Re: Pure Energy Systems
Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: laws are understood by 99.9% of scientists and engineers. CF also appears to violate some textbook laws of nuclear physics, although there is less agreement among experts about which laws it violates, and to what extent it violates them. The point is, only a fool would believe in CF if it had not been proven experimentally. O-U motors should be ruled impossible until it is proven by experiment that they exist. It has to be a widely replicated, well documented, convincing experiment. I suggest the issue is not that CF or O-U devices violate conservation of energy laws. This issue is a distraction. When conservation of energy laws are applied, all sources of energy must be identified. If an unexpected and ignored energy is involved in the process, the conservation law can not be applied. I meant that ZPE appears to violate the conservation of mass-energy. It produces energy without annihilating commensurate mass. In the case of CF, the energy source are unexpected nuclear reactions that produce completely conventional products. Yes. I said that CF appears to violate nuclear physics. I did not mean it violates C. of E. Some skeptics have made that claim, but it is ridiculous. Actually, CF is predicated on calorimetry, which is predicated on the second law. If thermodynamics does not work, CF results are meaningless. In the case of O-U motors, the ignored energy is proposed to be ZPE. The only issue is whether ZPE can be made to run a motor. The laws of conversation of energy have no bearing on the issue. I think they do. Scott Little told me he stopped believing in ZPE some years ago because every time he asked a theorist how much energy it produces, the estimate seemed to go up by another 10 orders of magnitude. Eventually they were talking about boiling away the oceans of earth ten time over with the ZPE in a few centimeters of space. That sounds ridiculous to me. Of course it is ridiculous. This is like saying at all the energy in the oceans, if extracted, would run the world for decades. The extraction process for ZPE will obviously be very inefficient and probably is limited by what would be equivalent to the Carnot cycle. Ed - Jed
Re: Pure Energy Systems
Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms writes: Mass and energy are only equivalent when energy is converted to mass. When energy exists only as energy, it does not have the property of mass. That would be potential energy, I suppose, and my understanding is that it does have mass. When you wind a watch, raise a rock up, or charge a battery, you add a tiny amount to the mass of the object. Any form of energy production always reduces mass. What you are saying is more a matter of faith than experimental fact. Granted, the photon appears to be attracted by gravity, hence acts like mass. However, people have found other ways to explain this observation. As far as I know, no unambiguous experimental observation shows that energy in any form acts like mass or would exhibit detectable gravity if in a high enough concentration. I say this knowing that a photon falling through a gravity field appears to change its energy. The issue all of this discussion addresses is whether a very high concentration of ZPE could be detected because it would acquire the properties of mass, i.e gravity and inertia. Perhaps other people have some thoughts on this idea. If this energy is like light or heat, it must originate somewhere, presumably in the sun and other stars. The sun's energy production is all accounted for, as far as I know, except perhaps for a few neutrinos. Presumably the ZPE is part of the universe just like the mass we see. It doesn't originate anywhere, it just is. If you like the Big Bang approach, you can say it was left over from the Big Bang, being energy that has not yet been converted into mass. If you like the Steady-State approach you can say it is the reservoir from which mass forms and into which mass goes when it converts to energy by natural processes. It is the other side of the equilibrium reaction that keeps the universe in balance. Of course, some of this energy is at a low enough frequency that we can see it with our primitive detectors, but that small part is only leakage (or the edge of the frequency distribution) from a huge reservoir. You might say, we are surrounded by dark matter as well as by dark energy. Ed My knowledge of relativity and ZPE combined would barely fill a postcard, so perhaps I am missing something here. - Jed
Re: Pure Energy Systems
