Re: [Vo]:Neutron, Proton and Positron
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Joseph S. Barrera III jbarr...@slac.stanford.edu wrote: On 5/3/2013 2:02 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Are you guys positing that a proton is (u, u, d) and a neutron is (u, u, d, e+) but only until you probe it at high energies at which point it suddenly looks like (u, d, d)? Wouldn't it make more sense if the neutron were always (u, d, d)? - Joe What I am saying is that neutrons and protons conform to the quark models (u,u,d) and (u,u,d) when they are probed at high energies. At lower energies they are different. harry Harry
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Again, hardly an attack on the strongest of the arguments of the opposing proposition. Please, let's have some intellectual honesty for a change. On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua Cude is right -- today, 24 years after 1989, is there any lab anywhere that has a single running cold fusion genre experiment that produces verifiable anomalies? With global exponential evolution in all fields concurrent with the Net... I like that Widom and Larsen vividly discuss a huge spectrum of anomalies -- any current running examples? I'm also very willing to be astonished... within the fellowship of service, Rich On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:41 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: I don't know whether to thank you for providing emotional comfort for my working hypothesis that cold fusion's excess heat is a real effect, or whether to curse you for providing such a poor excuse for skepticism that it will lead guys like me to become lax in our genuine skepticism. Going off like this on a single editorial of a single guy -- actually a relatively inconsequential guy when all is said and done -- like Haglestein is pretty far from attacking the strongest argument of the opposing proposition. Stuff like this reminds me of the bad effects of playing an inferior chess or tennis player. I guess I'll stick with cursing you. On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: The recent editorial in Infinite Energy by Hagelstein represents the incoherent ramblings of a bitter man who is beginning to realize he has wasted 25 years of his career, but is deathly afraid to admit it. He spends a lot of time talking about consensus and experiment and evidence and theory and destroyed careers and suppression but scarcely raises the issue of the *quality* of the evidence. That's cold fusion's problem: the quality of the evidence is abysmal -- not better than the evidence for bigfoot, alien visits, dowsing, homeopathy and a dozen other pathological sciences. And an extraordinary claim *does* require excellent evidence. By not facing this issue, and simply ploughing ahead as if the evidence is as good as the Wright brothers' Paris flight in 1908, he loses the confidence of all but true believers that he is being completely honest and forthright. *1. On consensus* Hagelstein starts out with the science-by-consensus straw man, suggesting that consensus was used in connection with the question of the existence of an excess heat effect in the Fleischmann-Pons experiment. Please! No one with any familiarity with the history of science thinks consensus defines truth (which I think is what he's suggesting scientists believe). If it did, the ptolemaic solar system would still be taught in school, and time would still be absolute. Individual qualified scientists sufficiently motivated to inspect the evidence make judgements based on that evidence, and, since the modern physics revolution, avoid absolute certainty, their judgements representing varying degrees of certainty. Of course, consensus judgements do form, and are considered by those unqualified or unmotivated to examine the evidence to get some idea of the validity of a phenomenon or theory. While consensus does not define truth, a consensus of experts is the most likely approximation to the truth. And the stronger the consensus, the more confidence it warrants. Sometimes the consensus can be very strong, as in the current consensus that the solar system is Copernican. I have not made the astronomical measurements to prove that it is, although my observations are certainly consistent with it, but my confidence in the description comes from the unanimous consensus among those who have made or analyzed the necessary measurements. Likewise, confidence in the shape of the earth is essentially absolute, and serious humans dismiss members of the flat-earth society as deluded, or more likely dishonest. So, when it comes to allocating funding, hiring or promoting, or awarding prizes or honors, there's really no option but to consult experts in the respective field -- essentially to rely on the consensus. It's the worst system except for all the others. Hagelstein claims that cold fusion is an example of the Semmelweis reflex, in which an idea is rejected because it falls outside the existing consensus. That reflex is named after the rejection of Semmelweis's (correct) hand-washing theory in 1847, which Hagelstein cites. Then he goes on to mock a scientific system in which ideas outside the consensus are rejected and the people who propose them are ostracized in a ridiculous parody that bears no resemblance at all to the actual practice of science. It's the usual way true believers rationalize the rejection of their favorite fringe science. But it's truly surprising to see that Hagelstein has no more awareness of the reality of science
Re: [Vo]:Neutron, Proton and Positron
On 5/3/2013 11:07 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: What I am saying is that neutrons and protons conform to the quark models (u,u,d) and (u,u,d) when they are probed at high energies. At lower energies they are different. What is your model for them at low energies? - Joe
Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 01:06:21PM -0500, Jack Cole wrote: Looks like AR has delivered on his promise. http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/05/e-cat-shipping-pictures-posted-on-the-jonp/ That being showing photos of a shipping container?
Re: [Vo]:prediction?
Interestingly, the boiling temperature of potassium is 759 degrees C at 1 bar. Vapourizing potassium could cause such subnano effect. The “secret sauce” is a chemical additive that forms solid dust like metal nano-particles, little solid balls of alkali metal droplets, with sizes that range in the hundreds to thousands of atoms. There sizes are about 1 nanometer or less. These small bits of matter form in the billions, like dust settling on the nanowire covered micro-particles. The contract points between these dust particles and the nickel nanostructures are the nuclear active areas. This potassium 1 nn Nano dust is constantly renewed and there is literally billions of such sites produced by chemical processes in the hydrogen as the dust falls like snow on the nickel micro particles The strength of the charge concentration is proportional to the smallness of the smallest nano-particle in the nanostructure aggregation. A nano-particle that is just a few hundred atoms in size will produce a huge electric field concentration. EMF concentration of up to 10 to the 15th power has been experimentally verified. This “secret sauce” mechanism may produce even higher levels of charge amplification. For example, in the high school tungsten reactor where tungsten nano-particle of random sizes is covered in a solution of potassium carbonate, that reactor produces a COP of 4. The potassium carbonate produces solid potassium nanodust that mixes with and sticks to the tungsten particles and it is this dust that forms the NAE in that reactor design.
[Vo]:Perceptrons and Cold Fusion
One of the more interesting episodes in science that bears on the cold fusion controversy is the history of perceptrons which later became known as artificial neural nets. Not only was a prominent member of the establishment able to suppress funding to the field through a bogus critique, thereby guaranteeing funding in his own area for approximately 2 decades, but when the field was finally vindicated, the establishment went on an absolutely incredible cover-up of his (and therefore its) role in the suppression. I was there at the second neural networks conference to witness the establishment's avatar rising to give the keynote speech as the guest of honor. Today you can read the Wikipedia article on perceptrons and see what the future may have in store for the likes of Huzinga, et al if cold fusion is vindicated.
Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping
There's non need to compare scratches for who carefully followed the 2011 Oct demo. What i wanted to point out is that A.R. promised pictures of the customer delivery of three assets but what we saw is just the moving of the same old box from a dismissing facility (bologna) to the new one (Ferrara). I know that for hard believing fans these worth gold but for us poor skeptics it looks like one of our smart energy hero's countless jokes. Cheers 2013/5/3 Alan Fletcher a...@well.com At 12:10 PM 5/3/2013, you wrote: I would better title this thread as pictures of 1MW E-cat towing. Who didn't recognize the same Oct 2011 demo big box at the Bologna's facility? I suppose you could compare the scratch marks etc etc. Myself, I would have taken greater care to strap down all the connectors. http://postimg.org/image/**y1smh83jt/http://postimg.org/image/y1smh83jt/ The one at the bottom-left, with the blue tip, is going to go cachonka - cachonka - cocahonka for twenty days. I wonder if it will survive the trip.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Beside cold fusion problem I would raise that this claim is incoherent with the work of Thomas Kuhn on scientifc revolutions. Howevet the claim is coherent with tha work of Nassim Nicholas Taleb that explain that history is rewritten so that some members of the mainstream community get the paternity of the revolution. 2013/5/3 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com ii) In spite of inertia in science, the most revolutionary ideas in physics were accepted immediately. beside that, the evidence a clear... there is no hope to convince. as explain thomas kuhn, and as are founded the theory of Roland benabou the evidences are selected to match the delusion. Theories (it is a fraud, against it is real) cannot be compared because mainstream exclude some facts, or reinterpret it there is no point in discussing, I am sorry, the solution as explain nassim Nicholas Taleb, will came from the garage, from the engineers, from Tesla, Edison and Wilbur Wright... as usual, and all will be rewritten afterward. sorry for all the scientist here, there is no hope, until it warm the home of a swedish eskimo, and light the house of an african family. Thomas kuhn explain that fact are ignored until there is a total and perfect theory and huge practical incentive to accept reality. Funny to see how the evident results of thomas kuhn are ignored... until Hyperion and e-cat are sold and running, there won't be enough incentive to accept reality. and for theory there won't be enough data and funding until commercial reactors produce cash. only hope for scientist will be to ally together, partner with commercial companies, so that it work... Forget theory, develop phenomenological models, improve, engineer, make cash, gather data, and finally theory will appear like a kid in a loving couple. theory first is a western myth like the scientific method. Science is a human activity, like politic, business, charity, and art. money, corruption, delusion, passion, network, manipulation influence...
