RE: [Vo]:Miles' "new recipe" for codeposition
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message: >1. Cathode wire will be gold, 0.010 inch diameter. Galileo was >silver. Gold is chosen because later SPAWAR work showed much more >neutron evidence with a gold cathode. I'd say that nobody knows why. >But it's neutrons I'll be looking for. I suspect that Au is heavy enough to fission when it occasionally fuses with D, yielding a few excess neutrons. Here is an oldie but goodie, from 1946 http://www.jstor.org/pss/97856 gold irradiated with slow neutrons shows strong activity; and even though it is beta decay in this study, I'd be surprised if the neutrons which show up are not related somehow (spallation from the beta?)
Re: [Vo]:Miles' "new recipe" for codeposition
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:27:12 -0400: Hi, [snip] >1. Cathode wire will be gold, 0.010 inch diameter. Galileo was >silver. Gold is chosen because later SPAWAR work showed much more >neutron evidence with a gold cathode. I'd say that nobody knows why. >But it's neutrons I'll be looking for. I suspect that Au is heavy enough to fission when it occasionally fuses with D, yielding a few excess neutrons. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Miles' "new recipe" for codeposition
I' m really grateful for this report of your interesting work. I have to confess that my priority and focus are different- I hope that CF will lead to an energy technology. However I will follow you progress with total empathy and with all my crossable parts crossed. More in my other message. Have now urgent work to do for my employer- UPC Romania- in the US it is Liberty Global a great ISP, I am the editor of their local newsletter. Websearch. On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:27 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > At 03:52 PM 3/24/2010, Peter Gluck wrote: > >> If I understand you correctly, you are performing experimental work and >> your ideas are based on this. Like exploring parameter space. Can you be so >> kind to tell here or on my personal address, in complete confidentiality >> what are the peak results as excess heat >> and reproducibility you have obtained? Thank you in advance! >> > > I've been very open about what I've done and not done, and my results will > be openly presented as soon as they are available. I have not run cells yet, > and I'm not studying excess heat, having decided that this is not compatible > with my goals, which I'll explain. > > I came across the resurgence of research in cold fusion as an editor of > Wikipedia in January of last year. I had followed the work in 1989-1990, > even buying $10,000 worth of palladium as an investment on the speculation > that it might turn out to be commercially useful. Don't worry, I didn't buy > futures, I could have lost my shirt! I just put $10,000 into a palladium > metal account at Credit Suisse. Basically broke even, unless you count the > lost interest as a loss. > > I had concluded, with nearly everyone else, that it was a bust, > experimental error, a mistake. However, last January, I saw, on Wikipedia, > an instance of administrative abuse, the web site lenr-canr.org was > blacklisted without adequate reason. As I looked at the article, I started > to read the sources, and I do have adequate education to understand most of > what I read. > > I read enough sources to change my mind. And when I tried to bring the > Wikipedia article into compliance with Wikipedia neutrality policy, and to > make a long story short, I was banned from discussing that topic. But at the > same time, a business idea had occurred to me, that could not only assist in > shifting public perception of cold fusion, but that might also make a little > money. Not a lot of money, but enough, I hope, to recover my investment in > time and money. > > The idea was to design kits to reproduce solid cold fusion experiments, > cheaply, so cheaply and so reliably that these could be sold even to high > school students for science fair projects. There is, I'm sure, a market. It > also turns out that the same conditions (cheap, reliable) would make these > kits valuable, as well, to a subclass of researchers in the field. > > I have assembled all the materials, and what is holding me back is only my > own distraction, I'm running a textile business and have other interests as > well. I've designed the experiment, and have discussed it widely. It is > basically a Galileo project replication, I didn't want to try something > truly wild and untested. In case you don't know, the Galileo protocol, > copied by a number of workers, including amateurs, in 2007, was designed by > Pam Boss of SPAWAR, and the goal was to look for radiation, measurement of > heat was not a part of the protocol. > > I began with actual testing by looking at CR-39. For the moment, that was a > blind alley for me, I won't explain why here, but I'm going to be using > LR-115 SSNTDs instead. I expect that I will later move to CR-39. So far, the > only actual experiments I have done have been with commercial makrolon > CR-39, and I essentially found that the material I first tried was not > usable at all, and all that will be documented, I don't want people to > repeat my errors. I don't expect any problems with LR-115, it's very > commonly used for radon measurements, and I have fresh material. (But