Re: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not?
I first met Jed at the CETI demo. It was nice to really meet him in person. -Original Message- From: Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Dec 20, 2014 11:43 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not? Perhaps Patterson realized he didn't have anything which is why he blustered instead of accepting a deal that would only lead to disappointment. On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: As I recall, the deal was $10M, spread over various milestones of development. On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: If it makes any difference, Jed confided in me this whole story when it happened. I found it appalling. Patterson wanted the $1M from Motorola but he wanted control of the secret. I had empathy for Motorola since they gave me my first job out of school and I wanted to see CF succeed. CETI could probably have easily have gotten a 40% share out of the batwings but they were greedy. It was a horrible story and we were devastated by it. I was disappointed at the time, but not devastated. I expected Cold Fusion to rise out of the ashes and I would get to work on it when it became clear that it was real. It was not until Rossi's Ni-H claims that I was able to make a case to start a small project. This was just before I retired. When I left, I took the project with me. At the time of Patterson Cell, Bob Galvin was in charge - a man of real long term vision. He knew he didn't need to fully understand it to make money with it. He made a big leap and took Motorola into semiconductors when that technology was little beyond alchemy. He felt he could do the same with Cold Fusion (as it was told to me). After Bob Galvin left, Motorola slowly divested itself of most of its physical science research capability; and today, it may not be possible for Motorola to pursue such a project without re-tooling its workforce and facilities. Back in the early 90's Motorola could make at least one of anything in its labs and then drive it to product - if a UFO had been given to Motorola for back engineering in 1990, we would all be flying them now.
Re: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not?
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps Patterson realized he didn't have anything which is why he blustered instead of accepting a deal that would only lead to disappointment. There is not the slightest evidence for that, and absolutely no motivation or method by which he might have profited from a non-working cell. He could not even make a profit from a cell that did work! Cravens and others confirmed that it worked, in multiple tests, with better instruments. Unfortunately they did not publish these results. I think Patterson did not want them to publish. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not?
Frank Znidarsic fznidar...@aol.com wrote: I first met Jed at the CETI demo. It was nice to really meet him in person. Huh. When you consider that I was hopping mad and fit to be tied, the fact that I was nice to meet is a credit to my self control, or at least, to my ability to practice Japanese-style social hypocrisy. (Or to smile, and smile, and still be a villain, as Hamlet put it.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not?
In the private demo, which Jed was excluded, because they were mad at him, I noted the preheater. I multiplied the frequency of the thermal vibrations times the domain size and got 1 million meters per second. The constant, Znidarsic's constant, 1,094,000 meters per second. It is the velocity of sound in the nucleus. It is gradually becoming more well known. http://benthamopen.com/journal/render-content.php?journalID=chemistry Frank Znidarsic
RE: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not?
From: Blaze Spinnaker Ø Ø Perhaps Patterson realized he didn't have anything which is why he blustered instead of accepting a deal that would only lead to disappointment. Sadly, this will be the way that history and mainstream physics will remember CETI unless the excess energy from beads can be duplicated and understood, once again. This scenario was already a focus of Robert Park in “ Voodoo Science” yet the reaction was claimed to have been duplicated by others besides Miley before EarthTech put a nail in the coffin. Given hindsight – it is certainly possible that the original active beads contained a trace of a necessary reactant which escaped detection. The only reason I am bring this up again is Woods–Saxon potential and the recent paper by two Iranians … commented on last week … which at first resembled a spoof, but there could be more to it on second appraisal. The idea of reversible fusion - fission, with no radioactive residue, has always been “out there” as a possibility for LENR as a gateway reaction for zero point regauging, but with no physical evidence. There are a couple of tantalizing connections which have come up in recent days, that were not mentioned earlier. Curiously, there is a bit of history surrounding 208Pb (Lead-208). It was once known as Thorium-D since it is in the end of the Thorium decay chain, which was the original source of most of natural lead. One can opine that the 208 isotope is special in many ways. Plus, lead is ubiquitous in manufacturing, and could have been a trace contaminant for both Patterson but especially for Thermacore, as it is a dry lubricant. Wiki does have an entry on element 110. Darmstadtium was first created in 1994 at the Institute for Heavy Ion Research in Darmstadt, Germany … The team bombarded a lead-208 target with accelerated nuclei of nickel-62 … This was a high energy bombardment, which cannot be deemed “cold” except in relative terms. Yet Ni-62 seems an odd choice, as it is the most stable nucleus in the periodic table. Plus, the new element 110 has a significant but short half-life. We can imagine that the two reactants were carefully chosen at Darmstadt. The idea that a sequential, reversible reaction of (nickel + lead) proceeding as fusion - fission, could supply excess energy and not be depleted … well… that is still beyond bizarre, but it would make a good Sci-Fi plot… M. R. Pahlavani and S. A. Alavi, Mod. Phys. Lett. A DOI: 10.1142/S0217732314502149 Effects of level density parameter on the superheavy production in cold fusion M. R. Pahlavani · Department of Nuclear Physics, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar 47415-416, Iran S. A. Alavi · Corresponding author · Department of Nuclear Physics, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar 47415-416, Iran Received: 10 July 2014 Revised: 29 October 2014 Accepted: 29 October 2014 Published: 18 December 2014 By using semiclassical method and considering Woods–Saxon and Coulomb potentials, the level density parameter a was calculated for three superheavy nuclei 270110, 278112 and 290116. Obtained results showed that the value of level density parameter of these nuclei is near to the simple relation a≈A/10. In framework of the dinuclear system model, the effects of level density parameter on the probability of the formation of a compound nucleus, the ratio of neutron emission width and fission width, and evaporation residue cross-section of three cold fusion reactions 62Ni+208Pb, 70Zn+208Pb and 82Se+208Pb, leading to superheavy elements were investigated. The findings indicate that the level density parameter play a significant role in calculations of heavy-ion fusion–fission reactions. The obtained results in the case of a = A/12 have larger values in comparison with calculated level density parameter with Woods–Saxon potential (aWS) and a = A/10. The theoretical results of the evaporation residue cross-section are very sensitive to the choice of level density parameter. The calculated values with aWS are in good agreement with experimental values. Keywords: Semiclassical method; superheavy nuclei; Woods–Saxon potential; level density PACS: 24.10.Pa, 25.70.Jj, 24.10.-i, 24.60.-k
Re: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not?