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua Cude wrote: That's cold fusion's problem: the quality of the evidence is abysmal -- not better than the evidence for bigfoot, alien visits, dowsing, homeopathy. . . Incorrect. The quality of evidence is excellent. Poor choice of words on my part. Of course I know that skeptics and believers disagree about the quality of the evidence, so using that statement as a premise is as pointless as Hagelstein using Cold fusion is real. as a premise. What I should have said is that the quality of the evidence is perceived as abysmal in the mainstream. That's all that was necessary for the point I was making. Namely, that if Hagelstein does not confront, or at least acknowledge that perception, he loses the confidence of all but the true believers. Anyway, if you think the evidence is excellent, why did you write: Why haven’t researchers learned to make the results stand out? After twelve years of painstaking replication attempts, most experiments produce a fraction of a watt of heat, when they work at all. Such low heat is difficult to measure. It leaves room for honest skeptical doubt that the effect is real. That was in 2001, but your favorite high-quality paper (referred to below) was 7 years before that. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf This example illustrates the problem. First, it is 19 years old. That you invariably fall back to this paper when quality is challenged shows the lack of progress. The paper identified 3 criteria to achieve high reproducibility, but a few years later the Toyota IMRA lab in Japan reported negative results in 27 of 27 electrolysis cells. Evidently, they could not satisfy McKubre's criteria. That's not surprising since in 1998, McKubre himself questioned the quality of that 1994 paper when he wrote: With hindsight, we may now conclude that the presumption of repeatable excess heat production was premature…. He was only getting excess heat from 20% of his cells. And in 2008, McKubre wrote: … we do not yet have quantitative reproducibility in any case of which I am aware., and in essentially every instance, written instructions alone have been insufficient to allow us to reproduce the experiments of others. To most scientists, this means there is no reproducibility in the field. And that represents low quality evidence. Second, the paper is an excellent example showing how improved experimental techniques reduce the alleged effect. The year before PF had claimed 160 W output with 40 W input. That paper was challenged for its poor calorimetry. With McKubre's much improved calorimetry, the claimed output was about 10.5 W with 10 W input (give or take). That suggests that PF's claim could have all been artifact. And the half watt or so that he observed is in the range of artifacts in calorimetry experiments. As you have said, calorimetric errors and artifacts are more common that researchers realize. And then 4 years later, with a presumably improved experiment, McKubre gets about the same power level, but in a smaller fraction of the cells. And that seems to be the end of his efforts at improving the experiments, or attempting to scale them up to make the results stand out. Since then, he has become a kind of validator for hire, working with Dardik or Brillouin, or defending Rossi, and even lending his credibility to the Papp engine. Third, (as Jay2013 (who has done LENR experiments) has emphasized, along with much other criticism at wavewatching.net/fringe/lenr-call-for-the-best-papers/#comments see 7:18 pm) the heat monotonically and suspiciously tracks the input current, which is not what one would expect from a nuclear reaction, but what one would expect from an artifact. In particular, the heat drops off much more quickly when the current is stopped than could be explained by diffusion of the deuterium. Especially considering the many claims of heat lasting for days after the current is stopped. (Jay also wrote: If I read this paper in 1994 I might be thinking “OK, you have my attention. Why don’t you see if you can trace some of the parametric dependencies for the effect, improve your cathode to get higher signal, show me more complete data with more statistics and hopefully return in a couple of years with some more ironclad results?” Sadly, it’s now nearly twenty years later and while McKubre did come up with a few additional parametric dependencies in later papers, I don’t recall if he was ever able to improve much on the signal. I couldn't have said it better.) Fourth, this paper was available to the 2004 DOE panel, which in fact noted many deficiencies in the techniques, methods, and interpretation of the data presented, and were not convinced by the evidence that nuclear reactions were occurring. Sixth, the very journal that published that paper (and many other cold fusion papers in the early days) stopped publishing cold fusion
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Not totally wrong, just wrongly interpreted. Then you should help the laymen and failed scientists here interpret the misinterpreted evidentiary record -- specifically, you should focus your energy on specific details of specific experiments. Keeping your argument at such a general level will only impress those already committed to the idea that cold fusion is nonsense. Thank you for your kind advice. But, for better or worse, I mainly respond to arguments I see posted. So, the response to Hagelstein was general, because his arguments were general. And it wasn't so much an argument against cold fusion as an argument in defense of science. He, like so many cold fusion advocates, argued that science suppresses new knowledge, when of course, science is where new knowledge comes from. His arguments simply don't reflect reality, and my main goal was to argue that point. As for the line you quoted above, that was in response to Storms stating my general position. I simply corrected it. It's not possible in every paragraph to identify every flaw in cold fusion. Don't be silly. The field is already dead. No one cares anymore. The credit of which you speak has already been handed out to Koonin and Lewis and Huizenga and others. However the final story plays out, I suspect these guys will be seen as having been overzealous in their attempts to enforce their view and as a result having lacked sufficient objectivity to make the claims they were making. What makes you think that? They are certainly not seen as overzealous now, except by true believers. If it plays out in such a way that there are no true believers left, there is no reason to think *anyone* will regard them as having been overzealous. It's caught my interest. Other people become experts at video games; I've gotten similarly addicted to cold fusion debunking. If you're going to debunk, you should hone your skill and zoom in on specific details. I recommend reading some of David Kidwell's papers. He does a great service to us true believers by suffering our incompetence and speaking on our level rather than tossing about vague generalities. Again, thank you. But, as you may or may not know, these are not the first posts I have made on the subject. I have engaged in highly specific discussions about a great many aspects of cold fusion, both here and in ecatnews (now wavewatching.net/fringe) writing as popeye, and elsewhere. But I'm not entirely sure that specific criticism is always more effective. Many true believers simply don't read detailed arguments. After all, if you look at a site like e-catworld, it is evident that most of them become believers because of who else believes. And the favorite argument in favor is the many peer-reviewed papers and the many scientists that claim excess heat. A very simple counter to that is that nearly all of the papers are from the 90s, and that in the last decade there are only a few (less than 5) papers in mainstream refereed journals claiming excess heat, and they only claim about a watt or so of excess power. That basically there has been no progress in 24 years. In any case, I did not re-appear here for detailed cold fusion discussions, because it's very clear in the mandate that this is a believer site, and that's fine. I escaped the mass banning a year ago, because I was on self-imposed abstinence for exactly that reason. I re-appeared here now (briefly) because I thought the response to Hagelstein was more about science than cold fusion. Since it had been so highly praised, I thought a contrary view expressed here was worthwhile, and did not violate the believer mandate, because I think a true believer does not have to subscribe to a conspiracy theory. The trigger though was Storms' post about tunneling. I thought that should be corrected, and so while here, I put up the Hagelstein response. Of course, I can't resist direct responses, so I have sunk into a little cold fusion banter with Rothwell. Nothing new though. We've covered the identical ground several times already.
Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping
I wrote: That's the small incandescent gadget in the foreground. Right? Much smaller than a 1 MW reactor, shown behind it. Here is Rossi's description of the incandescent gadget: http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/final-update-corrected-again-pordenone-hot-cat-report/ - Jed
Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping
Susanna Gipp susan.g...@gmail.com wrote: I know that for hard believing fans these worth gold but for us poor skeptics it looks like one of our smart energy hero's countless jokes. It might be a joke, but it would be an expensive and pointless one. What purpose would it serve? If he is engaged in fraud, how will this help? Why would he care what large numbers of people believe? It isn't as if his fans are sending him small donations. Your hypothesis is that this is a joke of some sort. I see no evidence for this. None of us knows what Rossi is up to, or which statements he makes are true and which are not. You have no more justification for your views than anyone else, so I do not see why you are so certain you are right. To justify the notion that this is a joke or fraud, a person can string together a long chain of suppositions, maybe this, suppose that, but there is no evidence for any of this speculation. It is a sterile waste of time. For every link in that chain there is inexplicable counter-evidence. For example, if we assume that Rossi's tests are fake, then why on earth did he do a real test when NASA visited? A real test that was an utter failure! Why would he make a fool of himself and show them a machine that does not work when he routinely shows people a fake machine that looks like it is working? I guess you could say suppose this and that and he did not think he could fool NASA so he used a non-working demo and blah, blah, but that does not add up either. The experts from U. Bologna would be as hard to fool as the people from NASA. He worked with them for months with what appear to be real systems. Besides, people of this caliber would see through a fake in no time. The NASA people realized from the start that the test was not working. It did not fool them. Rossi claimed it was working, but they could see he was being sloppy and he was wrong. I agree that none of this makes sense, at least from the outside. People's actions often fail to make sense. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping
On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 09:37:17AM -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: Susanna Gipp susan.g...@gmail.com wrote: I know that for hard believing fans these worth gold but for us poor skeptics it looks like one of our smart energy hero's countless jokes. It might be a joke, but it would be an expensive and pointless one. What purpose would it serve? If he is engaged in fraud, how will this help? Why would he care what large numbers of people believe? It isn't as if his fans are sending him small donations. unsuckscribe LENR-kook-list Your hypothesis is that this is a joke of some sort. I see no evidence for this. None of us knows what Rossi is up to, or which statements he makes are true and which are not. You have no more justification for your views than anyone else, so I do not see why you are so certain you are right. To justify the notion that this is a joke or fraud, a person can string together a long chain of suppositions, maybe this, suppose that, but there is no evidence for any of this speculation. It is a sterile waste of time. For every link in that chain there is inexplicable counter-evidence. For example, if we assume that Rossi's tests are fake, then why on earth did he do a real test when NASA visited? A real test that was an utter failure! Why would he make a fool of himself and show them a machine that does not work when he routinely shows people a fake machine that looks like it is working? I guess you could say suppose this and that and he did not think he could fool NASA so he used a non-working demo and blah, blah, but that does not add up either. The experts from U. Bologna would be as hard to fool as the people from NASA. He worked with them for months with what appear to be real systems. Besides, people of this caliber would see through a fake in no time. The NASA people realized from the start that the test was not working. It did not fool them. Rossi claimed it was working, but they could see he was being sloppy and he was wrong. I agree that none of this makes sense, at least from the outside. People's actions often fail to make sense. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Someone wrote: Don't be silly. The field is already dead. No one cares anymore. The credit of which you speak has already been handed out to Koonin and Lewis and Huizenga and others. Lewis' experiment was positive. He showed that cold fusion probably does exist. This was some of the best early proof. It is ironic that any skeptic still points to this.I expect that skeptics who point to this have never read the paper, because it is quite clear from the paper that this is evidence in favor of cold fusion. Lewis misinterpreted his own results. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf When you publish a result that contradicts your own assertions, that is strong evidence that your result is real. You are presenting evidence against your own interests. You are proving yourself wrong. It cannot be self-deception or wishful thinking. Especially not in this case, when Lewis remained blind to the facts about his own work. Despite his self-deception, he as much as says the result is anomalous! Quote: These changes often resulted in a sustained temperature rise of the cell (which might be interpreted in terms of the onset of excess enthalpy production), but recalibration with the load resistor method during this period showed no evidence for any anomalous power production . . . With this calorimeter and this data might be interpreted is incorrect. It should say can only be interpreted. The method of recalibration with a load resistor to disprove this makes no sense, as several people explained, and as I reiterate. It was a sloppy mistake, quite simple really. The only reason he did not see it is because he did not want to see it. Most of his paper is excellent, by the way. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping
This could be absurdly false - and could kill any remaining credibility that Rossi has. I will defer to anyone who does this kind heat transfer calculation on a regular basis but it looks absurd to me now based on the one basic simple issue - heat transfer limitations. With only 20 grams of active material, I'm pretty sure that it can be shown that it is physically impossible to transfer that much heat to the rest of the reactor before the nickel or any other known metal turns into a gas. The boiling point of nickel is 2,900+ . think about the implications ! what this all boils down to is can 20 grams of nickel transfer that much heat - roughly 14+ kWhr for several hundred hours? Forget the energy implications - as a straight-up heat transfer issue, this looks to be beyond physical reality. Of course - Rossi could say that the nickel boils inside the reactor at 10,000 degrees, but is that logical? From: Jed Rothwell I wrote: That's the small incandescent gadget in the foreground. Right? Much smaller than a 1 MW reactor, shown behind it. Here is Rossi's description of the incandescent gadget: http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/final-update-corrected-again-pordenone-hot -cat-report/ - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Joshua, I find your arguments not only logically inconsistent but not even accurate. First of all, you and many other people made such a fuss about CF being impossible, that the money required to advance understanding was denied. OK, we all know that some money was provided. This amount did achieve an increased level of understanding, which you now deny exists, but it was not enough. Then you use this failure to make progress as evidence that the effect is not real. Surely you see the problem with this kind of circular argument. I won't bore you with all the examples of great discoveries taking a long time to be accepted, but you get my point. You say that everyone in conventional science does not believe the effect is real. This statement is not accurate. Actually, most scientists have no knowledge about what has been discovered. Therefore, their opinion is based on ignorance. When I tell people what has been discovered, they are amazed and become very interested. The series of ICCF conferences, the latest being at the Univ. of Missouri, you must conclude were organized by fools and people outside of conventional science. You and a few other people have created a myth. I can understand why people trying to get support for their work on hot fusion would want CF to die and I can see why people who have a relationship to conventional energy sources might be worried, but why do you get fun by advancing the myth? What is your self interest? I assume you have actually studied what has been discovered. If you have, then you have spent many hours learning about something that you do not think is real so that you can convince other people it is not real. This seems like a strange way to spend your time. Don't you have a life, a wife, kids, and a job that requires a useful contribution? Your behavior truly mystifies me. Why would a sane, intelligent person spend time doing something so worthless to society and himself? If CF is real, all of civilization would benefit, a benefit your actions would delay. If it is not real, only a few of us are wasting our time and do not need you to save us from this waste. Ed Storms On May 4, 2013, at 3:06 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua Cude wrote: That's cold fusion's problem: the quality of the evidence is abysmal -- not better than the evidence for bigfoot, alien visits, dowsing, homeopathy. . . Incorrect. The quality of evidence is excellent. Poor choice of words on my part. Of course I know that skeptics and believers disagree about the quality of the evidence, so using that statement as a premise is as pointless as Hagelstein using Cold fusion is real. as a premise. What I should have said is that the quality of the evidence is perceived as abysmal in the mainstream. That's all that was necessary for the point I was making. Namely, that if Hagelstein does not confront, or at least acknowledge that perception, he loses the confidence of all but the true believers. Anyway, if you think the evidence is excellent, why did you write: Why haven’t researchers learned to make the results stand out? After twelve years of painstaking replication attempts, most experiments produce a fraction of a watt of heat, when they work at all. Such low heat is difficult to measure. It leaves room for honest skeptical doubt that the effect is real. That was in 2001, but your favorite high-quality paper (referred to below) was 7 years before that. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf This example illustrates the problem. First, it is 19 years old. That you invariably fall back to this paper when quality is challenged shows the lack of progress. The paper identified 3 criteria to achieve high reproducibility, but a few years later the Toyota IMRA lab in Japan reported negative results in 27 of 27 electrolysis cells. Evidently, they could not satisfy McKubre's criteria. That's not surprising since in 1998, McKubre himself questioned the quality of that 1994 paper when he wrote: With hindsight, we may now conclude that the presumption of repeatable excess heat production was premature…. He was only getting excess heat from 20% of his cells. And in 2008, McKubre wrote: … we do not yet have quantitative reproducibility in any case of which I am aware., and in essentially every instance, written instructions alone have been insufficient to allow us to reproduce the experiments of others. To most scientists, this means there is no reproducibility in the field. And that represents low quality evidence. Second, the paper is an excellent example showing how improved experimental techniques reduce the alleged effect. The year before PF had claimed 160 W output with 40 W input. That paper was challenged for its poor calorimetry. With McKubre's much improved
Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This could be absurdly false - and could kill any remaining credibility that Rossi has. If absurdity could kill credibility Rossi would have none. He is a charming fellow but he tends to say and do absurd things. At least, they seem absurd from the outside. Such as buying a thermocouple meter costing hundreds of dollars and then neglecting to put an SD card into it. He also sometimes makes sloppy errors. If there is only 20 g of material and the heat transfer is as limited as you suspect, he might have made a sloppy error. However, if the 20 g of metal is spread out thinly on a substrate with the particles well separated it might work. An automobile catalytic converter has very little Pd in it. The metal is exposed to a terrific flow of hot gas. Yet the Pd does not sublime or vaporize. I think there is only about 1 oz of Pd in a converter (28 g). Various sources list different amounts. Arata separates particles of Pd by putting them in a Zr substrate. When he used pure Pd particles they heated up and stuck together, reducing surface area. Some people said they were sintering together. Others said a hydrogen reaction was making them stick together. Anyway, the Zr keeps them apart. With the catalyst Les Case used, the C substrate keeps the particles apart. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
My vortex-l posting habits has gone down significantly within the last six months due to the fact that I need to focus on my own personal research as compared to constantly getting ensnared in another discussion thread. (Vortex-l can be so addictive!) Nevertheless, every now and then, something still catches my eye. I noticed that Ed Storms recently asked Joshua: So, I ask, what is the reason behind this lengthly critique of what Peter says? To which Joshua replied: It's caught my interest. Other people become experts at video games; I've gotten similarly addicted to cold fusion debunking. Joshua, this recreational hobby of yours - someone who appears to have become addicted to cold fusion debunking... The short reply would be to suggest that there are recovery programs that can help such addicts overcome these kinds of afflictions. But here's a more detailed response: I'm certainly not suggesting that in your case recovery might imply that you would suddenly find yourself becoming more accepting of some little-understood LENR / CANR reactions that certain researchers have concluded may be occurring in Nature. Far from it. What I am, however, trying to suggest is that if you believe this addictive hobby of yours is altruistic because as a science apologist you are attempting to defend the true objective principals of scientific investigation, I would suggest you might want to consider pursuing a different hobby. Instead of relentlessly performing in the role of an armchair debunker why not consider focusing your apparent boundless energy on some really worthy hobbies like pursuing actual laboratory work on a subject that fascinates you, or your own or theoretical research. Or have you done this already? If so, please point us to some of your work. I suspect many on this list might be interested in looking into your accomplishments. As a matter of disclosure, while some on this list may think of me as nothing more than an astronomical artist, one of my other personal hobbies, a hobby I have pursued since the mid 1980s has been theoretical research into the nature of celestial mechanics and the various algorithms and formulas used to generate orbital paths. I have pursued this rather obscure branch of study because of my own unique collection of personal predilections. Personal quirks or not, it is my hope that my personal research may eventually end up making a useful contribution to the knowledge base of humankind, but who really knows. I have on occasion hinted at some of the observations I've stumbled across OFTEN BY ACCIDENT I might add, as occasionally described within Vortex-l list over the past decade. Nevertheless, I must confess the fact that I don't yet know if what I seem to have stumbled across will actually turn out to be beneficial to society, or not. Hopefully, I'm getting closer to actually publishing something useful and informative. However, publication is still a year or so away - at best. In the end, it's all a gamble. It is nevertheless a personal risk of mine I'm willing to take with my own limited life span. So, I ask you, Josh. What risks are you willing to take... take with your own limited life span? I would suggest focusing your energies on pursuing a hobby of armchair debunking the laboratory research of cold fusion researchers is not likely to make all that much of a useful contribution to society, considering the extremely limited lifespan we all have to contend with on this planet. Why not make your life span count for something? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
Re: [Vo]:prediction?
Remember that in both the high school reactor and the DGT reactor, these use electric sparks where very high temperatures are produced. Rossi does not use sparks, but might use cesium. On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 3:44 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote: Interestingly, the boiling temperature of potassium is 759 degrees C at 1 bar. Vapourizing potassium could cause such subnano effect. The “secret sauce” is a chemical additive that forms solid dust like metal nano-particles, little solid balls of alkali metal droplets, with sizes that range in the hundreds to thousands of atoms. There sizes are about 1 nanometer or less. These small bits of matter form in the billions, like dust settling on the nanowire covered micro-particles. The contract points between these dust particles and the nickel nanostructures are the nuclear active areas. This potassium 1 nn Nano dust is constantly renewed and there is literally billions of such sites produced by chemical processes in the hydrogen as the dust falls like snow on the nickel micro particles The strength of the charge concentration is proportional to the smallness of the smallest nano-particle in the nanostructure aggregation. A nano-particle that is just a few hundred atoms in size will produce a huge electric field concentration. EMF concentration of up to 10 to the 15th power has been experimentally verified. This “secret sauce” mechanism may produce even higher levels of charge amplification. For example, in the high school tungsten reactor where tungsten nano-particle of random sizes is covered in a solution of potassium carbonate, that reactor produces a COP of 4. The potassium carbonate produces solid potassium nanodust that mixes with and sticks to the tungsten particles and it is this dust that forms the NAE in that reactor design.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Joshua Cude wrote: Poor choice of words on my part. Of course I know that skeptics and believers disagree about the quality of the evidence . . . This is not a matter of opinion. The quality of evidence is measured objectively, based on repeatability and the signal to noise ratio. Anyone looking at the data from McKubre, Kunimatsu or Fleischmann can see it is excellent. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf This example illustrates the problem. First, it is 19 years old. No, it was written in 2007. Evidently you are looking at the wrong paper. That you invariably fall back to this paper when quality is challenged shows the lack of progress. It is true there has not been much progress. That is because there is no funding. I fall back on McKubre's earlier paper because it is one of the best peer-reviewed ones that I have permission to upload to LENR-CANR.org. However, there is no statute of limitation on scientific facts. Experiments done in 1650 or 1800 remain as true today as when they were done. The year before PF had claimed 160 W output with 40 W input. That paper was challenged for its poor calorimetry. With McKubre's much improved calorimetry, the claimed output was about 10.5 W with 10 W input (give or take). That suggests that PF's claim could have all been artifact. No, it indicates that you have to heat up a cathode to produce a strong reaction. McKubre's calorimeter prevents you from doing this, as McKubre, Fleischmann, I and many others have often pointed out. Perhaps you did not know this, or you do not acknowledge it. That problem is on your end. Your ignorance or willful denial of facts does not make facts go away. This also indicates that some cathodes produce more heat than others, and that the more surface area you have, the more heat you might get. That is why Mizuno's 100 g cathode produced ~100 W of heat after death for several days, whereas the record for a cathode weighing a few grams was ~20 W of heat after death for a day. And the half watt or so that he observed is in the range of artifacts in calorimetry experiments. No, with McKubre's instrument it is a couple of orders of magnitude above the range of any artifact, as you see in the calibrations. Again, facts are facts, and waving your hands does not make them go away. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:prediction?
Rossi does use an internal heater which could function to vaporize this alkali metal. On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Remember that in both the high school reactor and the DGT reactor, these use electric sparks where very high temperatures are produced. Rossi does not use sparks, but might use cesium. On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 3:44 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote: Interestingly, the boiling temperature of potassium is 759 degrees C at 1 bar. Vapourizing potassium could cause such subnano effect. The “secret sauce” is a chemical additive that forms solid dust like metal nano-particles, little solid balls of alkali metal droplets, with sizes that range in the hundreds to thousands of atoms. There sizes are about 1 nanometer or less. These small bits of matter form in the billions, like dust settling on the nanowire covered micro-particles. The contract points between these dust particles and the nickel nanostructures are the nuclear active areas. This potassium 1 nn Nano dust is constantly renewed and there is literally billions of such sites produced by chemical processes in the hydrogen as the dust falls like snow on the nickel micro particles The strength of the charge concentration is proportional to the smallness of the smallest nano-particle in the nanostructure aggregation. A nano-particle that is just a few hundred atoms in size will produce a huge electric field concentration. EMF concentration of up to 10 to the 15th power has been experimentally verified. This “secret sauce” mechanism may produce even higher levels of charge amplification. For example, in the high school tungsten reactor where tungsten nano-particle of random sizes is covered in a solution of potassium carbonate, that reactor produces a COP of 4. The potassium carbonate produces solid potassium nanodust that mixes with and sticks to the tungsten particles and it is this dust that forms the NAE in that reactor design.
Re: [Vo]:prediction?
http://phys.org/news/2013-04-freedom-scientists-nanoparticles-larger-real.html Freedom of assembly: Scientists see nanoparticles form larger structures in real time The connection point between each of these nano-particles could be a NAE site. On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi does use an internal heater which could function to vaporize this alkali metal. On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Remember that in both the high school reactor and the DGT reactor, these use electric sparks where very high temperatures are produced. Rossi does not use sparks, but might use cesium. On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 3:44 AM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote: Interestingly, the boiling temperature of potassium is 759 degrees C at 1 bar. Vapourizing potassium could cause such subnano effect. The “secret sauce” is a chemical additive that forms solid dust like metal nano-particles, little solid balls of alkali metal droplets, with sizes that range in the hundreds to thousands of atoms. There sizes are about 1 nanometer or less. These small bits of matter form in the billions, like dust settling on the nanowire covered micro-particles. The contract points between these dust particles and the nickel nanostructures are the nuclear active areas. This potassium 1 nn Nano dust is constantly renewed and there is literally billions of such sites produced by chemical processes in the hydrogen as the dust falls like snow on the nickel micro particles The strength of the charge concentration is proportional to the smallness of the smallest nano-particle in the nanostructure aggregation. A nano-particle that is just a few hundred atoms in size will produce a huge electric field concentration. EMF concentration of up to 10 to the 15th power has been experimentally verified. This “secret sauce” mechanism may produce even higher levels of charge amplification. For example, in the high school tungsten reactor where tungsten nano-particle of random sizes is covered in a solution of potassium carbonate, that reactor produces a COP of 4. The potassium carbonate produces solid potassium nanodust that mixes with and sticks to the tungsten particles and it is this dust that forms the NAE in that reactor design.