I'll > test it anyway, soon.) > > I chose the Galileo protocol because it was much better documented (by > Steve Krivit) than any other protocol, down to photographs of assembly and > other details. It is codeposition, which has a reputation of being reliable, > with results sooner than with solid cathode approaches (Fleischmann cells). > > I will not be doing an exact replication, however, and I'm aware of the > risks, and if I don't see results at first, I will assume that some > variation is possibly behind that. However, what I'm varying shouldn't > affect the results, that's why I'm risking it, and there are improvements > that I gain because of these changes. > > 1. Cathode wire will be gold, 0.010 inch diameter. Galileo was silver. Gold > is chosen because later SPAWAR work showed much more neutron evidence with a > gold cathode. I'd say that nobody knows why. But it's neutrons I'll be > looking for. > > 2. T
Re: [Vo]:Miles' "new recipe" for codeposition
Thank you for reading that old paper. An other idea is the the process is very superficial and extremely local and this was not taken in account by the theorists. Because you was very nice to explain me your personal program in the field, I want to tell you with absolute sincerity what I think about the CF problem in toto. a) my interest is strongly focused on CF as an energy source, I consider theory as a means and not an aims, b) obviously nuclear emisions and other nuclear reactions are intersting but secondary to energy generation; c) the slow development of the field is something very bad - am 73 years old and have slight chances to see the start of technological applications, but perhaps this tragedy is both alleviated and enhanced by the fact that the field is developing in a bad direction d) by far the worse thing is the palladium dependence of the field; palladium is very rare element you can calculate how much energy can be obtained with say 100 W/sq.cm Pd and a maximum of 100 tonnes of palladium used, and palladium is a consumable stuff in this case e) electrolysis seems to be compulsory for decent results and electrolysis is very bad for engineering, dry sytems (with the exception of the Piantelli and Focardi Rossi H/Ni that's different, and we have plenty of Nickel, thanks to Nature!) f) In 2005 Steve Krivit an I have made a survey and the results both regarding understanding what happens and of what happens really will be catastrophic after two stages of improvement. If we repeat this survey today, will it say different more optimistic thngs? g) Can Melvin's recent results change this in a radical, convincimg way? (Stan Szpak has invented co-deposition many years ago- the method generates a cleaner surface with good morphology but its efficiency has limits) But let's see the results Miles has obtained. h) I adore intersting things but I consider that it is my duty to do useful ones. When I have digested mentally the results of the survey I decided that I will observe with care what happens in the field but my emotional implication will not be more deep. I am now the editor of a great (as volume) weekly Romanian language newsletter specialized in websearch and real-life problem solving. Trying to develop rules for "good thinking". You can find a part of my ideas searching "peter gluck septoes" I have lost hope that anybody will take my poisononig hypothesis seriously- there are no high vacuum specialists there- the only people who have a right idea about how dirty is a surface, the oither think naively that there are Pd atoms at the very surface of a palladium cathode. Stimulation methods as Dennis Letts' and Deninis Craven's laser irradiation are good because they clean in situ a few active sites of Pd. Limited efficiency. I perfectly know that this message will be ignored by almost everybody. All I can do is to hope that Randy Mills' and the Piantelli method will succeed. On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > At 03:52 PM 3/24/2010, Peter Gluck wrote: > >> www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GluckPunderstand.pdf >> > > Very interesting. I picked up particularly on the comment that > > paradoxically, lack of reproducibility has an amazingly great informational > value. > > That's absolutely right, except in narrow circumstances. If one person > makes a report, and nobody can replicate, and especially if the one person > can't replicate later, and this persists, we have an unconfirmed anomaly > which can have, easily, prosaic explanations, that may have nothing to do > with any new discovery. > > But when replication is merely difficult and erratic, this is clear > evidence that there are unknown processes at work. I.e., if multiple > workers, with different materials, find a variety of results, the first > presumption should be that there are unidentified variables, such as, say, > you mention, sulfur contamination or something else. > > > > >
Re: [Vo]: Miles' "new recipe" for codeposition