The very slow timeline and we are still not even close. 1996 observed the 1 million meters per second velocity in the CETI cell. 2000 ANS 200 meeting presented my theorem. The constants of the motion converge in a Bose condensate stimulated at a dimensional frequency of 1 mega hertz meters. http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/787504 2009 Coached by the Alien scientist figured out that the 1 million meters per second was the velocity of sound in the nucleus. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ykCWaVcjSA Dec 2014 Two weeks ago, finally figured out that the 1.36 fm dimension, that came out of the analysis, was the nuclear spacing. This came after a bashing by Jones Bennie that .886, not 1.36 was the nuclear radius. I stuck to my guns and the the answer required by the observation 20 years ago was finally found. http://applet-magic.com/He4nuclide.htm This story is well documented and was published enough times to make you head spin. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapterf.html What's next? Perhaps nothing, I am done with what I wanted to do. Frank Znidarsic PE
Re: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not?
I observed the velocity of one million meters per second at the CETI demo. I felt that it was important. At first, as an Electrical Engineer, I produced this velocity in terms of electrical units. I had a quantum of capacitance and units of inductance. After taking some physics training, I realized that nobody really understood this. So, I converted the units into mechanical terms. Out came an elastic constant wave numbers. The new numbers are listed below to 6 digits. Fm = 29.0535 Newtons, The electron’s force maximum K-e = 29.0535/r Newtons/meter, The elastic constant of the electron Kf = 1.35969 x 10-15 meters , The nuclear spacing rp = 1.40879 x 10-15 meters, The maximum range of the strongforce. 2rp = 2.81794 x 10-15 meters, The classical radius of the electron Sn = 1,093,850 meters per sec., The speed of sound in thenucleus There were those that stated that my analysis was wrong because the wrong numbers came out of it. Our Jones Bennie was one of them. He said the radius of a nucleon was .866 fm not 1.36 fm. They bashed me badly. I knew I was correct because so much came out of the analysis, like the energy levels of the atoms and the Compton frequency of the electron.A typical bashing is listed below. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread628722/pg1 My numbers have proven correct. The 1.36 fm dimension was correct. It came out of the analysis and I did not know it before hand. I now know that my pundents were clueless. http://applet-magic.com/He4nuclide.htm The 1.41 fm dimension was correct. It has recently been discovered that 1.401 fm is the range of the strong nuclear force based of the mass the neutral pion. It's in: Neutrons, Nuclei and Matter: An Exploration of the Physics of Slow Neutrons (Dover Books on Physics) I was told that you have nothing compared to the beauty of the Widdom Larson and many others. Did they produce the entire quantum condition as a result of there analysis? It happened many times. A simple analysis based on the CETI observation has produced correct results that were persevered wrong and later proven correct. I believe that the still unknown result of how to control all of the natural forces will also prove to be correct. Frank Znidarsic
Re: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not?
- Original Message - From: Frank Znidarsic To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 10:09 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not? I observed the velocity of one million meters per second at the CETI demo. I felt that it was important. At first, as an Electrical Engineer, I produced this velocity in terms of electrical units. I had a quantum of capacitance and units of inductance. After taking some physics training, I realized that nobody really understood this. So, I converted the units into mechanical terms. Out came an elastic constant wave numbers. The new numbers are listed below to 6 digits. Fm = 29.0535 Newtons, The electron’s force maximum K-e = 29.0535/r Newtons/meter, The elastic constant of the electron Kf = 1.35969 x 10-15 meters , The nuclear spacing rp = 1.40879 x 10-15 meters, The maximum range of the strong force. 2rp = 2.81794 x 10-15 meters, The classical radius of the electron Sn = 1,093,850 meters per sec., The speed of sound in the nucleus There were those that stated that my analysis was wrong because the wrong numbers came out of it. Our Jones Bennie was one of them. He said the radius of a nucleon was .866 fm not 1.36 fm. They bashed me badly. I knew I was correct because so much came out of the analysis, like the energy levels of the atoms and the Compton frequency of the electron.A typical bashing is listed below. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread628722/pg1 My numbers have proven correct. The 1.36 fm dimension was correct. It came out of the analysis and I did not know it before hand. I now know that my pundents were clueless. http://applet-magic.com/He4nuclide.htm The 1.41 fm dimension was correct. It has recently been discovered that 1.401 fm is the range of the strong nuclear force based of the mass the neutral pion. It's in: Neutrons, Nuclei and Matter: An Exploration of the Physics of Slow Neutrons (Dover Books on Physics) I was told that you have nothing compared to the beauty of the Widdom Larson and many others. Did they produce the entire quantum condition as a result of there analysis? It happened many times. A simple analysis based on the CETI observation has produced correct results that were persevered wrong and later proven correct. I believe that the still unknown result of how to control all of the natural forces will also prove to be correct. Frank Znidarsic
Re: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not?
