Re: ICCF-11 papers are depressing
At 05:43 PM 5/2/2005, Rothwellwrote: This field is dying, and I cannot think of any way to save it. - Jed Utter nonsense. Cold fusion research and development is (and has been) very much alive. Success in the field requires advanced calculus, metallurgy and engineering. Much will be covered at the 2005 Cold Fusion Colloquium. http://world.std.com/~mica/colloq.html also: http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
Re: ICCF-11 papers are depressing
Wow Ed I don't think I've ever heard such optimism from you. It is certainly welcome! s At 09:42 AM 5/3/2005 -0600, you wrote: Quite the opposite, Jed. The field is moving forward on several fronts. The field has now changed in two important ways. People who have had some success are now exploring parameter space to improve the effect. This work is not being published because it has patent potential. In contrast, the effect is so hard to produce that most people have little to talk about, so they fill a meeting with theory. The evidence has now reached a critical mass so people who do not have an ego to protect realize an important reality has been discovered. Consequently, money is stating to flow into the field. As successful work is replicated and as a few of the methods reach large energy production rates, even the skeptics will be silenced and politicians will risk supporting the field. The problem now is only psychological. This is the time when people having courage and an open mind start down the road to fame and riches. Ed
RE: ICCF-11 papers are depressing
Michael Foster wrote: I wish everyone would give up on the electrolysis work. I think it's just an interesting dead end. No way to scale it up commercially. Agreed. Too much energyinvested into getting the effect. A bit soon to say anything for certain, but the 10 stacked (tissue paper spacer) Neodymium super magnets (10 mm OD x 5 mm ID)in 100 grams of distilled H2O (about ~ 10^19 deuterons/gram H2O) in well-insulated "cups" are showing a few degree C temperature rise over a 48 hour soak. At 1.0 milliwatts it should take 116 hours (4.8 days) to get 1.0 deg C temperature rise. A similar well-insulated cup with a ceramic magnet stack is showing lessor or null results. I've got about $10.00 US and plenty of free time invested in this thing so far. But, since the Neodymium super magnets are only good up to 8o deg Cif it pans out I have an eye on using it for nuke waste remediation. Maybe. Frederick
RE: ICCF-11 papers are depressing
Michael Foster wrote: I wouldn't be so depressed if I were you. There are plenty of us out there doing CF research with very encouraging results who are just not publishing anything until the patent situation changes. Frankly, I doubt there are any that could rival Szpak or Iwamura I wish everyone would give up on the electrolysis work. Most of the experimental papers are about glow discharge or ion beam work. - Jed
Re: ICCF-11 papers are depressing
Jed Rothwell wrote: These ICCF-11 papers are depressing. There are only a few experimental papers. Most are reviews of old work, or papers about theory. As far as I can tell, most of the theory is of the crackpot variety, and usually about subjects unrelated to CF, such as POSSIBLE NUCLEAR TRANSMUTATION OF NITROGEN IN THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE. This field is dying, and I cannot think of any way to save it. Quite the opposite, Jed. The field is moving forward on several fronts. The field has now changed in two important ways. People who have had some success are now exploring parameter space to improve the effect. This work is not being published because it has patent potential. In contrast, the effect is so hard to produce that most people have little to talk about, so they fill a meeting with theory. The evidence has now reached a critical mass so people who do not have an ego to protect realize an important reality has been discovered. Consequently, money is stating to flow into the field. As successful work is replicated and as a few of the methods reach large energy production rates, even the skeptics will be silenced and politicians will risk supporting the field. The problem now is only psychological. This is the time when people having courage and an open mind start down the road to fame and riches. Ed - Jed
RE: ICCF-11 papers are depressing
Hey Fred, Can you get some of the magnets up to the curie point to demagnetize them? That would make a much better control than the ceramics. A propane torch might work on a small NdFeB, ceramics will break unless you use a furnace. K. -Original Message- From: Frederick Sparber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 9:07 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: ICCF-11 papers are depressing Michael Foster wrote: I wish everyone would give up on the electrolysis work. I think it's just an interesting dead end. No way to scale it up commercially. Agreed. Too much energy invested into getting the effect. A bit soon to say anything for certain, but the 10 stacked (tissue paper spacer) Neodymium super magnets (10 mm OD x 5 mm ID)in 100 grams of distilled H2O (about ~ 10^19 deuterons/gram H2O) in well-insulated cups are showing a few degree C temperature rise over a 48 hour soak. At 1.0 milliwatts it should take 116 hours (4.8 days) to get 1.0 deg C temperature rise. A similar well-insulated cup with a ceramic magnet stack is showing lessor or null results. I've got about $10.00 US and plenty of free time invested in this thing so far. But, since the Neodymium super magnets are only good up to 8o deg C if it pans out I have an eye on using it for nuke waste remediation. Maybe. Frederick
RE: ICCF-11 papers are depressing
--- On Tue 05/03, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Foster wrote; I wouldn't be so depressed if I were you. There are plenty of us out there doing CF research with very encouraging results who are just not publishing anything until the patent situation changes. Frankly, I doubt there are any that could rival Szpak or Iwamura Don't be too sure about that. M. ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
Re: ICCF-11 papers are depressing
Hmmm. Not good. At 05:43 PM 5/2/2005 -0400, you wrote: These ICCF-11 papers are depressing. There are only a few experimental papers. Most are reviews of old work, or papers about theory. As far as I can tell, most of the theory is of the crackpot variety, and usually about subjects unrelated to CF, such as POSSIBLE NUCLEAR TRANSMUTATION OF NITROGEN IN THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE. This field is dying, and I cannot think of any way to save it. - Jed
RE: ICCF-11 papers are depressing
I wouldn't be so depressed if I were you. There are plenty of us out there doing CF research with very encouraging results who are just not publishing anything until the patent situation changes. I wish everyone would give up on the electrolysis work. I think it's just an interesting dead end. No way to scale it up commercially. M. --- On Mon 05/02, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These ICCF-11 papers are depressing. There are only a few experimental papers. Most are reviews of old work, or papers about theory. As far as I can tell, most of the theory is of the crackpot variety, and usually about subjects unrelated to CF, such as POSSIBLE NUCLEAR TRANSMUTATION OF NITROGEN IN THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE. This field is dying, and I cannot think of any way to save it. - Jed ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
RE: ICCF-11 papers are depressing
Hi Jed, Mike's right. Electrolysis is a dead end. It's too difficult to control, and messy besides. There are still electroplating plants around, but they have largely been displaced by higher energy deposition processes. Same with CF. Also, with no property rights extended to CF research, I wouldn't be expecting a lot of public research of any value anymore. If you want to see public domain CF work, open up your pocketbook and fund it, or do it yourself. Your library is a good resource; it's what you do to keep the public face of the field going, so do that. K. -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 5:44 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: ICCF-11 papers are depressing These ICCF-11 papers are depressing. There are only a few experimental papers. Most are reviews of old work, or papers about theory. As far as I can tell, most of the theory is of the crackpot variety, and usually about subjects unrelated to CF, such as POSSIBLE NUCLEAR TRANSMUTATION OF NITROGEN IN THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE. This field is dying, and I cannot think of any way to save it. - Jed