2010.03.24 Hi Abd, here's my two or three bits for your cells: 1. Cooperate closely with Melvin H Miles to replicate small, cheap replications of his protocol -- I respected his quality in the ACS panel video. 2. Fractal nanostructures mean that, as in the Mandelbulb 3D version of the 2D Mandelbrot set, the "surface" and the "volume" are the same, especially near the "surface" -- so nanobubbles or fractal films of D2 and O2 could evolve in proximity in great numbers, not reacting until a critical density, local temperature, or catalytic impurity centers evolve, in which case explosive waves of recombination could create hot spots leading to complex metal foams -- which could be additional heat sources, be a result of LENR, disrupt LENR, or initiate LENR, in micro and nano regions. 3. Put your cells live online realtime with video and measurements, along with your lab blog and an uncensored, civil, public discussion forum. 4. Charge $ 200/kit -- put up a public ledger of all income and costs, so the evolving collaborative network starts to function with a sense of shared ownership. 5. I imagined that plastic cell walls might be releasing surprisingly complex molecules in large enough numbers to coat the fractal reaction surfaces and any evolving D2 and O2 microbubbles, preventing them from recombining until a higher critical density is reached -- or interfering with the diffusion of D2 and O2 into Au and Pd surfaces and the release of any produced H24, which could radically poison and limit LENR -- so set up control cells of glass with H2 and D2. Glass can be drilled with cheap ultrasonic tools. 6. Microacoustic sensors may offer important additional channels of information, capable of generating data about temporal and spatial locations of LENR events. 7. Some control cells should have tiny stirrers to see how thorough mixing affects things -- even a spinning glass ball on a fiber could suffice. 8. I, too, want LENR to rapidly, radically benefit our world. with hope, Rich Murray - Original Message - From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" To: ; Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 5:27 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miles' "new recipe" for codeposition At 03:52 PM 3/24/2010, Peter Gluck wrote: If I understand you correctly, you are performing experimental work and your ideas are based on this. Like exploring parameter space. Can you be so kind to tell here or on my personal address, in complete confidentiality what are the peak results as excess heat and reproducibility you have obtained? Thank you in advance! I've been very open about what I've done and not done, and my results will be openly presented as soon as they are available. I have not run cells yet, and I'm not studying excess heat, having decided that this is not compatible with my goals, which I'll explain. I came across the resurgence of research in cold fusion as an editor of Wikipedia in January of last year. I had followed the work in 1989-1990, even buying $10,000 worth of palladium as an investment on the speculation that it might turn out to be commercially useful. Don't worry, I didn't buy futures, I could have lost my shirt! I just put $10,000 into a palladium metal account at Credit Suisse. Basically broke even, unless you count the lost interest as a loss. I had concluded, with nearly everyone else, that it was a bust, experimental error, a mistake. However, last January, I saw, on Wikipedia, an instance of administrative abuse, the web site lenr-canr.org was blacklisted without adequate reason. As I looked at the article, I started to read the sources, and I do have adequate education to understand most of what I read. I read enough sources to change my mind. And when I tried to bring the Wikipedia article into compliance with Wikipedia neutrality policy, and to make a long story short, I was banned from discussing that topic. But at the same time, a business idea had occurred to me, that could not only assist in shifting public perception of cold fusion, but that might also make a little money. Not a lot of money, but enough, I hope, to recover my investment in time and money. The idea was to design kits to reproduce solid cold fusion experiments, cheaply, so cheaply and so reliably that these could be sold even to high school students for science fair projects. There is, I'm sure, a market. It also turns out that the same conditions (cheap, reliable) would make these kits valuable, as well, to a subclass of researchers in the field. I have assembled all the materials, and what is holding me back is only my own distraction, I'm running a textile business and have other interests as well. I've designed the experiment, and have discussed it widely. It is basically a Galileo project replication, I didn't want to try something truly wild and untested.
Re: [Vo]:Miles' "new recipe" for codeposition
At 03:52 PM 3/24/2010, Peter Gluck wrote: www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GluckPunderstand.pdf Very interesting. I picked up particularly on the comment that paradoxically, lack of reproducibility has an amazingly great informational value. That's absolutely right, except in narrow circumstances. If one person makes a report, and nobody can replicate, and especially if the one person can't replicate later, and this persists, we have an unconfirmed anomaly which can have, easily, prosaic explanations, that may have nothing to do with any new discovery. But when replication is merely difficult and erratic, this is clear evidence that there are unknown processes at work. I.e., if multiple workers, with different materials, find a variety of results, the first presumption should be that there are unidentified variables, such as, say, you mention, sulfur contamination or something else.