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/23/2004 12:39:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Presumably the ZPE is part of the universe just like the mass we see. Yes, that is true. Given that, we could detect it due to its gravitational influence. Hubble's red shift would be much greater. We do not detect this gravitational influence. The ZPE is not there in any large amount. I gave up on ZPE about 15 years ago when I came to this conclusion. I told Puthoff this. He did not answer this question except to say that maybe ZP energy has no gravitational influence. I don't believe this. If we are in a uniform gravitational field, how would you detect it? In other words, if the ZPE is uniform in all directions, its gravitational influence would cancel. Ed This does not mean we cant create energy from nothing. The positive energy would be balanced its negative gravitational influence on the universe. The genesis process requires that we control gravity. My Constants of the Motion Theorem shows us how to do this. It is narrow in scope. It does not include magnet motors. It includes cold fusion. Cold Fusion Information - Frank Znidarsic Frank Znidarsic
Re: Musings on: Energy Gravity and Acceleration
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/23/2004 4:49:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Or maybe it's the other way around! I get soo confused when I think about gravity vs. acceleration! You are not wrong. Gravity produces a force. GM/rr This sounds like circular reasoning. Which came first, the force or gravity? Force produces gravity Gravity = (G/ccr) (dp/dt) Why is this? Gravity travels at light speed. If so, how is it possible for a galaxy to organize with a diameter of several million light years? In order to conserve momentum within a universe where gravity travels at luminal velocities other forces must be introduced into the system. Does this induced field respond faster than the speed of light? Ed The other force is induced field. The same idea applies to the electromagnetic field. The electric field produces a force F = q/rr An electrical force produces an induced field. Field = L (di/dt) The induced field conserves momentum during the interval in which a disturbance in the original field is propagating. I have also done the math on this. Frank Z
Re: Storms question about the induced field
Frank, your emphasis is on conservation of momentum, which is important but not sufficient. You also introduce the mechanism of sensing the existence of a fixed field, which is irrelevant. I ask how a structure can form when the time needed for one part to sense the characteristics of another part takes millions of years to be communicated? How does a star at one side of a galaxy know that its gravity and momentum are being exactly balanced by a star on the other side when this information takes a million years to pass between the two stars. The existence of an unstructured cluster of stars is not hard to explain. However, formation of a spiral galaxy is impossible unless the stars can communicate rapidly compared to their relative transitional speed. This requires either gravity or some other force to be communicated much faster than is normal EM radiation. I might add for your comment, that if this is true, all arguments about time based on the speed of light have no reality. Ed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The induced field is not superluminal. Take the electric force for example. The force between two charges is equal and opposite. The system conserves momentum. Now one charge is moved. It moves into in the established field of the first electron and immediately fields the force. No time delay is had. The first electron, however, does not sense that the second has moved until the disturbance in the field reaches it at light speed. It appears for the moment that momentum is not conserved. What happens is the movement of the charges induces a local magnetic field. The force imparted by the induced magnetic field is just the right strength to keep the momentum of the system balanced. Nature goes through great lengths to conserve momentum. I hope this answers your question. Frank Z
Re: Viewgraphs from B. Josephson
An excellent presentation. I agree it would be good on the website. Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/JosephsonBpathologic.pdf - Jed
Re: New light on LENR
Horace Heffner wrote: At 6:52 AM 8/19/4, Edmund Storms wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: At 3:23 PM 8/17/4, Jed Rothwell wrote: As I recall, Ed Storms replicated this and was duly impressed, but not all that impressed. Ed Storms did *not* replicate Letts' experiment, as I pointed out here on vortex at the time. He oriented his magnetic field improperly, and thus, as would be expected, he did not observe the Letts effect. His magnetic field was aligned with the laser beam instead of perpendicular to it as Letts required. Of further, but much lesser concern, was the fact that no magnetic field measurments were obtained, or at least published, by either Letts or Storms. I suggest you read my ICCF-10 paper where this work is described. I found that a magnetic field was irrelevant to producing the effect. My comments above were *based* on that paper and the related discussion here on vortex, in which I pointed out that you had your magnetic field improperly oriented to achieve replication. I suggest you take the prudent scientific approach of actully considering that I may have been correct in that assertion. Are you saying the magnetic field at the laser target was *not* aligned with the beam? I'm saying that the effect works whether a magnet is present or not. I tried it both ways. I found that