Re: [Vo]:Neutron, Proton and Positron
Harry has an interesting point. It is quite apparent that a proton does not contain within it all of the particles that are ejected when it is subjected to high energy collisions as in the LHC. Where does the fundamental particle stop and the new ones begin? Dave -Original Message- From: Joseph S. Barrera III j...@barrera.org To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, May 4, 2013 2:34 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Neutron, Proton and Positron On 5/3/2013 11:07 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: What I am saying is that neutrons and protons conform to the quark models (u,u,d) and (u,u,d) when they are probed at high energies. At lower energies they are different. What is your model for them at low energies? - Joe
Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping
I wrote: An automobile catalytic converter has very little Pd in it. The metal is exposed to a terrific flow of hot gas. Yet the Pd does not sublime or vaporize. Plus, most of the hot gas must come in contact with the Pd particles, because it is all catalyzed (cleaned up). I assume if there was a lot unprocessed nitric oxide left over they would add more Pd. A lot of the Pd does, gradually, erode. Or sublime, I guess you would call it. Because Pd is expensive, I assume that the Pd is spread as thinly as possible, with the least amount of metal you can use to achieve complete catalysis. I am going out on a limb here, but I also assume that one of the limiting factors is the heat. You could not expose a much smaller sample of Pd to this much heat without it melting, or vaporizing. Assuming this is about the best that modern technology is capable of, I figure this indicates approximately how much Pd you would need in a Pd-based cold fusion heat engine with the capacity of an automobile engine. I am assuming you have complete control over the reaction and you can make the Pd as hot as you like, up to the melting point, so the practical limit is the heat transfer capacity of the metal and substrate. As Jones Beene indicated. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Neutron, Proton and Positron
In the standard model, fundamental particles are the quarks and some others. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 11:56 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Harry has an interesting point. It is quite apparent that a proton does not contain within it all of the particles that are ejected when it is subjected to high energy collisions as in the LHC. Where does the fundamental particle stop and the new ones begin? Dave -Original Message- From: Joseph S. Barrera III j...@barrera.org To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, May 4, 2013 2:34 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Neutron, Proton and Positron On 5/3/2013 11:07 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: What I am saying is that neutrons and protons conform to the quark models (u,u,d) and (u,u,d) when they are probed at high energies. At lower energies they are different. What is your model for them at low energies? - Joe
[Vo]:From Russia, with love
Courtesy of SPECTRE ... err... make that the new Kurchatov Institute Possible Way To Industrial Production of Nickel-63 and the Prospects of Its Use Tsvetkov, et al. Research-Industrial Enterprise BIAPOS, Moscow, Russia, Formerly Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia Nickel-63 (a pure beta-emitter with a half-life of 100 years) is one of the most promising radionuclides that can be used in miniature autonomous electric power sources with a service life of above 30 years (nuclear batteries) working on the betavoltaic effect. This effect is analogous to the photoelectric effect, with the difference that electron-hole pairs are produced in a semiconductor with p-n-transition under the action of beta-particles rather than optical radiation. In addition to 63Ni, among all variety of radionuclides only tritium 3H (half-life 12.3 years; Emax = 18.6 keV; Eav = 5.7 keV) and promethium l47Pm (half-life 2.62 years; Emax = 230 keV; Eav = 65 keV) can be considered as candidates for the betavoltaic converter All other beta-emitters are unsuitable for any of several reasons: 1) accompanying gamma-radiation; 2) strong bremsstruhlung, which requires the use of radiation protection; http://isotope.info/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/possible-way-to-industrial-pr oduction-of-nickel-63-and-the-prospects-of-its-use.pdf attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping
The role of the substrate depends on the mechanism. While all of the proposed mechanism are applied to Pd, this does not mean Pd is the only material that supports the NAE. People have used Ti, Ni, various alloys, and various oxides with success. Once the NAE can be made on purpose and in large amount, use of Pd will not be necessary. So, why keep using Pd as the example? Palladium only has historical interest because F-P chose this material. It actually is the worst choice, as many people have found. Ni apparently is a better choice, but this metal has not been explore enough to give it credibility and is surrounded by controversy thanks to Rossi. The idea that Ni only works with H and Pd only works with D is not supported by any credible understanding of the process and too few studies have been done to determine if the idea is correct or not. We need to keep an open mind and not focus only on Pd. Ed Storms On May 4, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I wrote: An automobile catalytic converter has very little Pd in it. The metal is exposed to a terrific flow of hot gas. Yet the Pd does not sublime or vaporize. Plus, most of the hot gas must come in contact with the Pd particles, because it is all catalyzed (cleaned up). I assume if there was a lot unprocessed nitric oxide left over they would add more Pd. A lot of the Pd does, gradually, erode. Or sublime, I guess you would call it. Because Pd is expensive, I assume that the Pd is spread as thinly as possible, with the least amount of metal you can use to achieve complete catalysis. I am going out on a limb here, but I also assume that one of the limiting factors is the heat. You could not expose a much smaller sample of Pd to this much heat without it melting, or vaporizing. Assuming this is about the best that modern technology is capable of, I figure this indicates approximately how much Pd you would need in a Pd-based cold fusion heat engine with the capacity of an automobile engine. I am assuming you have complete control over the reaction and you can make the Pd as hot as you like, up to the melting point, so the practical limit is the heat transfer capacity of the metal and substrate. As Jones Beene indicated. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: What makes you think that? They are certainly not seen as overzealous now, except by true believers. If it plays out in such a way that there are no true believers left, there is no reason to think *anyone* will regard them as having been overzealous. I've read Huizenga, Close and Hoffman (and Taubes). I've read little or nothing by Lewis or Koonin, but I've read many second-hand accounts of their arguments, on both sides of the debate. I learned a great deal from the first three authors, and I think they have many insights to bring to bear on this discussion. I am not of the opinion, like some here, that they have nothing interesting to say. I especially liked Close and Hoffman. Huizenga sounds like a broken record, but even his book is useful for becoming acquainted with the main challenges that cold fusion poses for physicists. There were two things that were striking for me when I was reading Huizenga, Close, and Hoffman, as one who neither had a background in physics nor a commitment to cold fusion. The first observation was that they really seemed to have a grasp of the basics of their fields, and I learned a lot from them. The second was that they seemed to have undue confidence in their knowledge, leaving them vulnerable to overlooking evidence and explaining it away. As a member of the general public coming upon cold fusion recently, this impression on my part might be an outlier, or it might be representative over the long run. I suspect it will turn out to be representative. But I'm not entirely sure that specific criticism is always more effective. Many true believers simply don't read detailed arguments. After all, if you look at a site like e-catworld, it is evident that most of them become believers because of who else believes. Who is your audience? Who are you hoping to convince? If you're seeking to debunk effectively, who is the audience you are trying to disabuse? Obviously not those who already agree with you. That leaves true believers (a very counterproductive term, if I can suggest) and those only now coming onto cold fusion. I have no reason to doubt your reasons for believing that engaging in details with those already committed to cold fusion is futile. But if you're going to disabuse those who are left to be disabused, you have no choice but to engage specific details. It is clear that you're willing to do this -- you just posted a very nice post addressing points in Jed's reply and raising a number of juicy details. This is the kind of post that will help to advance the conversation. Name calling (true believer, incoherent ramblings of a bitter man, etc.) will only alienate those who are not already firmly committed to some position, undermining rather than supporting your intentions. Being disrespectful of the cold fusion people is exactly counterproductive. I don't see why more physicists don't see this. If you're going to attack something, attack details, claims and positions, and in a very measured way, rather than attacking people, in general terms. In any case, I did not re-appear here for detailed cold fusion discussions, because it's very clear in the mandate that this is a believer site, and that's fine. I escaped the mass banning a year ago, because I was on self-imposed abstinence for exactly that reason. I think there is plenty of room for died-in-the-wool skeptics here. If I might offer some suggestions, based on observations of previous bannings: - Be respectful. You may not agree with people, and you may not even respect their intelligence or their intellectual integrity, but avoid name calling and condescension. - Don't be annoying by endlessly repeating yourself. Think of new things to say when the old points don't seem to be gaining traction. - Be prepared to get a strong response to some points you try to make and don't get too frustrated by it. These things are probably harder to do than write, but I personally like a diversity of views here. The trigger though was Storms' post about tunneling. Yes. Tunneling is good. Eric
Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: While all of the proposed mechanism are applied to Pd, this does not mean Pd is the only material that supports the NAE. People have used Ti, Ni, various alloys, and various oxides with success. The ENEA and others still research mainly Pd, or exclusively Pd. I wish more people could get Ni to work, but I do not know many who have. Once the NAE can be made on purpose and in large amount, use of Pd will not be necessary. So, why keep using Pd as the example? I use it as an example because there is a lot of literature on it. No other reason. As I said in the book and elsewhere, Ni is more promising from a commercial point of view, mainly because it is abundant and cheap. I described my back-of-the-envelope estimate based on Pd in catalytic converters because converters are where half the world's Pd ends up; because it is an interesting comparison; and because I used this to estimate how much energy we might produce with the world supply of Pd. My conclusion was roughly in line with Martin Fleischmann's. I do not know the basis for his estimate. As I recall, we both figured you could produce roughly a third of the world energy supply with Pd. I do not think anyone advocates the use of Pd as a practical source of energy. Martin was the first to suggest Ni would be better. Palladium only has historical interest because F-P chose this material. It actually is the worst choice, as many people have found. Well, in bulk the power density of Pd is lot higher than Ni. For now it is. I don't know about in powder form. If Rossi is correct than of course powder Ni is better than anything. With Ni you would not have to worry about conserving metal. You could use as much as you like per watt of generator capacity. So, the catalytic converter model is less useful. You would want to minimize the amount of metal used in some applications, where the heat engine has to be as small and compact as possible. Such as a wrist watch battery, or a spacecraft power supply. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Joshua Cude wrote: Surely you're aware of the Jones' challenge to Miles' results in Jones Hansen, Examination of Claims of Miles…, J. Phys. Chem. 95 (1995) 6966. Ah yes. That one slipped my mind. The recombination hypothesis. That is even more pathetic and preposterous than Morrison. As Miles pointed out, Jones uses a cell in a shape than no one else would think of using, and he set the power level a thousand times lower than Miles. Miles said: Why not throw a handful catalyst powder into the electrolyte while you are at it, just to make absolutely sure you have recombination. My suggestion was to put the cathode above the anode. There are other ways to ensure recombination. The thing is, there are also many ways to prevent it, and to verify that you have prevented it. For example, you measure effluent gas. Miles, along with EVERYONE ELSE uses these methods, so what Jones asserts is not only preposterous and unrealistic, it is factually wrong. Jones reached the living end -- the final frontier! -- when he boldly asserted to me that recombination can explain McKubre's results, even though McKubre uses a closed cell with a recombiner. At that point I figured that either Jones had taken leave of his senses, or Jones thought I understand absolutely nothing about cold fusion or grade-school chemistry. The fact that Cude still flogs this kind of nonsense tells me that he, too, has employed a warp drive to move light years beyond rational, fact-based argument, into the netherworld of recombination causing false excess heat in closed cells. This is why I stopped paying attention to people such as Jones and Cude 15 years ago, and why Cude is on my auto-delete list. Note that the Wikipedia article still flogs the recombination bugaboo. It did last time I checked, a few years ago. That is a handy litmus test. When a person says recombination might explain the excess heat! you can disqualify them. I will grant, there are a few other attempts to critique experiments, by Shanahan. I have some of his papers at LENR-CANR.org - Jed
[Vo]:REMOVE FROM LIST!