Frank-- Those numbers are impressive. Does the maximum range of the strong nuclear force match the idea of a sonic velocity of the nucleus very well? It so it seems from a classical point of view one may be able to calculate the change in the strong nuclear force as a function of distance which would give an elastic constant for a nucleus as well. Some other questions: What causes the strong force to be discontinuous at at any point? You use the term quantum of capacitance. What are the units of a quantum of capacitance? How did you convert this quantum to a quanta or energy or angular momentum? (This may be the same basic question as the previous one.) Bob - Original Message - From: Frank Znidarsic To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 10:09 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not? I observed the velocity of one million meters per second at the CETI demo. I felt that it was important. At first, as an Electrical Engineer, I produced this velocity in terms of electrical units. I had a quantum of capacitance and units of inductance. After taking some physics training, I realized that nobody really understood this. So, I converted the units into mechanical terms. Out came an elastic constant wave numbers. The new numbers are listed below to 6 digits. Fm = 29.0535 Newtons, The electron’s force maximum K-e = 29.0535/r Newtons/meter, The elastic constant of the electron Kf = 1.35969 x 10-15 meters , The nuclear spacing rp = 1.40879 x 10-15 meters, The maximum range of the strong force. 2rp = 2.81794 x 10-15 meters, The classical radius of the electron Sn = 1,093,850 meters per sec., The speed of sound in the nucleus There were those that stated that my analysis was wrong because the wrong numbers came out of it. Our Jones Bennie was one of them. He said the radius of a nucleon was .866 fm not 1.36 fm. They bashed me badly. I knew I was correct because so much came out of the analysis, like the energy levels of the atoms and the Compton frequency of the electron.A typical bashing is listed below. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread628722/pg1 My numbers have proven correct. The 1.36 fm dimension was correct. It came out of the analysis and I did not know it before hand. I now know that my pundents were clueless. http://applet-magic.com/He4nuclide.htm The 1.41 fm dimension was correct. It has recently been discovered that 1.401 fm is the range of the strong nuclear force based of the mass the neutral pion. It's in: Neutrons, Nuclei and Matter: An Exploration of the Physics of Slow Neutrons (Dover Books on Physics) I was told that you have nothing compared to the beauty of the Widdom Larson and many others. Did they produce the entire quantum condition as a result of there analysis? It happened many times. A simple analysis based on the CETI observation has produced correct results that were persevered wrong and later proven correct. I believe that the still unknown result of how to control all of the natural forces will also prove to be correct. Frank Znidarsic
Re: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not?
Jones-- I agree with your reconsideration of Pahlavani's letter. A little tutorial on the Nature of Woods-Saxon potential is warranted: From Wikipedia-- The Woods–Saxon potential is a mean field potential for the nucleons (protons and neutrons) inside the atomic nucleus, which is used to approximately describe the forces applied on each nucleon, in the shell model for the structure of the nucleus. The form of the potential, as a function of the distance r from the center of nucleus, is: where V0 (having dimension of energy) represents the potential well depth, a is a length representing the surface thickness of the nucleus, and is the nuclear radius where r0 = 1.25 fm and A is the mass number. Typical values for the parameters are: V0 ≈ 50 MeV, a ≈ 0.5 fm. For large atomic number A this potential is similar to a potential well. It has the following desired properties a.. It is monotonically increasing with distance, i.e. attracting. b.. For large A, it is approximately flat in the center. c.. Nucleons near the surface of the nucleus (i.e. having r ≈ R within a distance of order a) experience a large force towards the center. d.. It rapidly approaches zero as r goes to infinity (r − R a), reflecting the short-distance nature of the strong nuclear force. When using the Schrödinger equation to find the energy levels of nucleons subjected to the Woods–Saxon potential, it cannot be solved analytically, and must be treated numerically. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 8:46 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not? From: Blaze Spinnaker Ø Ø Perhaps Patterson realized he didn't have anything which is why he blustered instead of accepting a deal that would only lead to disappointment. Sadly, this will be the way that history and mainstream physics will remember CETI unless the excess energy from beads can be duplicated and understood, once again. This scenario was already a focus of Robert Park in “ Voodoo Science” yet the reaction was claimed to have been duplicated by others besides Miley before EarthTech put a nail in the coffin. Given hindsight – it is certainly possible that the original active beads contained a trace of a necessary reactant which escaped detection. The only reason I am bring this up again is Woods–Saxon potential and the recent paper by two Iranians … commented on last week … which at first resembled a spoof, but there could be more to it on second appraisal. The idea of reversible fusion - fission, with no radioactive residue, has always been “out there” as a possibility for LENR as a gateway reaction for zero point regauging, but with no physical evidence. There are a