the effect of the magnet in the Letts calorimeter was an artifact produced by changes in ion convection, which changed the temperature at the internal thermistor and the apparent amount of excess energy. As I pointed oout in that discussion, the magnetic field so aligned would certainly be expected to be irrelevant. You therefore did not replicate Letts experiment. If I did not replicate the Letts effect than I must have discovered the Storms effect. In any case, I once again showed that a laser does indeed increase the amount of excess energy produced by a F-P cell. That observation is the only aspect of the Letts effect that is important. Not so. If magnetic field intensity (in the proper direction) affect the energy output, then that is a very significant finding, not only in regards to establishing the fundamental theory, but also in regards to practical considerations. Of course it would be important if the magnet had real effect, but it did not. Therefore, the theory needs to be changed. Much more powerful magnetic fields than those used in subject experiments can be provided without significant energy input. If energy output is a function of field strength, then this could have major implications with regard to energy production. Letts made several claims about how the effect is affected by external variables that have not been found to be important. This failure does not distract from the basic claim. The fact you did not replicate Letts distracts from your claim that magnetic field intensity does not matter. What exactly do you mean by replication? Do I have to make the same mistakes? Do I have to use a calorimeter that is affected by a magnetic field? Regards, Ed Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: New light on LENR
I will make one more attempt. 1. I claim that a laser produces extra energy when no magnet is used and when it is orientated the manner I used. Letts showed that the laser produced about the same amount of energy I observed when the magnet was orientated in his manner. He claimed that he got the best effect when he used his orientation. Perhaps a better effect might result using his orientation, but the basic effect occurred with and without a magnet. This all I ever claimed. Without actually using Lett's magnets, it would be impossible to apply an identical field. 2. An isoperibolic calorimeter has an artifact when a magnetic field is applied. Such fields change the internal thermal gradients so that the calibration no longer applies. Therefore, any claim based on such a calorimeter involving a magnetic field can not be believed. 3. I'm confused as to why this is so important to you and why you insist that a magnetic field is so important. You or anyone else are free to explore the effect of a magnet knowing that the basic claim has been reproduced. I assume you find that word more acceptable than replicate. Regards, Ed Horace Heffner wrote: At 7:09 AM 8/20/4, Edmund Storms wrote: Horace, I seem to be having a hard time making my self understood. Funny, I too feel I have not been able to make myself understood. The effect of a magnetic field, no matter how it is orientated, is an artifact of calorimeter used. In the Letts-Cravens experiment the magnetic field is not an atrifact, but rather a critical experimental variable. Determination of the effect of a powerful magnetic field perpendicular to the laser beam is critical to establishing the theory. If the magnetic field were not an important issue the why would both Letts and yourself bother to include powerful magnets in the experiment? Why would there even be a discussion such as we are having? This is not an artifact issue. I would certainly agree that it is unfortunate that no one bothered to quantify the fields involved in their publication, or possibly to even measure them or even compute them theoretically. To that extent it can not be said one way or another the importance of the magnetic fields involved because they were not quantified. It can only be said that Letts observed an experimental effect upon adding or removing the magnets. Even if a magnet does have an effect, this fact could not be determined by Letts because of this artifact. I showed that a laser can increase heat output of a F-P cell, exactly as Letts demonstrated. This much of the claim was replicated. No one, at this time, knows if a magnetic field would have an effect or not. This seems to be a major change of position on your part. It is inconsistent with your recent statment on the issue: I found that a magnetic field was irrelevant to producing the effect. By that I mean that the basic effect occurs with and without a magnet. The magnet would be relevant if I found an effect when the magnet was applied and no effect when the magnet was removed. However, this is not the case. It is possible that the effect could be improved with proper orientation. Such a possible effect does not change the statement that the magnetic field is irrelevant to the basic effect. Someday, someone might properly determine if a magnet is important. Meanwhile, I and McKubre replicated the basic observation. You seem to think that the claimed