Kindly remove me from this list! Thank YOU! -- SD fourthamm...@fastmail.co.uk
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: It is clear that you're willing to do this -- you just posted a very nice post addressing points in Jed's reply and raising a number of juicy details. Nope. He said nothing that skeptics did not say in 1990. Everything they said then and that Cude repeats now was promptly disproved by experts back then. Most of what Cude says is on the level of the nonsense Taubes filled his book with, or the ultimate, breathtaking nonsense of Steve Jones, that a closed cell with a recombiner might have false excess heat caused by recombination. This goes light years beyond a mere idiotic mistake, as I said. It is like Taubes with his 50 degree thermal gradients, described by me, here: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf My sense is that Taubes is sincere. He says this stuff because he is a scientific illiterate. He does not have the slightest idea how electricity works, for example. He sincerely believes that regulated laboratory power supplies deliver more electricity on weekends because there is more electricity left over. It never occurs to him that researchers measure and record amperage and voltage. In his book he claimed they do not. He has said that so often I think he must believe it. Jones, on the other hand, is a professional scientist and he knows perfectly well that his statements about recombination and the like are nonsense. He is trying to bamboozle his audience. Successfully, for the most part. It was obvious that he was trying to bamboozle me, in person. I do not think he ever had the chutzpah to publish the claim about McKubre in a paper, but I am sure he refrained only because he figured he could not get away with it. He wouldn't hesitate if he thought people would buy it. Jones will say or do anything to win at academic politics, as Taubes pointed out in his book. Taubes may be a technical ignoramus, but he knows a devious S.O.B. when he sees one. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Perceptrons and Cold Fusion
Unfortunately for John Huizenga, he will die the broken, angry curmudgeon of a man he is. Were he of a stature anywhere near Ptolemy he might have a place in science ignominy as the primary example of a failed orthodox scientist. But Huizenga is incapable of carrying even Ptolemy's shoes. He sets an example only of narrow-minded orthodoxy espoused by the Church of the Dark Ages (aka consensus science) Good riddance. On Sat, May 4, 2013, at 01:11 AM, James Bowery wrote: One of the more interesting episodes in science that bears on the cold fusion controversy is the history of perceptrons which later became known as artificial neural nets. Not only was a prominent member of the establishment able to suppress funding to the field through a bogus critique, thereby guaranteeing funding in his own area for approximately 2 decades, but when the field was finally vindicated, the establishment went on an absolutely incredible cover-up of his (and therefore its) role in the suppression. I was there at the second neural networks conference to witness the establishment's avatar rising to give the keynote speech as the guest of honor. Today you can read the Wikipedia article on perceptrons and see what the future may have in store for the likes of Huzinga, et al if cold fusion is vindicated. SD fourthamm...@fastmail.co.uk
Re: [Vo]:Perceptrons and Cold Fusion
Disambiguating: The cited Wikipedia article was the book Perceptrons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptrons_(book) In particular note how Wikipedia's editors have made it look as though the scholars have shown Minsky had no deleterious effect on the field -- that it was all fabricated spin put on by proponents of neural nets. For the real history, get the book Talking Nets: An Oral History of Neural Networks that interviews the top 17 participants in the resurrection of the field then (mid '90s) alive. Not a single apologist for Minsky's behavior and a number of detailed, eye-witness accounts of his intended sabotage of the field are recounted. On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 3:11 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: One of the more interesting episodes in science that bears on the cold fusion controversy is the history of perceptrons which later became known as artificial neural nets. Not only was a prominent member of the establishment able to suppress funding to the field through a bogus critique, thereby guaranteeing funding in his own area for approximately 2 decades, but when the field was finally vindicated, the establishment went on an absolutely incredible cover-up of his (and therefore its) role in the suppression. I was there at the second neural networks conference to witness the establishment's avatar rising to give the keynote speech as the guest of honor. Today you can read the Wikipedia article on perceptrons and see what the future may have in store for the likes of Huzinga, et al if cold fusion is vindicated.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
I address this issue in my book, which Joshua obviously has not read. But you are right, Jed. This issue has been laid to rest so completely, one has to wonder why it has been brought up now. This is like someone now arguing for the flat earth concept. Ed On May 4, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Joshua Cude wrote: Surely you're aware of the Jones' challenge to Miles' results in Jones Hansen, Examination of Claims of Miles…, J. Phys. Chem. 95 (1995) 6966. Ah yes. That one slipped my mind. The recombination hypothesis. That is even more pathetic and preposterous than Morrison. As Miles pointed out, Jones uses a cell in a shape than no one else would think of using, and he set the power level a thousand times lower than Miles. Miles said: Why not throw a handful catalyst powder into the electrolyte while you are at it, just to make absolutely sure you have recombination. My suggestion was to put the cathode above the anode. There are other ways to ensure recombination. The thing is, there are also many ways to prevent it, and to verify that you have prevented it. For example, you measure effluent gas. Miles, along with EVERYONE ELSE uses these methods, so what Jones asserts is not only preposterous and unrealistic, it is factually wrong. Jones reached the living end -- the final frontier! -- when he boldly asserted to me that recombination can explain McKubre's results, even though McKubre uses a closed cell with a recombiner. At that point I figured that either Jones had taken leave of his senses, or Jones thought I understand absolutely nothing about cold fusion or grade-school chemistry. The fact that Cude still flogs this kind of nonsense tells me that he, too, has employed a warp drive to move light years beyond rational, fact-based argument, into the netherworld of recombination causing false excess heat in closed cells. This is why I stopped paying attention to people such as Jones and Cude 15 years ago, and why Cude is on my auto-delete list. Note that the Wikipedia article still flogs the recombination bugaboo. It did last time I checked, a few years ago. That is a handy litmus test. When a person says recombination might explain the excess heat! you can disqualify them. I will grant, there are a few other attempts to critique experiments, by Shanahan. I have some of his papers at LENR-CANR.org - Jed
Re: [Vo]:REMOVE FROM LIST!
Speech Defender fourthamm...@fastmail.co.uk wrote: Kindly remove me from this list! Thank YOU! No can do. This you must do for yourself. Please see: http://amasci.com/weird/wvort.html#sub Quote: To unsubscribe, send a *blank* message to: vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com Put the single word unsubscribe in the subject line of the header. No quotes around unsubscribe, of course. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Why now? Perhaps it was the publication of the photos after this: Jam April 30th, 2013 at 5:46 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=802cpage=6#comment-687451 Did you start loading on the truck? Don’t forget to take a few pictures. Andrea Rossi May 1st, 2013 at 8:04 AM Dear Neri B.: The delivery, after an acceptance test, has been made today. Dear Neri B.: The delivery has been made today. the photos of the plant will surely be published. We will publish them on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics Warm Regards, A.R. julian_becker May 1st, 2013 at 9:57 AM dear mr. Rossi, when can we see the images. Eagerly awaiting them. Can you just publish a few now? People are going crazy about waiting for them I believe. Best regards, Julian On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: I address this issue in my book, which Joshua obviously has not read. But you are right, Jed. This issue has been laid to rest so completely, one has to wonder why it has been brought up now. This is like someone now arguing for the flat earth concept. Ed On May 4, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Joshua Cude wrote: Surely you're aware of the Jones' challenge to Miles' results in Jones Hansen, Examination of Claims of Miles…, J. Phys. Chem. 95 (1995) 6966. Ah yes. That one slipped my mind. The recombination hypothesis. That is even more pathetic and preposterous than Morrison. As Miles pointed out, Jones uses a cell in a shape than no one else would think of using, and he set the power level a thousand times lower than Miles. Miles said: Why not throw a handful catalyst powder into the electrolyte while you are at it, just to make absolutely sure you have recombination. My suggestion was to put the cathode above the anode. There are other ways to ensure recombination. The thing is, there are also many ways to prevent it, and to verify that you have prevented it. For example, you measure effluent gas. Miles, along with EVERYONE ELSE uses these methods, so what Jones asserts is not only preposterous and unrealistic, it is factually wrong. Jones reached the living end -- the final frontier! -- when he boldly asserted to me that recombination can explain McKubre's results, even though McKubre uses a closed cell with a recombiner. At that point I figured that either Jones had taken leave of his senses, or Jones thought I understand absolutely nothing about cold fusion or grade-school chemistry. The fact that Cude still flogs this kind of nonsense tells me that he, too, has employed a warp drive to move light years beyond rational, fact-based argument, into the netherworld of recombination causing false excess heat in closed cells. This is why I stopped paying attention to people such as Jones and Cude 15 years ago, and why Cude is on my auto-delete list. Note that the Wikipedia article still flogs the recombination bugaboo. It did last time I checked, a few years ago. That is a handy litmus test. When a person says recombination might explain the excess heat! you can disqualify them. I will grant, there are a few other attempts to critique experiments, by Shanahan. I have some of his papers at LENR-CANR.org - Jed
[Vo]:PESN describes Rossi 1 MW plant shipment
A correspondent alerted me to this: http://pesn.com/2013/05/03/9602306_Live_Andrea-Rossi_Interview_May7/ QUOTE: Frank Ackland [wrote:] April 30th was the date that Andrea Rossi said he would be making the delivery of the first 1MW plant to the non-military customer. There was some confusion as to whether the plant would be delivered to the customer's premises on that day, or if it would be leaving Rossi's factory on that day. It turned out that the customer is Rossi's US partner, and they apparently went to Italy to pick up the plant, along with two prototypes. The shipment is en route to the USA now, as I understand things. FWIW. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping
The local production of energy does not necessarily have to result in a local production of heat. For example see this article posted by pagnucco a few days ago. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/apr/22/spin-waves-carry-energy-from-cold-to-hot On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This could be absurdly false - and could kill any remaining credibility that Rossi has. ** ** I will defer to anyone who does this kind heat transfer calculation on a regular basis but it looks absurd to me now based on the one basic simple issue – heat transfer limitations. ** ** With only 20 grams of active material, I’m pretty sure that it can be shown that it is physically impossible to transfer that much heat to the rest of the reactor before the nickel or any other known metal turns into a gas. ** ** The boiling point of nickel is 2,900+ … think about the implications ! what this all “boils down to” is can 20 grams of nickel transfer that much heat – roughly 14+ kWhr for several hundred hours? Forget the energy implications – as a straight-up heat transfer issue, this looks to be beyond physical reality… Of course – Rossi could say that the nickel boils inside the reactor at 10,000 degrees, but is that logical? ** ** *From:* Jed Rothwell ** ** I wrote: That's the small incandescent gadget in the foreground. Right? Much smaller than a 1 MW reactor, shown behind it. ** ** Here is Rossi's description of the incandescent gadget: ** ** http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/final-update-corrected-again-pordenone-hot-cat-report/ ** ** - Jed ** **
RE: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping
Harry - I liked that paper - but aren't you adding up the miracles ? i.e. the thermal miracle first and with spin current as the second miracle? One conceivable scenario using only the original miracle is this - if the reaction rate is so strong that hot ions of intermediate energy (tens of keV) are produced from fusion reactions in the nickel at a remarkably constant rate, and the powder is spread thinly so than no bulk heating occurs in it - then these ions can be absorbed in the walls of the reactor and thermalized as heat. They also give electrical charge. The problem then goes back to the lack of gammas and lack of bremsstrahlung. There are not many candidate materials for this. However, in prior message, there is the one candidate in Ni-63. It appears to be the only candidate in the periodic table for a beta-voltaic reaction according to the Russians. Apparently they have presented a way, in that paper, to enrich nickel to about 80% Ni-62, which is Rossi's named active isotope. How he gets it to Ni-63 could be his single miracle. Does anyone know if AR has a Russian connection? Is her name Tatiana? From: Harry Veeder The local production of energy does not necessarily have to result in a local production of heat. For example see this article posted by pagnucco a few days ago. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/apr/22/spin-waves-carry-energy -from-cold-to-hot This could be absurdly false - and could kill any remaining credibility that Rossi has. I will defer to anyone who does this kind heat transfer calculation on a regular basis but it looks absurd to me now based on the one basic simple issue - heat transfer limitations. With only 20 grams of active material, I'm pretty sure that it can be shown that it is physically impossible to transfer that much heat to the rest of the reactor before the nickel or any other known metal turns into a gas. The boiling point of nickel is 2,900+ . think about the implications ! what this all boils down to is can 20 grams of nickel transfer that much heat - roughly 14+ kWhr for several hundred hours? Forget the energy implications - as a straight-up heat transfer issue, this looks to be beyond physical reality. Of course - Rossi could say that the nickel boils inside the reactor at 10,000 degrees, but is that logical? From: Jed Rothwell I wrote: That's the small incandescent gadget in the foreground. Right? Much smaller than a 1 MW reactor, shown behind it. Here is Rossi's description of the incandescent gadget: http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/final-update-corrected-again-pordenone-hot -cat-report/ - Jed
[Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
Note that the enrichment process for Ni-62, invented by the Russians at Kurchatov (after it became a capitalist tool) gives an 80% enrichment, using the same kind of ultracentrifuge device employed in similar enrichment activities. If the following explanation is accurate, Forbes and other journalists will have a field day with the political implications of this unfolding story. Rossi, if we can believe him, could simply have found this exact Russian resource for buying Ni-62 at a reasonable price back in 2000 or before. This would actually make his role secondary in a way, to that of the Russians - but of course, this suggestion is nothing but speculation at the moment. To continue connecting the dots, instead of going ahead with the process of neutron irradiation, which they use at Kurchatov - to convert that enriched isotope to Ni-63 (and which would be unavailable to Rossi) - essentially what AR did was to discover that when this enriched isotope Ni-62 at about 80% enrichment was reacted with hydrogen, using potassium in the Mills' type of reaction, one could end up with a similar end result of lots of energy with no gammas. Actually the end result is better in many ways than beta-voltaics, since much more net energy is harnessed than with charge capture alone. This means that a prompt gamma does not appear when the Ni-62 absorbs a virtual neutron. Why not? My answer to that is essentially we have a two-part reaction involving first - energy from reversible proton fusion RPF, as described in earlier postings here. This creates a local energy deficit in a mass of nickel hydride but it has come from very small energy deposits (QCD color charge) over relatively extended time periods. IOW the energy gain from RPF operates to deplete the average mass of a large number of protons (about a pictogram, more or less) by about 6-8 MeV total. At that point, a subsequent conversion to Ni-63 happens - which is, in effect, a QM bookkeeping reaction for energy already lost to RPF. In fact, it can be surmised that RPF does not happen without the bookkeeping reaction in place, which means it does not happen easily without highly enriched Ni-62. Somehow the Ni-62 being a proton conductor in a nanometric layer is affecting the average mass protons as they are absorbed as hydrides. Thus the Rossi reaction is very difficult for anyone to pull off, without the isotope source. DGT may also know this but not Celani. As noted before, Ni-62 is a singularity in the periodic table, being the one isotope with the highest bonding energy of all isotopes of all elements. This is a trait which seems counter-intuitive for allowing hydrogen to shed mass in RPF, but the coincidences of the Rossi story point to this conclusion. If - in fact it turns out that Rossi is using this particular nickel isotope, and from the Kurchatov source, there is a good chance the above scenario is a fairly accurate portrayal of what is happening. Jones _ Possible Way To Industrial Production of Nickel-63 and the Prospects of Its Use Tsvetkov, et al. Research-Industrial Enterprise BIAPOS, Moscow, Russia, Formerly Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia Nickel-63 (a pure beta-emitter with a half-life of 100 years) is one of the most promising radionuclides that can be used in miniature autonomous electric power sources with a service life of above 30 years (nuclear batteries) working on the betavoltaic effect. This effect is analogous to the photoelectric effect, with the difference that electron-hole pairs are produced in a semiconductor with p-n-transition under the action of beta-particles rather than optical radiation. In addition to 63Ni, among all variety of radionuclides only tritium 3H (half-life 12.3 years; Emax = 18.6 keV; Eav = 5.7 keV) and promethium l47Pm (half-life 2.62 years; Emax = 230 keV; Eav = 65 keV) can be considered as candidates for the betavoltaic converter All other beta-emitters are unsuitable for any of several reasons: 1) accompanying gamma-radiation; 2) strong bremsstruhlung, which requires the use of radiation protection; http://isotope.info/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/possible-way-to-industrial-pr oduction-of-nickel-63-and-the-prospects-of-its-use.pdf attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Someone wrote: Don't be silly. The field is already dead. No one cares anymore. The credit of which you speak has already been handed out to Koonin and Lewis and Huizenga and others. Lewis' experiment was positive. He showed that cold fusion probably does exist. This was some of the best early proof. It is ironic that any skeptic still points to this.I expect that skeptics who point to this have never read the paper, because it is quite clear from the paper that this is evidence in favor of cold fusion. The need to continually pick over negative claims from 1989 like this one and the alleged falsifications of the MIT work, reveals the complete vacuum in field -- that, as I said, there is simply no quality evidence for cold fusion since then. Wegener's theory did not prevail because advocates went back to the early skeptical papers and found flaws in them. It prevailed because better evidence made his conclusions inescapable, and that made the old skeptical arguments irrelevant, apart from possible historical interest. The best way to prove Lewis's interpretation was wrong is to point to better evidence that makes cold fusion inescapable. As for the paper, Lewis himself read it, and he was a skeptic, and he disagreed with your interpretation. As did the editors at Nature. I'm inclined to hold his judgement in higher regard than that of a computer programmer, or his true believer advisors. The only reason he did not see it is because he did not want to see it. That's complete nonsense. If cold fusion were real, he would have been on the cusp of a major scientific revolution. It's a dream of any scientist to have their names attached to revolutions of that sort. Everyone knows that that is the quickest route to honor, fame, glory, and funding. The only plausible influence of cognitive bias works the other way. The reason for your positive interpretation is because you and your cohorts really really want cold fusion to be real, and you don't have the experience to keep your desires in check. It's interesting that you often argue that the lack of progress is because the experiment is so difficult and so expensive, and yet here is an experiment done rather quickly on what I guess was without an assigned budget, and yet you call it some of the best early proof. Not such a difficult experiment after all.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: First of all, you and many other people made such a fuss about CF being impossible, that the money required to advance understanding was denied. Poppycock. The argument was that CF was highly unlikely, but in spite of that, much of the scientific world suspended disbelief to give the two distinguished scientists the benefit of the doubt. Pons was cheered by thousands, and scientists all over the world went to their labs to try to reproduce. Even Morrison, who eventually became the most vocal skeptic wrote shortly after the announcement: … I feel this subject will become so important to society that we must consider the broader implications as well as the scientific ones […] the present big power companies will be running down their oil and coal power stations while they are building deuterium separation plants and new power plants based on cold fusion.…. Optimism ruled until the weakness of the evidence became apparent. And even after skepticism took over, money was allocated. Utah gave PF 5 million for their cold fusion center. Then they went to France with 10 times that from Toyota. You've estimated 500M has been spent. Considering PF spent less than 100k to make the discovery, 5000 times that should be more than enough to prove it to the world. And yet, the evidence is no better now than it was in 1989. OK, we all know that some money was provided. This amount did achieve an increased level of understanding, which you now deny exists, but it was not enough. This increased level of understanding was summarized perfectly by Hagelstein when he said: aside from the existence of an excess heat effect, there is very little that our community agrees on. And if 10 times more had been spent on cold fusion, and the same marginal results existed, if from more labs, you would still say it was not enough. Perpetual motion people could say that there has not been enough funding to prove it works. Every fringe science can make the same argument. Then you use this failure to make progress as evidence that the effect is not real. Surely you see the problem with this kind of circular argument. No. I really don't. Scientists look at evidence, including all the evidence that suggests cold fusion should not work, and make judgements. And those judgements include estimates on the scale of the experiment, and what would be required to establish proof-of-principle. The consensus judgement is that there is nothing to it, and that if there were, the amount of effort already spent on it would have almost certainly been much more than enough to establish proof. Your claim that it hasn't been proven because of insufficient funds simply has no end, and it applies indiscriminantly to any fringe science and therefore has no persuasive value. You say that everyone in conventional science does not believe the effect is real. This statement is not accurate. Actually, most scientists have no knowledge about what has been discovered. Therefore, their opinion is based on ignorance. When I tell people what has been discovered, they are amazed and become very interested. Then you should have no trouble securing all the funding you need. But just above, you said funding was denied because people believed CF was impossible. So which is it? The truth is that when arms-length experts are enlisted to examine the best evidence, as in the 2004 DOE panel, or for any other grant proposals, or for submissions to prominent journals, they usually come up negative. If it weren't true that mainstream science rejects cold fusion, advocates would not spend so much time complaining that it ignores, suppresses, rejects, doesn't fund, doesn't publish, doesn't patent, doesn't replicate, doesn't test anything related to cold fusion. Most working physicists were around in 1989, and they learned enough about cold fusion and its claims to know that if it were real, it would not be so resistant to protracted experiment. That if it were real -- that if metal hydrides represented an accessible energy density a million times higher than dynamite in a table top experiment at ordinary conditions -- it would be easy to design an experiment to prove it unequivocally. It would not be necessary to read dozens of papers to believe it. It would be like the Wright brothers' 1908 flight in Paris, or high Tc superconductivity in 1986. The series of ICCF conferences, the latest being at the Univ. of Missouri, you must conclude were organized by fools and people outside of conventional science. You and a few other people have created a myth. I can understand why people trying to get support for their work on hot fusion would want CF to die Really? I can't. Unless they were quite certain there was nothing to it. They can be forgiven for objecting to their research being shut down for a pipe dream that will come to nothing. But if they thought the field had
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua Cude wrote: Poor choice of words on my part. Of course I know that skeptics and believers disagree about the quality of the evidence . . . This is not a matter of opinion. The quality of evidence is measured objectively, based on repeatability and the signal to noise ratio. Anyone looking at the data from McKubre, Kunimatsu or Fleischmann can see it is excellent. To the extent that people disagree, it really is a matter of judgement. The 2004 DOE panel looked at the best evidence advocates had to offer, and they did not find it excellent, so your statement is manifestly false. In fact they found it sufficiently poor that they recommended against allocating funds for the field. That would be unconscionable if they though the research had any merit. First, it is 19 years old. No, it was written in 2007. Evidently you are looking at the wrong paper. Evidently. The paper you listed is a retrospective in a conference proceedings, and the most recent refereed journal paper cited is from 1990. He doesn't even cite his own 1994 paper; has he lost confidence in the results? This makes the absence of progress even more obvious. There is nothing he chose to cite that was sufficiently credible to get published in a refereed journal in 23 years. What's more, he stops short of a definite conclusion that the effect is nuclear, and he admits the evidence is sufficiently weak to allow doubts in the broader community. I fall back on McKubre's earlier paper because it is one of the best peer-reviewed ones that I have permission to upload to LENR-CANR.org. Your usual excuse. Maybe you're not familiar with the concept of *journals*. The idea is, that publishing in a journal provides wide access to the material. That's the point of it. This may come as a surprise, but there are libraries other than the ones at Los Alamos and Georgia Tech. So, it's not necessary to actually provide the paper. Just the reference. However, there is no statute of limitation on scientific facts. Experiments done in 1650 or 1800 remain as true today as when they were done. Right, but if they didn't convince in 1650, and there is no progress since, they won't convince in 2013. Surely the cold fusion world was not satisfied with McKubre's 1994 results. And yet, no one can do better. The year before PF had claimed 160 W output with 40 W input. That paper was challenged for its poor calorimetry. With McKubre's much improved calorimetry, the claimed output was about 10.5 W with 10 W input (give or take). That suggests that PF's claim could have all been artifact. No, it indicates that you have to heat up a cathode to produce a strong reaction. McKubre's calorimeter prevents you from doing this, Surely one can do good calorimetry with high temperatures. But McKubre has not succeeded in scaling his results up at all. It remains true that better quality results correspond to lower claims. And no one has published anything close to the PF 1993 results. That is why Mizuno's 100 g cathode produced ~100 W of heat after death for several days, whereas the record for a cathode weighing a few grams was ~20 W of heat after death for a day. Presumably that's the anecdotal story of water disappearing at night, that was never reproduced by him or anyone, and never published in a refereed journal. And the half watt or so that he observed is in the range of artifacts in calorimetry experiments. No, with McKubre's instrument it is a couple of orders of magnitude above the range of any artifact, as you see in the calibrations. Again, facts are facts, and waving your hands does not make them go away. And yet in 2001, you said: Why haven’t researchers learned to make the results stand out? After twelve years of painstaking replication attempts, most experiments produce a fraction of a watt of heat, when they work at all. Such low heat is difficult to measure. It leaves room for honest skeptical doubt that the effect is real.? You said it was difficult to measure and left room for honest skepticism. The essential problem though is the failure to improve on the experiment. The energy density is a million times higher than chemical, and yet it's always so close to the input. Like you said, it depends on temperature, the particular rods, the surface etc. And yet, he can't improve it. That screams pathological science.