couple of tantalizing connections which have come up in recent days, that were not mentioned earlier. Curiously, there is a bit of history surrounding 208Pb (Lead-208). It was once known as Thorium-D since it is in the end of the Thorium decay chain, which was the original source of most of natural lead. One can opine that the 208 isotope is special in many ways. Plus, lead is ubiquitous in manufacturing, and could have been a trace contaminant for both Patterson but especially for Thermacore, as it is a dry lubricant. Wiki does have an entry on element 110. Darmstadtium was first created in 1994 at the Institute for Heavy Ion Research in Darmstadt, Germany … The team bombarded a lead-208 target with accelerated nuclei of nickel-62 … This was a high energy bombardment, which cannot be deemed “cold” except in relative terms. Yet Ni-62 seems an odd choice, as it is the most stable nucleus in the periodic table. Plus, the new element 110 has a significant but short half-life. We can imagine that the two reactants were carefully chosen at Darmstadt. The idea that a sequential, reversible reaction of (nickel + lead) proceeding as fusion - fission, could supply excess energy and not be depleted … well… that is still beyond bizarre, but it would make a good Sci-Fi plot… M. R. Pahlavani and S. A. Alavi, Mod. Phys. Lett. A DOI: 10.1142/S0217732314502149 Effects of level density parameter on the superheavy production in cold fusion M. R. Pahlavani · Department of Nuclear Physics, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar 47415-416, Iran S. A. Alavi · Corresponding author · Department of Nuclear Physics, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar 47415-416, Iran Received: 10 July 2014 Revised: 29 October 2014 Accepted: 29 October 2014 Published: 18 December 2014 By using semiclassical method and considering Woods–Saxon and Coulomb potentials, the level density parameter a was calculated for three superheavy nuclei 270110, 278112 and 290116. Obtained results showed that the value of level density parameter of these nuclei is near to the simple relation a≈A/10
RE: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not?
Sorry Frank, but you are just as wrong now as you were then. http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?rp|search_for=proton+radius - Original Message - From: Frank Znidarsic mailto:fznidar...@aol.com There were those that stated that my analysis was wrong because the wrong numbers came out of it. Our Jones Beene was one of them. He said the radius of a nucleon was .866 fm not 1.36 fm. They bashed me badly
Re: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not?
Jones-- I think the item I just copied regarding the Woods-Saxon potential indicates for Hydrogen, Z=1, that Frank is closer to the listed radius of 1.23 fm than you are at your .866 fm. I think your radius is a rms charge radius. You and Frank may be talking about different dimensions of a nucleus. Yours clearly only applies to a single proton as I understand it and is not a radius associated with the extent of the strong nuclear force. Correct me if I am wrong. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 12:04 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not? Sorry Frank, but you are just as wrong now as you were then. http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?rp|search_for=proton+radius - Original Message - From: Frank Znidarsic There were those that stated that my analysis was wrong because the wrong numbers came out of it. Our Jones Beene was one of them. He said the radius of a nucleon was .866 fm not 1.36 fm. They bashed me badly
RE: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not?
Bob, there is only one physical radius for the proton, the charge radius. Frank’s value is way off since he has always confused Compton wavelength with a physical dimension. Sure, we can recognize duality here, but if you want something to be based on a “speed” or quantum velocity less than c, as he does, then you must use the physical dimension not the equivalent wavelength. It’s really not that complicated: the Compton wavelength of a particle is equivalent to the wavelength of a photon whose mass-energy is the same as the rest-mass energy of the particle - which as you can see in the case of the proton - cannot be identical to the protons physical radius. That photon wave always travels at c, which is not the value which Frank has invented. I am not saying that Frank’s value has no relevance to some phenomenon, but he has never been able to demonstrate that AFAIK. The extent of the strong force is immaterial. Jones From: Bob Cook Jones-- I think the item I just copied regarding the Woods-Saxon potential indicates for Hydrogen, Z=1, that Frank is closer to the listed radius of 1.23 fm than you are at your .866 fm. I think your radius is a rms charge radius. You and Frank may be talking about different dimensions of a nucleus. Yours clearly only applies to a single proton as I understand it and is not a radius associated with the extent of the strong nuclear force. Correct me if I am wrong. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Jones Beene mailto:jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 12:04 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not? Sorry Frank, but you are just as wrong now as you were then. http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?rp|search_for=proton+radius - Original Message - From: Frank Znidarsic mailto:fznidar...@aol.com There were those that stated that my analysis was wrong because the wrong numbers came out of it. Our Jones Beene was one of them. He said the radius of a nucleon was .866 fm not 1.36 fm. They bashed me badly
Re: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not?