Re: [Vo]:Miles' "new recipe" for codeposition
At 03:52 PM 3/24/2010, Peter Gluck wrote: If I understand you correctly, you are performing experimental work and your ideas are based on this. Like exploring parameter space. Can you be so kind to tell here or on my personal address, in complete confidentiality what are the peak results as excess heat and reproducibility you have obtained? Thank you in advance! I've been very open about what I've done and not done, and my results will be openly presented as soon as they are available. I have not run cells yet, and I'm not studying excess heat, having decided that this is not compatible with my goals, which I'll explain. I came across the resurgence of research in cold fusion as an editor of Wikipedia in January of last year. I had followed the work in 1989-1990, even buying $10,000 worth of palladium as an investment on the speculation that it might turn out to be commercially useful. Don't worry, I didn't buy futures, I could have lost my shirt! I just put $10,000 into a palladium metal account at Credit Suisse. Basically broke even, unless you count the lost interest as a loss. I had concluded, with nearly everyone else, that it was a bust, experimental error, a mistake. However, last January, I saw, on Wikipedia, an instance of administrative abuse, the web site lenr-canr.org was blacklisted without adequate reason. As I looked at the article, I started to read the sources, and I do have adequate education to understand most of what I read. I read enough sources to change my mind. And when I tried to bring the Wikipedia article into compliance with Wikipedia neutrality policy, and to make a long story short, I was banned from discussing that topic. But at the same time, a business idea had occurred to me, that could not only assist in shifting public perception of cold fusion, but that might also make a little money. Not a lot of money, but enough, I hope, to recover my investment in time and money. The idea was to design kits to reproduce solid cold fusion experiments, cheaply, so cheaply and so reliably that these could be sold even to high school students for science fair projects. There is, I'm sure, a market. It also turns out that the same conditions (cheap, reliable) would make these kits valuable, as well, to a subclass of researchers in the field. I have assembled all the materials, and what is holding me back is only my own distraction, I'm running a textile business and have other interests as well. I've designed the experiment, and have discussed it widely. It is basically a Galileo project replication, I didn't want to try something truly wild and untested. In case you don't know, the Galileo protocol, copied by a number of workers, including amateurs, in 2007, was designed by Pam Boss of SPAWAR, and the goal was to look for radiation, measurement of heat was not a part of the protocol. I began with actual testing by looking at CR-39. For the moment, that was a blind alley for me, I won't explain why here, but I'm going to be using LR-115 SSNTDs instead. I expect that I will later move to CR-39. So far, the only actual experiments I have done have been with commercial makrolon CR-39, and I essentially found that the material I first tried was not usable at all, and all that will be documented, I don't want people to repeat my errors. I don't expect any problems with LR-115, it's very commonly used for radon measurements, and I have fresh material. (But I'll test it anyway, soon.) I chose the Galileo protocol because it was much better documented (by Steve Krivit) than any other protocol, down to photographs of assembly and other details. It is codeposition, which has a reputation of being reliable, with results sooner than with solid cathode approaches (Fleischmann cells). I will not be doing an exact replication, however, and I'm aware of the risks, and if I don't see results at first, I will assume that some variation is possibly behind that. However, what I'm varying shouldn't affect the results, that's why I'm risking it, and there are improvements that I gain because of these changes. 1. Cathode wire will be gold, 0.010 inch diameter. Galileo was silver. Gold is chosen because later SPAWAR work showed much more neutron evidence with a gold cathode. I'd say that nobody knows why. But it's neutrons I'll be looking for. 2. The wire will be shortened from the Galileo length. The amount of palladium chloride in the electrolyte will be proportionally lessened, and the current will be proportionally lessened, so that current density remains the same as Galileo. In theory, this should leave local wire conditions exactly the same, simply reducing the active surface area. As a result, deuterium oxide consumption should be proportionally reduced as well. The single most expensive item in one of these cells is the heavy water, I'm using 99.9% D2O. 25 grams in a cell. That's a little less than what Galileo used
Re: [Vo]:Miles' "new recipe" for codeposition
As with people, genius cathodes are rare- Martin and Stanley had one, Mizuno
had the best, Energetics had cathode no 64, Piantelli had one in the early
stage of development.. I have no complete list just now. Perhaps Jed is more
systematic than me.
