly on more exploding wire experiments this Monday in http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET24.htmissue 24 of New Energy Times. I'm not sure what it all means but it certainly seems interesting. They are claiming to provide answers to an 80-year old physics controversy and are alleging an error by the esteemed Sir Ernest Rutherford. What is your opinion? I'll publish the most interesting responses in our next issue of New Energy Times. Deadline for comments is Oct. 15. Steven B. Krivit Editor, New Energy Times Text of Larsen's announcement: We have attached a new 3-page preprint, Energetic Electrons and Nuclear Transmutations in Exploding Wires, http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.1222v1arXiv:0709.1222v1 [nucl-th] 8 Sep 2007 by Widom, Srivastava, and Larsen. In this paper, we extend our theory of low energy nuclear reactions (LENRs) beyond the domain of relatively low temperature chemical cells to include closely related nuclear phenomena that occur in much more energetic, violent environments associated with high-current exploding wires. One aim of our paper is to resolve an old controversy. In 1922, Wendt Irion, two chemists from the University of Chicago, reported the results of relatively simple experiments that consisted of exploding tungsten wires with a very large current pulse under a vacuum inside of sealed glass bulbs. A huge controversy erupted because Wendt Irion claimed to have observed the presence of anomalous helium inside sealed bulbs after the tungsten wires were blown, suggesting that transmutation of hydrogen into helium had somehow occurred during the disintegration of tungsten. Widespread press coverage triggered a response from the scientific establishment in the form of a negative critique of Wendt Irion's work by Ernest Rutherford that was published in Nature. Rutherford won the contemporary debate; he was believed --- Wendt Irion were not. After 1923, Wendt and Irion abandoned their exploding wire experiments and turned to other lines of research. Until recently, this controversy had been almost totally forgotten. However, it now appears to us that Rutherford was incorrect in his criticisms; Wendt and Irion were right. First, we cite recent experimental evidence on exploding wires that decisively settles the experimental issues in favor of Wendt Irion. Neutrons are produced in such experiments, making it entirely plausible that nuclear transmutations can occur. Second, we cite additional recent experiments in which, fast neutrons have been seen in exploding wires even though there were no deuterons initially present. Since distinctive gamma signatures have not been observed along with any such neutrons, it appears unlikely to us that D-D fusion is the mechanism responsible for producing them. We also aim to resolve the remaining theoretical issues. Utilizing collective effects with electrons in wires, well-established physics, and only four equations, we go on to explain a theoretical paradox in low energy nuclear reactions that has remained unresolved for over eight decades. We conclude that, It is presently clear that nuclear transmutations can occur under a much wider range of physical conditions than was heretofore thought possible. The resolution of this 85 year-old controversy is especially poignant when one considers that: (a.) in 1920 Rutherford himself had predicted the existence of a neutral nuclear particle with ~ the same mass as a proton, saying that it could be formed by the capture of an electron onto a proton ;(b.) the existence of the neutron would not be experimentally verified by James Chadwick until 1932; and (c.) fission would not be discovered by Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman until 1938. Since they can be difficult to obtain, for your convenience we have attached a second Adobe Acrobat document that contains copies of all three original publications as follows: (1.) Wendt and Irion's initial paper, Experimental Attempts to Decompose Tungsten at High Temperatures, from the Amer. Chem. Soc. 44 (1922); (2.) Rutherford's comments about their work in Nature 109 418 (1922) - also reprinted with permission in Science (attached); and (3.)
[Vo]:New ENERGY TIMES (tm) Sept. 10, 2007 -- Issue #24
Emacs! The leader in news and information on low energy nuclear reactions September 10, 2007 -- Issue #24 ISSUE #24 is available online at http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET24.htm EDITORIALS AND OPINION 1. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET24.htm#FROMEDFrom the Editor: The Emerging Champions 2. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET24.htm#TOEDTo the Editor NEWS ANNOUNCEMENTS 3. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET24.htm#catania8th International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen- and Deuterium-Loaded Metals ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVES 4. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET24.htm#iccf13ICCF-13 Report 5. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET24.htm#umExcess Heat Report from Jean-Paul Biberian and Nicolas Armanet 6. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET24.htm#globalGlobal Energy Outlook and the Realities of Greentech 7. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET24.htm#newsSCIENCE AND ENERGY NEWS 8. http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET24.htm#thewizThe Wizard of Half Moon Bay: A New Energy Times Special Report on Planktos and D2Fusion New Energy Times (tm) is a project of New Energy Institute, an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation which provides information and educational services to help bring about the clean-energy revolution. The New Energy Times (tm) magazine, Web site, and documentary projects are made possible by the generous contributions of our sponsors and supporters. -- If you have received this announcement from a colleague and you wish to be added to the New Energy Times (tm) mailing list, or if you would like to unsubscribe, click here http://newenergytimes.com/news/news.htm. inline: 1c2329c.jpg