Jones you are wrong now as you were before. I am speaking about the radius of the bound nucleon which is half of the nuclear wave number. 1.35/2 -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Dec 21, 2014 4:22 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not? Bob, there is only one physical radius for the proton, the charge radius. Frank’s value is way off since he has always confused Compton wavelength with a physical dimension. Sure, we can recognize duality here, but if you want something to be based on a “speed” or quantum velocity less than c, as he does, then you must use the physical dimension not the equivalent wavelength. It’s really not that complicated: the Compton wavelength of a particle is equivalent to the wavelength of a photon whose mass-energy is the same as the rest-mass energy of the particle - which as you can see in the case of the proton - cannot be identical to the protons physical radius. That photon wave always travels at c, which is not the value which Frank has invented. I am not saying that Frank’s value has no relevance to some phenomenon, but he has never been able to demonstrate that AFAIK. The extent of the strong force is immaterial. Jones From: Bob Cook Jones-- I think the item I just copied regarding the Woods-Saxon potential indicates for Hydrogen, Z=1, that Frank is closer to the listed radius of 1.23 fm than you are at your .866 fm. I think your radius is a rms charge radius. You and Frank may be talking about different dimensions of a nucleus. Yours clearly only applies to a single proton as I understand it and is not a radius associated with the extent of the strong nuclear force. Correct me if I am wrong. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 12:04 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not? Sorry Frank, but you are just as wrong now as you were then. http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?rp|search_for=proton+radius - Original Message - From: Frank Znidarsic There were those that stated that my analysis was wrong because the wrong numbers came out of it. Our Jones Beene was one of them. He said the radius of a nucleon was .866 fm not 1.36 fm. They bashed me badly
Re: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not?
-Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Dec 21, 2014 1:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not? Frank-- Those numbers are impressive. thanks Bob Does the maximum range of the strong nuclear force match the idea of a sonic velocity of the nucleus very well? It so it seems from a classical point of view one may be able to calculate the change in the strong nuclear force as a function of distance which would give an elastic constant for a nucleus as well. Some other questions: What causes the strong force to be discontinuous at at any point? It reaches an elastic limit. You use the term quantum of capacitance. What are the units of a quantum of capacitance? Skip that. Use the wave number and the elastic constant. How did you convert this quantum to a quanta or energy or angular momentum? (This may be the same basic question as the previous one.) Unknown to me. The nucleus is like a liquid drop. The only question I have asked and answered, is what is the speed of sound in that liquid. Bob - Original Message - From: Frank Znidarsic To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 10:09 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not? I observed the velocity of one million meters per second at the CETI demo. I felt that it was important. At first, as an Electrical Engineer, I produced this velocity in terms of electrical units. I had a quantum of capacitance and units of inductance. After taking some physics training, I realized that nobody really understood this. So,I converted the units into mechanical terms. Out came an elastic constant wave numbers. The new numbers are listed below to 6 digits. Fm = 29.0535 Newtons, The electron’s force maximum K-e= 29.0535/r Newtons/meter, The elastic constant of the electron Kf= 1.35969 x 10-15 meters , The nuclear spacing rp = 1.40879 x 10-15 meters, The maximum range of the strong force. 2rp = 2.81794 x 10-15 meters, The classical radius of the electron Sn = 1,093,850 meters per sec., The speed of sound in the nucleus There were those that stated that my analysis was wrong because the wrong numbers came out of it. Our Jones Bennie was one of them. He said the radius of a nucleon was .866 fm not 1.36 fm.They bashed me badly. I knew I was correct because so much came out of the analysis, like the energy levels of the atoms and the Compton frequency of the electron.A typical bashing is listed below. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread628722/pg1 My numbers have proven correct. The 1.36 fm dimension was correct. It came out of the analysis and I did not know it before hand. I now know that my pundents were clueless. http://applet-magic.com/He4nuclide.htm The 1.41 fm dimension was correct.It has recently been discovered that 1.401 fm is the range of the strong nuclear force based of the mass the neutral pion. It's in: Neutrons, Nuclei and Matter: An Exploration of the Physics of Slow Neutrons (Dover Books on Physics) I was told that you have nothing compared to the beauty of the Widdom Larson and many others.Did they produce the entire quantum condition as a result of there analysis? It happened many times. A simple analysis based on the CETI observation has produced correct results that were persevered wrong and later proven correct. I believe that the still unknown result of how to control all of the natural forces will also prove to be correct. Frank Znidarsic
RE: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not?
Frank, “Bound nucleon”… this is the new twist to megahertz-meter? Which bound nucleon? Isn’t it fair to ask: what good is a theory for LENR which does not apply to either hydrogen or deuterium? The radius of the deuteron which is a bound nucleon is 2.14 fm … hydrogen is .8775 fm. That is fact and apparently it is an uncomfortable fact. Over the years we have argued these details, since you prefer not want to use real values of common reactants. Apparently, neither will plug-in to bolster the magic number, in the proper way, so you are compelled to locate a value unrelated to hydrogen which works. Is it not fair to suspect that you could be reaching out into cyberspace to find any value which makes the numbers fit where you wanted them to fit, rather than finding a natural relationship ? From: Frank Znidarsic Jones you are wrong now as you were before. I am speaking about the radius of the bound nucleon which is half of the nuclear wave number. 1.35/2 -Original Message- From: Jones Beene Bob, there is only one physical radius for the proton, the charge radius. Frank’s value is way off since he has always confused Compton wavelength with a physical dimension. Sure, we can recognize duality here, but if you want something to be based on a “speed” or quantum velocity less than c, as he does, then you must use the physical dimension not the equivalent wavelength. It’s really not that complicated: the Compton wavelength of a particle is equivalent to the wavelength of a photon whose mass-energy is the same as the rest-mass energy of the particle - which as you can see in the case of the proton - cannot be identical to the protons physical radius. That photon wave always travels at c, which is not the value which Frank has invented. I am not saying that Frank’s value has no relevance to some phenomenon, but he has never been able to demonstrate that AFAIK. The extent of the strong force is immaterial. Jones From: Bob Cook Jones-- I think the item I just copied regarding the Woods-Saxon potential indicates for Hydrogen, Z=1, that Frank is closer to the listed radius of 1.23 fm than you are at your .866 fm. I think your radius is a rms charge radius. You and Frank may be talking about different dimensions of a nucleus. Yours clearly only applies to a single proton as I understand it and is not a radius associated with the extent of the strong nuclear force. Correct me if I am wrong. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Jones Beene mailto:jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 12:04 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not? Sorry Frank, but you are just as wrong now as you were then. http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?rp|search_for=proton+radius - Original Message - From: Frank Znidarsic mailto:fznidar...@aol.com There were those that stated that my analysis was wrong because the wrong numbers came out of it. Our Jones Beene was one of them. He said the radius of a nucleon was .866 fm not 1.36 fm. They bashed me badly
Re: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not?