Air is polluted almost everywhere, I am not speaking only about CO2 but
about gases with content of N and S. Do you know my old paper? I would not
reject a line from it.
www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/*Gluck*Punderstand.pdf
If I understand you correctly, you are performing experimental work and your
ideas are based on this. Like exploring parameter space. Can you be so kind
to tell here or on my personal address, in complete confidentiality what are
the peak results as excess heat
and reproducibility you have obtained? Thank you in advance!
peter
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
> At 12:33 PM 3/24/2010, Peter Gluck wrote:
>
>> Thank you, Abd! We have to wait anyway till we know Melvin's results.
>>
>> However, based on my long experience in the field I think that the
>> cathodes belong to three
>> categories or castes - inactive, talented (10- 30% heat excess) and
>> geniuses (say 500& excess or more)
>>
>
> This would refer to Fleischmannn cell cathodes, apparently.
>
>
> I have never met an example of converting an inactive cathode in a
>> talented one,
>> or a cathode in a genius by exploring the parameter space. Cathodes are
>> born not made, cannot be educated - their maximum performanves are an issue
>> of kismet, or of technological genetics.
>> I would be enchanted if you or other colleagues could contradict me with
>> real life examples.
>> This has lead me to the idea that actually cathodes are deadly poisoned,
>> poisoned in part and protected against poisoning by some lucky and rare
>> event.
>>
>
> It's a reasonably hypothesis, though the more common explanation is that
> microstructure is the issue. Could be both.
>
> My view is that Fleischmann cells are too persnickety to explore, and since
> we know that the effect is a surface effect, approaches that maximize
> surface area would seem to be appropriate. And it is essential that the
> problem of variability be addressed. If there is poisoning, it's essential
> to identify the poison. Or catalyst, the flip side of that coin.
>
> And that is done by "exploring the parameter space." The goal is to find
> stable conditions that always show the effect, even if it is small. Then
> modify one variable at a time, always comparing results with controls. As an
> approach is found to be interesting, and it's stable in results, it becomes
> the new control. Say you think carbon dioxide is a poison. So, vary the CO2
> concentration (or CO2 exposure of the cathode, say during fabrication) and
> see if it has any effect on results.
>
> This is what I'm doing, in fact, working on a standard experiment that is
> cheap and simple and easy to reproduce.
>
> The approach is codeposition, which has a reputation for reliability and
> immediate results. The cathode is fabricated as part of the experimental
> process, so there is no dependence on very quirky and cumbersome
> fabrication. If I have two codep cells next to each other, and the physical
> design is the same ("identical" doesn't exist in an absolute sense, but does
> in relative terms), and they are in series for electrolysis, so the current
> history is the same, and the chemicals are from the same batches, and in the
> same concentrations, and the atmosphere in which they sit is the same, I'm
> expecting that results will be more or less the same.
>
> However, since neutron radiation is very much out of the norm, and I can
> stick control radiation detectors in lots of places, including on the cells
> other than the experimental location (close to the cathode), I will actually
> be running a light water control. The only difference: light water instead
> of heavy water. And then I can run the same experiment over and over to see
> how constant and dependable the results are. And others will be able to run
> exactly the same experiment, cheaply, because I'm selling those same
> materials.
>
> And when there is a body of results with that simple set, then all kinds of
> interesting possibilities open up. I'm using 99.9% D20. What if I add a
> percent of light water? If I get the same results (not more than 1% less,
> which is negligible for my purposes), then I can save money for my customers
> by switching to 99% D2O, or maybe 98%. I can run a cell with
> deuterium-depleted water and see if there is any difference. That
> experiment, though, would probably come much later, because right now I'm
> not aiming for heat at all, just for NAE and neutrons from the secondary
> reactions SPAWAR has reported.
>
> I like neutrons, don't you? Even a few means "nuclear," as long as they can
> clearly be distinguished from background.
>
> Neutrons are sexy.