Re: [Vo]:Neutron, Proton and Positron
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Joseph S. Barrera III j...@barrera.orgwrote: On 5/3/2013 11:07 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: What I am saying is that neutrons and protons conform to the quark models (u,u,d) and (u,u,d) when they are probed at high energies. At lower energies they are different. What is your model for them at low energies? - Joe Consider a non-Newtonian fluid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYSlK4f94p0 The resistance of the liquid increases with the velocity impact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Newtonian_fluid I wrote about this couple of years on vortex, but back then I made the mistake of trying to apply it to the EM forces between charged particles. I should have applied it to the nuclear force. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: The second was that they seemed to have undue confidence in their knowledge, leaving them vulnerable to overlooking evidence and explaining it away. That's always a danger, but funding agencies and journal editors and hiring committees still refer to experts like this who have undue confidence rather than to members of the public like you for advice. I wonder why that is. As a member of the general public coming upon cold fusion recently, this impression on my part might be an outlier, or it might be representative over the long run. I suspect it will turn out to be representative. You really didn't answer the question of why you think this. You explained your own path to enlightenment, but you said that regardless of how it shakes out, skeptics will be seen as over-zealous. I still say that if it shakes out in such a way that believers drift away, the type that follow your path will be few and far between. The general view in science now is *not* that the skeptics were overzealous, but rather that the believers were (are) pathological. If believers disappear, that view will only be strengthened. But I'm not entirely sure that specific criticism is always more effective. Many true believers simply don't read detailed arguments. After all, if you look at a site like e-catworld, it is evident that most of them become believers because of who else believes. Who is your audience? Who are you hoping to convince? It really is not that premeditated. It's a recreation, after all. And like I said, I mostly respond to arguments I see. So my audience is the same as the audience to the post I am responding to. If the post I disagree with makes general arguments, then my rebuttals will be general too. If it is specific, and I have specific objections, then my post will be specific too. Anyway, I'm motivated by what interests me, and I have to say that arguing about arguing is not my idea of recreation. But if you're going to disabuse those who are left to be disabused, you have no choice but to engage specific details. I don't follow. Those who are left are as likely to be swayed by general arguments one way or the other as anyone else. But like I said, my MO, whether you think it most effective or not, is to express disagreement with stuff I see posted on-line. And I assure you, I will not lose sleep if I fail to convert anyone or to keep anyone from falling victim to their wishful thinking. It is clear that you're willing to do this -- you just posted a very nice post addressing points in Jed's reply and raising a number of juicy details. Like I said, it's not my first time. This is the kind of post that will help to advance the conversation. Name calling (true believer, incoherent ramblings of a bitter man, etc.) will only alienate those who are not already firmly committed to some position, undermining rather than supporting your intentions. I don't agree. Those whose opinions of natural phenomena are influenced by their emotional reaction to spirited argument, will not be influenced by logic anyway. And I did find Hagelstein's essay to be incoherent, and him to be bitter. So, it's just honest to state my position up front, and then support it. A little color in the conversation helps keep it less boring, and while it may not be appropriate in formal literature, I find it quite suitable in on-line exchanges. In any case, I did not re-appear here for detailed cold fusion discussions, because it's very clear in the mandate that this is a believer site, and that's fine. I escaped the mass banning a year ago, because I was on self-imposed abstinence for exactly that reason. I think there is plenty of room for died-in-the-wool skeptics here. But it's not your forum, is it? The charter makes it quite clear that skeptics are not welcome, and the banning a year ago put the exclamation mark on that. If I might offer some suggestions, based on observations of previous bannings: Since I'm not intending to stay, no thanks. - Be respectful. You may not agree with people, and you may not even respect their intelligence or their intellectual integrity, but avoid name calling and condescension. See above. But I see you are suggesting I do as you say, and not as you do, because your post fairly drips with condescension. - Don't be annoying by endlessly repeating yourself. Impossible not to be annoying to true believers. They are naturally annoyed at skepticism. As for repeating myself, well that's really a function of what I respond to. If arguments for cold fusion get endlessly repeated, the rebuttals naturally get repeated too. But only the rebuttals get complained about.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Ah yes. That one slipped my mind. The recombination hypothesis. That is even more pathetic and preposterous than Morrison. It's one thing to say that you don't agree with any of the published challenges to cold fusion. We already know that, or you wouldn't be a true believer. Likewise, skeptics are not convinced by the cold fusion publications, and yet the most common argument to justify its legitimacy is the number of publications. But what you said is that skeptics have not published their objections, when clearly they have. In both the cases in question (and there are others), there was spirited controversy in the literature, and neither side conceded. But in both cases, history has vindicated the skeptics. Because there has not been another refereed paper with excess heat anywhere close to the claims of PF, and there has not been another refereed paper claiming quantitative heat/helium correlation a la Miles. This is why I stopped paying attention to people such as Jones and Cude 15 years ago, and why Cude is on my auto-delete list. Evidently that auto-delete is working about as well as cold fusion...
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: He said nothing that skeptics did not say in 1990. Please. My main argument is the complete absence of progress in 24 years. No one argued that in 1990. I refer to your 2001 opinion that the results fail to stand out, and to the opinion of the 2004 DOE panel. That McKubre's claim of high reproducibility was premature. That in 2008 he admits the absence of quantitative and inter-lab reproducibility. That the size of the claimed effect has gotten smaller (and the number of publications dramatically smaller), which is consistent with pathological science. Everything they said then and that Cude repeats now was promptly disproved by experts back then. The best rebuttal would be better evidence, which never comes. In the last decade, only a few refereed publications claim excess heat, and only in the range of one watt. And nearly all the excitement in the field is about experiments with completely unreliable calorimetry, many of of them reported by companies looking for investment, headed by people with no experience in science like Rossi, Godes, Dardik, Mills. Cold fusion represents an energy density a million times higher than dynamite from a table-top experiment. If it were real, it would not resist protracted experiment for a quarter century. It would be easy to prove unequivocally. It would not need to be defended by the likes of you, or Krivit, or Lomax, or Carat, or Tyler, or Alain, or any of the other groupies who have no background in science. My sense is that Taubes is sincere. He says this stuff because he is a scientific illiterate. This from the guy who spent weeks two years ago arguing that steam cannot be heated above 100C at atmospheric pressure.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
I do not want to beat this recombination issue to death, but let me mention one other thing. With an open cell, you ensure there is no significant recombination with a variety of methods, such as measuring the gas flow with an inverted test tube underwater, or with a gas flowmeter. The other method that every electrochemist uses is to keep track of the makeup water you add daily. If there is recombination, the electrolyte level does not fall as much as theory predicts. With most cells, at most power levels, there will be several milliliters extra. In other words, what Jones and Cude are saying is that hundreds professional scientists are incapable of measuring water in milliliters. You see why I say this is preposterous. This has been described in the literature many times. For example, McKubre wrote: A continuous error such as unwitnessed and unexpected recombination of D2 and O2 inside intentionally open calorimeter cells has an energy capacity of the same magnitude as some heat effects observed in them, but this argument fails on two grounds: i. the FPE is measured reliably and robustly in closed cells where this effect can play no role, and is similar in form and magnitude to the effect measured in open cells, ii. accurate account is easily (and routinely) taken for the amount of water added for electrolyte makeup due to Faradaic loss; prolonged periods of energy excess due to unmeasured recombination would result in FPE cells requiring less D2O (or overfilling). *All* of the other arguments offered by Cude and the other skeptics after 1990 have been equally preposterous. Anyone can see this is wrong because we all learn to measure water in elementary school. After you sweep away the confusion you will see that Cude's other objections are equally absurd. Cude has not said one thing -- ever -- that was not thoroughly disproved in 1990. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Neutron, Proton and Positron
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Joseph S. Barrera III j...@barrera.orgwrote: On 5/3/2013 11:07 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: What I am saying is that neutrons and protons conform to the quark models (u,u,d) and (u,u,d) when they are probed at high energies. At lower energies they are different. What is your model for them at low energies? - Joe Consider a non-Newtonian fluid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYSlK4f94p0 The resistance of the liquid increases with the velocity impact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Newtonian_fluid I wrote about this couple of years on vortex, but back then I made the mistake of trying to apply it to the EM forces between charged particles. I should have applied it to the nuclear force. Harry more examples http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU7iuJ98fRQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp1wUodQgqQ Now imagine a non-Newtonian drop floating on the spacestation subject to external impacts and vibrations and you can see how quarks can arise within a nucleus in a high energy environment. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
While I agree with Cude about the need for ideas to be challenged and claims to be questioned, his style is not helpful in clarifying the issues about CF. Consequently, I for one will not continue the discussion. I suggest other people consider what happened last time Vortex was subjected to his style of discussion and take the required precaution. Ed On May 4, 2013, at 4:51 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I do not want to beat this recombination issue to death, but let me mention one other thing. With an open cell, you ensure there is no significant recombination with a variety of methods, such as measuring the gas flow with an inverted test tube underwater, or with a gas flowmeter. The other method that every electrochemist uses is to keep track of the makeup water you add daily. If there is recombination, the electrolyte level does not fall as much as theory predicts. With most cells, at most power levels, there will be several milliliters extra. In other words, what Jones and Cude are saying is that hundreds professional scientists are incapable of measuring water in milliliters. You see why I say this is preposterous. This has been described in the literature many times. For example, McKubre wrote: A continuous error such as unwitnessed and unexpected recombination of D2 and O2 inside intentionally open calorimeter cells has an energy capacity of the same magnitude as some heat effects observed in them, but this argument fails on two grounds: i. the FPE is measured reliably and robustly in closed cells where this effect can play no role, and is similar in form and magnitude to the effect measured in open cells, ii. accurate account is easily (and routinely) taken for the amount of water added for electrolyte makeup due to Faradaic loss; prolonged periods of energy excess due to unmeasured recombination would result in FPE cells requiring less D2O (or overfilling). All of the other arguments offered by Cude and the other skeptics after 1990 have been equally preposterous. Anyone can see this is wrong because we all learn to measure water in elementary school. After you sweep away the confusion you will see that Cude's other objections are equally absurd. Cude has not said one thing -- ever -- that was not thoroughly disproved in 1990. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Consequently, I for one will not continue the discussion. Me neither! I promise to shut up. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:pictures of 1mw E-cat plant shipping
You criticize others for being disconnected from reality, from experimental data, having preconceptions, and using imagination to invent thinks disengaged from reality. This conversation is a good example of the The pot calling the kettle black. Look at the experimental data describing the assay of the NAE before and after a run of the DGT reactor. http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=1cad=rjaved=0CCQQFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnewenergytimes.com%2Fv2%2Fconferences%2F2012%2FICCF17%2FICCF-17-Hadjichristos-Technical-Characteristics-Paper.pdfei=wYdRUO6bKqH20gGC64H4BQusg=AFQjCNGT9S6MSfTNDMcAs1KjI6lnTbzMNAsig2=J0nTrYnPz0dbSOKYgP5VPg TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS PERFORMANCE OF THE DEFKALION’S HYPERION PRE-INDUSTRIAL PRODUCT From the before and after data, you will see that the amount of nickel more than doubled after the test run compared to what was there before the test run. In addition, all kinds of new metal ash were produced. And of major interest, no copper was formed. Consistent with Ed Storms crack theory, the NAE is a geometric entity and has little to do with the material that makes it up. From a topological viewpoint, the NAE constantly renews itself from one nanosecond to the next like falling snow covering a rutted muddy road at least in the Ni/H type reactors. On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: While all of the proposed mechanism are applied to Pd, this does not mean Pd is the only material that supports the NAE. People have used Ti, Ni, various alloys, and various oxides with success. The ENEA and others still research mainly Pd, or exclusively Pd. I wish more people could get Ni to work, but I do not know many who have. Once the NAE can be made on purpose and in large amount, use of Pd will not be necessary. So, why keep using Pd as the example? I use it as an example because there is a lot of literature on it. No other reason. As I said in the book and elsewhere, Ni is more promising from a commercial point of view, mainly because it is abundant and cheap. I described my back-of-the-envelope estimate based on Pd in catalytic converters because converters are where half the world's Pd ends up; because it is an interesting comparison; and because I used this to estimate how much energy we might produce with the world supply of Pd. My conclusion was roughly in line with Martin Fleischmann's. I do not know the basis for his estimate. As I recall, we both figured you could produce roughly a third of the world energy supply with Pd. I do not think anyone advocates the use of Pd as a practical source of energy. Martin was the first to suggest Ni would be better. Palladium only has historical interest because F-P chose this material. It actually is the worst choice, as many people have found. Well, in bulk the power density of Pd is lot higher than Ni. For now it is. I don't know about in powder form. If Rossi is correct than of course powder Ni is better than anything. With Ni you would not have to worry about conserving metal. You could use as much as you like per watt of generator capacity. So, the catalytic converter model is less useful. You would want to minimize the amount of metal used in some applications, where the heat engine has to be as small and compact as possible. Such as a wrist watch battery, or a spacecraft power supply. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Joshua Cude, Seems you might end up being the last person standing... May ask you to offer a few decisive critiques to refute Lomax's claim, much repeated for a year or longer, that heat and helium are correlated in standard cold fusion experiments, some years ago -- for instance, have there been any attempts since then that fail to show this correlation? Maybe you and Lomax have already long reached an impasse, talking right past each other? What would have to happen for you to be curious enough to join Lomax in proposing new tests for this correlation? within the fellowship of service, Rich Murray On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Consequently, I for one will not continue the discussion. Me neither! I promise to shut up. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Steven: What I was thinking as I was reading your most eloquent explanation and question to Josh, was not quite so eloquent. . what a waste of good brain cells. -Mark From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 8:15 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial My vortex-l posting habits has gone down significantly within the last six months due to the fact that I need to focus on my own personal research as compared to constantly getting ensnared in another discussion thread. (Vortex-l can be so addictive!) Nevertheless, every now and then, something still catches my eye. I noticed that Ed Storms recently asked Joshua: So, I ask, what is the reason behind this lengthly critique of what Peter says? To which Joshua replied: It's caught my interest. Other people become experts at video games; I've gotten similarly addicted to cold fusion debunking. Joshua, this recreational hobby of yours - someone who appears to have become addicted to cold fusion debunking... The short reply would be to suggest that there are recovery programs that can help such addicts overcome these kinds of afflictions. But here's a more detailed response: I'm certainly not suggesting that in your case recovery might imply that you would suddenly find yourself becoming more accepting of some little-understood LENR / CANR reactions that certain researchers have concluded may be occurring in Nature. Far from it. What I am, however, trying to suggest is that if you believe this addictive hobby of yours is altruistic because as a science apologist you are attempting to defend the true objective principals of scientific investigation, I would suggest you might want to consider pursuing a different hobby. Instead of relentlessly performing in the role of an armchair debunker why not consider focusing your apparent boundless energy on some really worthy hobbies like pursuing actual laboratory work on a subject that fascinates you, or your own or theoretical research. Or have you done this already? If so, please point us to some of your work. I suspect many on this list might be interested in looking into your accomplishments. As a matter of disclosure, while some on this list may think of me as nothing more than an astronomical artist, one of my other personal hobbies, a hobby I have pursued since the mid 1980s has been theoretical research into the nature of celestial mechanics and the various algorithms and formulas used to generate orbital paths. I have pursued this rather obscure branch of study because of my own unique collection of personal predilections. Personal quirks or not, it is my hope that my personal research may eventually end up making a useful contribution to the knowledge base of humankind, but who really knows. I have on occasion hinted at some of the observations I've stumbled across OFTEN BY ACCIDENT I might add, as occasionally described within Vortex-l list over the past decade. Nevertheless, I must confess the fact that I don't yet know if what I seem to have stumbled across will actually turn out to be beneficial to society, or not. Hopefully, I'm getting closer to actually publishing something useful and informative. However, publication is still a year or so away - at best. In the end, it's all a gamble. It is nevertheless a personal risk of mine I'm willing to take with my own limited life span. So, I ask you, Josh. What risks are you willing to take... take with your own limited life span? I would suggest focusing your energies on pursuing a hobby of armchair debunking the laboratory research of cold fusion researchers is not likely to make all that much of a useful contribution to society, considering the extremely limited lifespan we all have to contend with on this planet. Why not make your life span count for something? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
Re: [Vo]:Neutron, Proton and Positron
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 7:02 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Joseph S. Barrera III j...@barrera.orgwrote: On 5/3/2013 11:07 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: What I am saying is that neutrons and protons conform to the quark models (u,u,d) and (u,u,d) when they are probed at high energies. At lower energies they are different. What is your model for them at low energies? - Joe Consider a non-Newtonian fluid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYSlK4f94p0 The resistance of the liquid increases with the velocity impact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Newtonian_fluid I wrote about this couple of years on vortex, but back then I made the mistake of trying to apply it to the EM forces between charged particles. I should have applied it to the nuclear force. Harry more examples http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU7iuJ98fRQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp1wUodQgqQ Now imagine a non-Newtonian drop floating on the spacestation subject to external impacts and vibrations and you can see how quarks can arise within a nucleus in a high energy environment. Harry A more scientific presentation of a non-Newtonian fluid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCHPo3EA7oE Harry
[Vo]:Of prescience and perfect liquids
In an attempt to trigger some out of the box thinking, let me contribute the following... Excerpt from Brookhaven National Lab: - http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/newPhysics.asp A Perfect Liquid RHIC scientists had expected collisions between two beams of gold nuclei to mimic conditions of the early universe and produce a gaseous plasma of the smallest components of matter - the quarks and gluons that make up ordinary protons and neutrons. But instead of behaving like a gas, the early-universe matter created in RHIC's energetic gold-gold collisions appears to be more like a liquid. And it's not just any liquid, but one with coordinated collective motion, or flow, among the constituent particles. Scientists describe this fluid motion as nearly perfect because it can be explained by the equations of hydrodynamics for a fluid with virtually no viscosity, or frictional resistance to flow. In fact, the high degree of collective interaction and rapid distribution of thermal energy among the particles, as well as the extremely low viscosity in the matter being formed at RHIC, make it the most nearly perfect liquid ever observed. END OF EXCERPT - Note the phrase in the second paragraph: a fluid with virtually no viscosity, or frictional resistance to flow. I've been saying for well over a decade that the vacuum behaves like a fluid that is under extreme pressure, and virtually no viscosity... and that subatomic particles are localized oscillations of that 'fluid', and that due to the no viscosity character of the fluid, the damping factor is also nearly nonexistent, so once 'created', those oscillations would continue for a very, very long time. Those oscillations also likely causing polarization of the surrounding vacuum which we interpret as E and B fields... The mainstream is coming around... albeit, slowly and expensively! J Another interesting phrase that might relate to LENR is: rapid distribution of thermal energy among the particles -Mark Iverson attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: If - in fact it turns out that Rossi is using this particular nickel isotope, and from the Kurchatov source, there is a good chance the above scenario is a fairly accurate portrayal of what is happening. Any comment on the net energy balance?
Re: [Vo]:Of prescience and perfect liquids
Mark You have contributed a profound insight to LENR in the Ni/H reactor. I am confident the there is a global condensation of polariton states in a Ni/H reactor. This general condition of Bose-Einstein condensation means that the micro-powder and perhaps even the hydrogen envelope is a superfluid that conducts heat with little or no resistance. A superfluid conducts heat better than copper, which is yet an excellent conductor. The reason is that thanks to superfluidity, a perfect liquid can easily move from hot zones to cold zones, enabling a thermal conduction by convection, a phenomenon much more efficient than the usual gradual heat diffusion. When you put a saucepan of water on a hotplate, the bottom is hotter than the free surface. Bubbles appear in the bottom, get bigger, get loose and spread over the water: the water is boiling. However, in a superfluid, the great thermal conduction requires a very homogeneous temperature everywhere. In the absence of zones hotter than others, transformation from liquid to vapor can only happen at the free surface where a superfluid evaporates: there are no bubbles. A superfluid vaporizes without boiling. What concerns many theorists of the Ni/H reactor is how heat produced by a few grams of nickel powder can be transmitted to the walls of the reactor. The general state of superfluidity keeps the temperature uniform throughout the hydrogen envelop. The walls of the reactor are the same temperature as the micro-powder because of a general state of Bose-Einstein condensation made possible by the polariton. Add this new amazement to the list of many miracles performed by the Ni/H reactor. On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:04 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: In an attempt to trigger some out of the box thinking, let me contribute the following... Excerpt from Brookhaven National Lab: - http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/newPhysics.asp A Perfect Liquid RHIC scientists had expected collisions between two beams of gold nuclei to mimic conditions of the early universe and produce a gaseous plasma of the smallest components of matter - the quarks and gluons that make up ordinary protons and neutrons. But instead of behaving like a gas, the early-universe matter created in RHIC's energetic gold-gold collisions appears to be more like a liquid. And it's not just any liquid, but one with coordinated collective motion, or flow, among the constituent particles. Scientists describe this fluid motion as nearly perfect because it can be explained by the equations of hydrodynamics for a fluid with virtually no viscosity, or frictional resistance to flow. In fact, the high degree of collective interaction and rapid distribution of thermal energy among the particles, as well as the extremely low viscosity in the matter being formed at RHIC, make it the most nearly perfect liquid ever observed. END OF EXCERPT - Note the phrase in the second paragraph: a fluid with virtually no viscosity, or frictional resistance to flow. I've been saying for well over a decade that the vacuum behaves like a fluid that is under extreme pressure, and virtually no viscosity... and that subatomic particles are localized oscillations of that 'fluid', and that due to the no viscosity character of the fluid, the damping factor is also nearly nonexistent, so once 'created', those oscillations would continue for a very, very long time. Those oscillations also likely causing polarization of the surrounding vacuum which we interpret as E and B fields... The mainstream is coming around... albeit, slowly and expensively! J Another interesting phrase that might relate to LENR is: rapid distribution of thermal energy among the particles -Mark Iverson
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Joshua Cude I wonder if you have been keeping up with the new thinking in LENR. Specifically, I would like your opinion of the new theories posed by NASA and Widom-Larsen centered on the polariton. These theories are more applicable to the Ni/H reactor (LENR+) rather than the older LENR theories witch are still the mainstream on this site. I believe that LENR is essentially useless. Your opinion on the Rossi and DGT reactors would be interesting. Frankly because LENR is useless and uninteresting, your abuse of LENR is tedious regardless if LENR is real or not. LENR+ is a completely new principle which is coming to perfection in the short term with the first delivery of a Rossi reactor this last week and the upcoming demo of the DGT reactor at the NI conference in August. On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: The recent editorial in Infinite Energy by Hagelstein represents the incoherent ramblings of a bitter man who is beginning to realize he has wasted 25 years of his career, but is deathly afraid to admit it. He spends a lot of time talking about consensus and experiment and evidence and theory and destroyed careers and suppression but scarcely raises the issue of the *quality* of the evidence. That's cold fusion's problem: the quality of the evidence is abysmal -- not better than the evidence for bigfoot, alien visits, dowsing, homeopathy and a dozen other pathological sciences. And an extraordinary claim *does* require excellent evidence. By not facing this issue, and simply ploughing ahead as if the evidence is as good as the Wright brothers' Paris flight in 1908, he loses the confidence of all but true believers that he is being completely honest and forthright. *1. On consensus* Hagelstein starts out with the science-by-consensus straw man, suggesting that consensus was used in connection with the question of the existence of an excess heat effect in the Fleischmann-Pons experiment. Please! No one with any familiarity with the history of science thinks consensus defines truth (which I think is what he's suggesting scientists believe). If it did, the ptolemaic solar system would still be taught in school, and time would still be absolute. Individual qualified scientists sufficiently motivated to inspect the evidence make judgements based on that evidence, and, since the modern physics revolution, avoid absolute certainty, their judgements representing varying degrees of certainty. Of course, consensus judgements do form, and are considered by those unqualified or unmotivated to examine the evidence to get some idea of the validity of a phenomenon or theory. While consensus does not define truth, a consensus of experts is the most likely approximation to the truth. And the stronger the consensus, the more confidence it warrants. Sometimes the consensus can be very strong, as in the current consensus that the solar system is Copernican. I have not made the astronomical measurements to prove that it is, although my observations are certainly consistent with it, but my confidence in the description comes from the unanimous consensus among those who have made or analyzed the necessary measurements. Likewise, confidence in the shape of the earth is essentially absolute, and serious humans dismiss members of the flat-earth society as deluded, or more likely dishonest. So, when it comes to allocating funding, hiring or promoting, or awarding prizes or honors, there's really no option but to consult experts in the respective field -- essentially to rely on the consensus. It's the worst system except for all the others. Hagelstein claims that cold fusion is an example of the Semmelweis reflex, in which an idea is rejected because it falls outside the existing consensus. That reflex is named after the rejection of Semmelweis's (correct) hand-washing theory in 1847, which Hagelstein cites. Then he goes on to mock a scientific system in which ideas outside the consensus are rejected and the people who propose them are ostracized in a ridiculous parody that bears no resemblance at all to the actual practice of science. It's the usual way true believers rationalize the rejection of their favorite fringe science. But it's truly surprising to see that Hagelstein has no more awareness of the reality of science than the many cold fusion groupies who populate the internet forums. Of course there is a certain inertia in science, and that is probably not a bad thing, even if it sometimes has negative consequences, but there's so much wrong about the way the phenomenon is applied here: i) Hagelstein fails to mention that in 1989 the announcement of PF was greeted with widespread enthusiasm and optimism both inside and outside the scientific mainstream; that Pons got a standing ovation from thousands of scientists at an ACS meeting; that scientists all over the world ran to their labs to try to reproduce