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Does the maximum range of the strong nuclear force match the idea of a sonic velocity of the nucleus very well? I believe nuclear phonons are entirely quantum. In this regard I wonder whether there's a sense in which they travel anywhere. Eric
Re: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not?
No it does not. Nuclear courses start off with the liquid drop model of the nucleus. They then process forever in the direction of increasingly harder mathematics. Liquids convey sound. Ask a post doc about the speed of sound in the liquid drop and you will get the blank stare of an inappropriate question. They never asked that question and missed the boat. Jones, why can't you admit you were wrong and just apologise? Frank -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Dec 21, 2014 9:12 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not? On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Does the maximum range of the strong nuclear force match the idea of a sonic velocity of the nucleus very well? I believe nuclear phonons are entirely quantum. In this regard I wonder whether there's a sense in which they travel anywhere. Eric
Re: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not?
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: on 22passi, some skeptic refers to an old story of 1995 about CETI I don't understand all, but it seems not to be honest story? (remind me some greek sad joke, but I wait for confirmation) It was honest as the day is long. I wrote it. I do not understand why Krivit left my name off of it. The demonstration was impressive in many ways, but it was also atrocious in other ways. They used inadequate instruments with no computer. George Miley turned to me and said something these are amateur instruments, aren't they? They sure were. I later found out this was deliberate. CETI wanted to impress Motorola but they wanted everyone else at PowerGen to think this was an amateur mistake. That's what Redding told me. That was one of the most mind-boggling statements I have ever heard. The whole thing was a farce in many ways. When I arrived at the hotel, at first they refused to let me confirm the results. I was fit to be tied. I told them I would leave at once, take the next plane back to Atlanta, and publish a note saying they reneged on their agreement. They reconsidered, so I was able to write that report. A few weeks later I found they were using it in their PR package, without telling me. Later Swartz published it in his newsletter, again without telling me. When I later published it, he accused me of plagiarizing it! If I had not confirmed the results with my own instruments, I would not have discovered the problems described in paragraph 6, and the whole test would have been wrong. Dennis Cravens set up this experiment. He knows much more about it than I do. Despite the problems, I think the results were real, but there was no follow up or independent confirmation so we cannot be sure. Unfortunately, Redding died soon after that, and Patterson lost heart and did not do much more research before he also died. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not?
I haven't seen the 22passi discussion, but it is easy to cast doubt on something that happened in the past without actually having been a part of the experiment. It is also disreputable to do so without any real evidence. I have the opportunity to visit with Dennis Cravens, who is only a few miles away. He shared with me some of the Patterson Cell details. As a retired Motorola researcher, I wanted to hear more about this story. Motorola wanted to buy rights to the Patterson Cell and Dennis was the one that demonstrated it at the Motorola headquarters in Schaumburg IL. I was in a research team in south FL and didn't get to see the demo. However, I was briefed because it was anticipated that Motorola would reach a deal with Patterson and we would have access to the technology for development. I still have some of the briefing documents. At the time, Dennis was working full time with Patterson. The Motorola deal fell through because Patterson wanted to retain more control of his technology - he was trying to create a business for his grandson to run - to set him up in business so to speak. Well, in unfortunate circumstances, Patterson's grandson died. Patterson had trouble replicating his process. Turns out that the plastic beads he used were acquired from a NASA microgravity experiment. They were unique. Second, between the time he made his original beads and when he tried to replicate them, the plating company had changed the formulation of their plating solution. Anyone familiar with electroplating knows about the brightener additives, and other additives that each company adds to try to differentiate their plating solutions. The brighteners are specifically there to modify grain size. Well, Patterson could never recover what he had originally used to produce the LENR-successful plated beads. He passed away without re-discovering a working formula. Dennis still has one of the original working cells at his lab (showed it to me) - one with the original beads and plating. Dr. George Miley has done some analysis of these beads, but apparently his objective was not replication of the original Patterson Cell, but to learn from them what can be applied to other Ni-H LENR. I have every reason to believe the original Patterson Cell results were true and correct. Bob Higgins On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: on 22passi, some skeptic refers to an old story of 1995 about CETI I don't understand all, but it seems not to be honest story? (remind me some greek sad joke, but I wait for confirmation) it seems covered by NET http://newenergytimes.com/v2/commerce/ceti/CETI-ColdFusionTechnologyMagazine.shtml can somene make a summary with latest news...