>
> I'll also be watching, literally, for visual and acoustic phenomena, using
> a
Re: [Vo]:Miles' "new recipe" for codeposition
At 12:33 PM 3/24/2010, Peter Gluck wrote:
Thank you, Abd! We have to wait anyway till we know Melvin's results.
However, based on my long experience in the field I think that the
cathodes belong to three
categories or castes - inactive, talented (10- 30% heat excess) and
geniuses (say 500& excess or more)
This would refer to Fleischmannn cell cathodes, apparently.
I have never met an example of converting an inactive cathode in a
talented one,
or a cathode in a genius by exploring the parameter space. Cathodes
are born not made, cannot be educated - their maximum performanves
are an issue of kismet, or of technological genetics.
I would be enchanted if you or other colleagues could contradict me
with real life examples.
This has lead me to the idea that actually cathodes are deadly
poisoned, poisoned in part and protected against poisoning by some
lucky and rare event.
It's a reasonably hypothesis, though the more common explanation is
that microstructure is the issue. Could be both.
My view is that Fleischmann cells are too persnickety to explore, and
since we know that the effect is a surface effect, approaches that
maximize surface area would seem to be appropriate. And it is
essential that the problem of variability be addressed. If there is
poisoning, it's essential to identify the poison. Or catalyst, the
flip side of that coin.
And that is done by "exploring the parameter space." The goal is to
find stable conditions that always show the effect, even if it is
small. Then modify one variable at a time, always comparing results
with controls. As an approach is found to be interesting, and it's
stable in results, it becomes the new control. Say you think carbon
dioxide is a poison. So, vary the CO2 concentration (or CO2 exposure
of the cathode, say during fabrication) and see if it has any effect
on results.
This is what I'm doing, in fact, working on a standard experiment
that is cheap and simple and easy to reproduce.
The approach is codeposition, which has a reputation for reliability
and immediate results. The cathode is fabricated as part of the
experimental process, so there is no dependence on very quirky and
cumbersome fabrication. If I have two codep cells next to each other,
and the physical design is the same ("identical" doesn't exist in an
absolute sense, but does in relative terms), and they are in series
for electrolysis, so the current history is the same, and the
chemicals are from the same batches, and in the same concentrations,
and the atmosphere in which they sit is the same, I'm expecting that
results will be more or less the same.
However, since neutron radiation is very much out of the norm, and I
can stick control radiation detectors in lots of places, including on
the cells other than the experimental location (close to the
cathode), I will actually be running a light water control. The only
difference: light water instead of heavy water. And then I can run
the same experiment over and over to see how constant and dependable
the results are. And others will be able to run exactly the same
experiment, cheaply, because I'm selling those same materials.
And when there is a body of results with that simple set, then all
kinds of interesting possibilities open up. I'm using 99.9% D20. What
if I add a percent of light water? If I get the same results (not
more than 1% less, which is negligible for my purposes), then I can
save money for my customers by switching to 99% D2O, or maybe 98%. I
can run a cell with deuterium-depleted water and see if there is any
difference. That experiment, though, would probably come much later,
because right now I'm not aiming for heat at all, just for NAE and
neutrons from the secondary reactions SPAWAR has reported.
I like neutrons, don't you? Even a few means "nuclear," as long as
they can clearly be distinguished from background.
Neutrons are sexy.
I'll also be watching, literally, for visual and acoustic phenomena,
using a microscope trained on the cathode and piezoelectric sensors
attached to the cell.