Re: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not?
Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: I haven't seen the 22passi discussion, but it is easy to cast doubt on something that happened in the past without actually having been a part of the experiment. It is also disreputable to do so without any real evidence. Well, my description is brief. It does not give you enough information to judge whether the results are real or not. I believe that is all anyone has to go on. Patterson never published enough to confirm the claim. In the report I did not say this were inadequate, amateur instruments but anyone reading my report will see that. It was inexcusable. It is reasonable to have doubts. I have the opportunity to visit with Dennis Cravens, who is only a few miles away. He shared with me some of the Patterson Cell details. As a retired Motorola researcher, I wanted to hear more about this story. . . . That's great! You should write down everything he tells you. Dennis is a great person but he does not write things down enough. His results are lost. The Motorola deal fell through because Patterson wanted to retain more control of his technology . . . He was a fool. He told me he wanted a 100% market share. I said you will end up with 100% of nothing. I was right. He took his secrets to the grave. . . . - he was trying to create a business for his grandson to run - to set him up in business so to speak. Well, in unfortunate circumstances, Patterson's grandson died. His grandson was Jim Redding; the person I referred to. He died suddenly in his 40s I think it was. I think it was after a tennis game. He was Patterson's granddaughter's husband. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not?
On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: The Motorola deal fell through because Patterson wanted to retain more control of his technology . . . He was a fool. He told me he wanted a 100% market share. I said you will end up with 100% of nothing. I was right. I think that description of Patterson is not as kind as Dennis described. Apparently Patterson's son was well established in business and he wanted to do what he could to get his grandson [as you say, his granddaughter's husband, Jim Redding] also firmly established in business. He may have been worried that with the Motorola deal, the way it was structured, he wouldn't be setting his grandson up the way he wished. He took his secrets to the grave. That is not the way that I recall Dennis telling me. Dennis said that Patterson was unable to replicate it himself after running out of his supply of NASA microgravity plastic beads and running out of his original plating solutions. So, I believe Patterson went to his grave without ever knowing what was the key missing (or changed) ingredient - he had lost the recipe. Perhaps he could eventually have re-discovered his recipe, but was apparently unmotivated after the loss of his grandson, and until his passing. Some original beads still exist - at least with Dennis. I asked Dennis why someone hadn't done a detailed micro/nano structural analysis by potting a bead and gradually sectioning it and doing ICP-MS on the metals. Dennis said that George Miley has done some of this, but has not applied what he learned to replicating the Patterson Cell. I don't think Miley's detailed analysis has been published.
Re: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not?
Alain: If you want to post a message at 22passi explaining that I wrote that, and you feel like copying my message posted here, go ahead. Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: He was a fool. He told me he wanted a 100% market share. I said you will end up with 100% of nothing. I was right. I think that description of Patterson is not as kind as Dennis described. Patterson and Redding both told me they wanted a 100% market share and they said they were delighted that other people did not believe the claims, because that reduced the chances of competition. I told them they were out of their minds. It was not a friendly exchange. He may have been worried that with the Motorola deal, the way it was structured, he wouldn't be setting his grandson up the way he wished. He was not in a position to bargain, especially since he refused to make the experiment convincing and -- as it turned out -- he could not replicate it. He should have settled for something rather than nothing, or he should have shopped around for a better deal. He took his secrets to the grave. That is not the way that I recall Dennis telling me. Dennis said that Patterson was unable to replicate it himself after running out of his supply of NASA microgravity plastic beads and running out of his original plating solutions. That's what I meant. He could not reproduce and he did not take steps to fix the problem. As far as I know, he didn't. Shortly before he died he told me, I can make more of these beads anytime I want. . . .but was apparently unmotivated after the loss of his grandson, and until his passing. He was depressed, which is understandable. He turned down help from various people. I tried to make him see the larger issues, and the fact that this was important for reasons beyond his personal life. I told him that mankind desperately needs this discovery, and he should try to make it work for that reason. He did not see it that way. Very few cold fusion researchers do. It is always their baby, and their private hobby. Patterson was more interested in making investments than doing cold fusion as I recall. Les Case was similar. It is a mindset I cannot understand. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not?