Re: [Vo]:Miles' "new recipe" for codeposition
Thank you, Abd! We have to wait anyway till we know Melvin's results. However, based on my long experience in the field I think that the cathodes belong to three categories or castes - inactive, talented (10- 30% heat excess) and geniuses (say 500& excess or more) I have never met an example of converting an inactive cathode in a talented one, or a cathode in a genius by exploring the parameter space. Cathodes are born not made, cannot be educated - their maximum performanves are an issue of kismet, or of technological genetics. I would be enchanted if you or other colleagues could contradict me with real life examples. This has lead me to the idea that actually cathodes are deadly poisoned, poisoned in part and protected against poisoning by some lucky and rare event. On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > At 02:07 AM 3/24/2010, Peter Gluck wrote: > >> This leads to a question: >> What is better? >> >> a) 6 times~ 10% heat excess >> b) 2 times 500% heat excess, 4 times...no heat excess >> >> Taking in account that 10% is a scientific curiosity, 500% is of >> technological interest. >> By the way, what are the performances of Melvin Miles' system? >> >> Thank you for any opinion/information. >> peter >> > > The more reliable result is more interesting. I recommend listening to > Hagelstein's comments in that press conference. He talked about parameter > space. When results aren't reliable, exploring the parameter space is very > difficult, and then optimization is very difficult. > > Suppose we have a product using the (b) technology. One time out of three > it produces 500% energy, the other two it's a dud. Could you sell this > product? Maybe. If you could make these cells very small, you could make a > product with hundreds of them in it, and then get 133% heat excess. Probably > not good enough, though, unless it is very cheap. (Improved Efficiency Hot > Water Heater). > > 10% heat excess, if it's reliable, can then be explored, one step at a > time, one parameter at a time, in controlled experiments building up a > knowledge of the parameter space. It can be optimized and through this it > may be possible to improve the yield. Maybe improve it a lot. Maybe even > improve it to 400% excess. > > An additional problem is that when results aren't reliable, theoretical > exploration and testing is very difficult as well. > > Miles is on the right track. I didn't go down the excess heat path in my > kit design, because calorimetry was difficult and expensive, I was told. He > might be changing that. But I'm eager to see his results. > >
Re: [Vo]:Miles' "new recipe" for codeposition
At 02:07 AM 3/24/2010, Peter Gluck wrote: This leads to a question: What is better? a) 6 times~ 10% heat excess b) 2 times 500% heat excess, 4 times...no heat excess Taking in account that 10% is a scientific curiosity, 500% is of technological interest. By the way, what are the performances of Melvin Miles' system? Thank you for any opinion/information. peter The more reliable result is more interesting. I recommend listening to Hagelstein's comments in that press conference. He talked about parameter space. When results aren't reliable, exploring the parameter space is very difficult, and then optimization is very difficult. Suppose we have a product using the (b) technology. One time out of three it produces 500% energy, the other two it's a dud. Could you sell this product? Maybe. If you could make these cells very small, you could make a product with hundreds of them in it, and then get 133% heat excess. Probably not good enough, though, unless it is very cheap. (Improved Efficiency Hot Water Heater). 10% heat excess, if it's reliable, can then be explored, one step at a time, one parameter at a time, in controlled experiments building up a knowledge of the parameter space. It can be optimized and through this it may be possible to improve the yield. Maybe improve it a lot. Maybe even improve it to 400% excess. An additional problem is that when results aren't reliable, theoretical exploration and testing is very difficult as well. Miles is on the right track. I didn't go down the excess heat path in my kit design, because calorimetry was difficult and expensive, I was told. He might be changing that. But I'm eager to see his results.
Re: [Vo]:Miles' "new recipe" for codeposition
This leads to a question: What is better? a) 6 times~ 10% heat excess b) 2 times 500% heat excess, 4 times...no heat excess Taking in account that 10% is a scientific curiosity, 500% is of technological interest. By the way, what are the performances of Melvin Miles' system? Thank you for any opinion/information. peter On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: > In the ACS press conference video Miles states he has a new recipe for > codeposition that produced excess heat 6 out of 6 times. Is there a copy of > his paper available yet, or any other information? > > Best regards, > > Horace Heffner > http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ > > > > >
Re: [Vo]:Miles' "new recipe" for codeposition
At 08:03 PM 3/23/2010, Horace Heffner wrote: In the ACS press conference video Miles states he has a new recipe for codeposition that produced excess heat 6 out of 6 times. Is there a copy of his paper available yet, or any other information? My general impression has been that codeposition is relatively reliable. That is, if the conditions are the same, the results are similar. Flieschmann cells are famously dependent upon microstructure of the palladium cathodes. But I don't know from experience yet. Yeah, I noticed the comment by Miles, and he's thinking a little along the same lines as I am. $50 calorimeter sounds pretty interesting to me. I'll be very interested, indeed. I've not been aiming toward calorimetry, and I'd rather watch the cell. But there are lots of possibilities. I have a USB microscope that would fit in that calorimeter, I think.