If it makes any difference, Jed confided in me this whole story when it happened. I found it appalling. Patterson wanted the $1M from Motorola but he wanted control of the secret. I had empathy for Motorola since they gave me my first job out of school and I wanted to see CF succeed. CETI could probably have easily have gotten a 40% share out of the batwings but they were greedy. It was a horrible story and we were devastated by it. On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Alain: If you want to post a message at 22passi explaining that I wrote that, and you feel like copying my message posted here, go ahead. Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: He was a fool. He told me he wanted a 100% market share. I said you will end up with 100% of nothing. I was right. I think that description of Patterson is not as kind as Dennis described. Patterson and Redding both told me they wanted a 100% market share and they said they were delighted that other people did not believe the claims, because that reduced the chances of competition. I told them they were out of their minds. It was not a friendly exchange. He may have been worried that with the Motorola deal, the way it was structured, he wouldn't be setting his grandson up the way he wished. He was not in a position to bargain, especially since he refused to make the experiment convincing and -- as it turned out -- he could not replicate it. He should have settled for something rather than nothing, or he should have shopped around for a better deal. He took his secrets to the grave. That is not the way that I recall Dennis telling me. Dennis said that Patterson was unable to replicate it himself after running out of his supply of NASA microgravity plastic beads and running out of his original plating solutions. That's what I meant. He could not reproduce and he did not take steps to fix the problem. As far as I know, he didn't. Shortly before he died he told me, I can make more of these beads anytime I want. . . .but was apparently unmotivated after the loss of his grandson, and until his passing. He was depressed, which is understandable. He turned down help from various people. I tried to make him see the larger issues, and the fact that this was important for reasons beyond his personal life. I told him that mankind desperately needs this discovery, and he should try to make it work for that reason. He did not see it that way. Very few cold fusion researchers do. It is always their baby, and their private hobby. Patterson was more interested in making investments than doing cold fusion as I recall. Les Case was similar. It is a mindset I cannot understand. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not?
As I recall, the deal was $10M, spread over various milestones of development. On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: If it makes any difference, Jed confided in me this whole story when it happened. I found it appalling. Patterson wanted the $1M from Motorola but he wanted control of the secret. I had empathy for Motorola since they gave me my first job out of school and I wanted to see CF succeed. CETI could probably have easily have gotten a 40% share out of the batwings but they were greedy. It was a horrible story and we were devastated by it. I was disappointed at the time, but not devastated. I expected Cold Fusion to rise out of the ashes and I would get to work on it when it became clear that it was real. It was not until Rossi's Ni-H claims that I was able to make a case to start a small project. This was just before I retired. When I left, I took the project with me. At the time of Patterson Cell, Bob Galvin was in charge - a man of real long term vision. He knew he didn't need to fully understand it to make money with it. He made a big leap and took Motorola into semiconductors when that technology was little beyond alchemy. He felt he could do the same with Cold Fusion (as it was told to me). After Bob Galvin left, Motorola slowly divested itself of most of its physical science research capability; and today, it may not be possible for Motorola to pursue such a project without re-tooling its workforce and facilities. Back in the early 90's Motorola could make at least one of anything in its labs and then drive it to product - if a UFO had been given to Motorola for back engineering in 1990, we would all be flying them now.
Re: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not?
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: If it makes any difference, Jed confided in me this whole story when it happened. I found it appalling. Patterson wanted the $1M from Motorola but he wanted control of the secret. I forgot that detail. Forgetting such things is a mercy. CETI could probably have easily have gotten a 40% share out of the batwings but they were greedy. It goes beyond greed into foolishness. It was a horrible story and we were devastated by it. I was hopping mad. I called Chris Tinsley. I was ranting and raving and carrying on. After a while he started laughing and said I have never heard you like this. It is a novelty. I started laughing too. It was appalling and yet ridiculous. Then Redding told me their plan was to calibrate the demonstration to make it *just appealing enough* to snag Motorola while at the same time it would look amateur and unreal to everyone else. That was the living end. I have never heard such nonsense in my life. I figured there was little chance these people would succeed. It was heartbreaking. Patterson Redding were nice fellows, and smart. I liked them personally. But Redding was a stock broker. That is a class of people I hold in low regard. Stock brokers should not be in charge of business strategy. That was the most nonsensical business strategy in cold fusion up until the day Defkalion got involved in the field. They were even more outrageous but I stopped taking them seriously after they cancelled the trip that I and others planned to make the 3rd or 4th time. By the time the Gamberale report showed up I figured they were either incompetent or dishonest, so we are not losing anything by their demise. From the outside, it is hard to distinguish between incompetent or dishonest. Gamberale was an insider. It is clear from his report that he considers them dishonest. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not?
Perhaps Patterson realized he didn't have anything which is why he blustered instead of accepting a deal that would only lead to disappointment. On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: As I recall, the deal was $10M, spread over various milestones of development. On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: If it makes any difference, Jed confided in me this whole story when it happened. I found it appalling. Patterson wanted the $1M from Motorola but he wanted control of the secret. I had empathy for Motorola since they gave me my first job out of school and I wanted to see CF succeed. CETI could probably have easily have gotten a 40% share out of the batwings but they were greedy. It was a horrible story and we were devastated by it. I was disappointed at the time, but not devastated. I expected Cold Fusion to rise out of the ashes and I would get to work on it when it became clear that it was real. It was not until Rossi's Ni-H claims that I was able to make a case to start a small project. This was just before I retired. When I left, I took the project with me. At the time of Patterson Cell, Bob Galvin was in charge - a man of real long term vision. He knew he didn't need to fully understand it to make money with it. He made a big leap and took Motorola into semiconductors when that technology was little beyond alchemy. He felt he could do the same with Cold Fusion (as it was told to me). After Bob Galvin left, Motorola slowly divested itself of most of its physical science research capability; and today, it may not be possible for Motorola to pursue such a project without re-tooling its workforce and facilities. Back in the early 90's Motorola could make at least one of anything in its labs and then drive it to product - if a UFO had been given to Motorola for back engineering in 1990, we would all be flying them now.