effect of the magnetic field has essential importance while I claim that producing extra heat using a laser is the essential point. This is not my main point at all. My principle objection is to *your* making any claims that your experiment made any determination whatsoever as to the effect of the magnetic field. I claimed that the effect occurred whether the magnet was applied or not. Therefore, I made a determination about the effect of a magnet. I did not explore any details about how a magnet might improve the effect. You included the magnets in your experiments, but you oriented them so as to be ineffective. You are misleading other researchers when you make statements like I found that a magnetic field was irrelevant to producing the effect. I am simply trying to get you to look at your experiment with a more thoroughly critical eye to see possibly *why* you determined there was no static magnetic field effect, contrary to Letts' results. What would you expected me to see if I applied the magnet in the same way Letts did? Would you expect I would see a much bigger effect? As it was, I saw almost the same effect as Letts did with his magnet, but without a magnet. You seem to be complaining about why I don't see a bigger effect. If you want to produce a bigger effect, I suggest you explore some of the variables, including t magnetic orientation. I'm sure the effect can be made bigger several different ways. However, don't get on my case because I did not try
Re: New light on LENR
Horace Heffner wrote: It appears we have made no progress at all on the issues I have raised. Rather than wasting more time on that now, I would very much appreciate information on a side issue you have raised in the discussion. I don't know what you would consider progress short of my agreeing with you that I screwed up. As for the magnet effect, I will explain. An isoperibolic calorimeter, as Letts used, measures power production by determining temperature drop across the cell wall. The inner temperature is measured at one or more locations within the electrolyte. In his case, the outer temperature was the ambient air. Heat is being generated within the electrolyte by the motion of electrons and ions and by the CF process at the cathode, both of which generate convection currents within the fluid having different temperatures. Such a calorimeter is calibrated by assuming that the calibration method produces similar gradients and that these gradients are stable. When the ions and electrons that are moving within the electrolyte are subjected to a magnetic field, their trajectories are changed. This change causes convection currents within the fluid to change their path so that fluid current of a different temperature impacts on the thermistor, hence the the measured inner temperature appears to change. This change is indistinguishable from a change in power production. I explored this effect in some detail using a similar calorimeter. I found that I could obtain apparent excess energy by simply moving the magnets in the absent of the laser. I also measured the laser effect using a Seebeck calorimeter in the absence of a magnet. Because the cell is within a metal box, I would expect any external magnetic field would be significantly reduced within the calorimeter. As for changing laser polarization, this effect may also be an artifact because the laser effect is very sensitive to where on the surface the laser is applied. Unless the exact same spot on the cathode is being irradiated by the same size spot of laser light, the effect of any change in laser characteristics can not be isolated from these effects. These experiments were not done under conditions that would insure consistency of spot size or position. In short, many of the details about the effect still need to be determined. Therefore, it is premature to speculate about a model. I hope this explanation is clear. Regards, Ed At 2:58 PM 8/20/4, Edmund Storms wrote: 2. An isoperibolic calorimeter has an artifact when a magnetic field is applied. Such fields change the internal thermal gradients so that the calibration no longer applies. Therefore, any claim based on such a calorimeter involving a magnetic field can not be believed. Could you explain how a magnetic field significantly changes thermal gradients in an isoperibolic calorimeter? I assume you mean here that even if magnets in the calorimeter are replaced with masses of the same size, shape and thermal properties, but having no magnetic field, the change in calibration will still be seen? If it is known in advance that magnetic fields are going to be used in a calorimeter, it seems like it should be a fairly small issue to use materials in the calorimeter that do not significantly change their thermal properties in a magnetic field. It should of course be impossible for a static magnetic field to actually change the total energy balance of a process, as that would be a violation of conservation of energy. Thus the question arises: even if there is no motion of conductors, and even if no materials are used which have thermal properties which are altered significantly by magnetic fields, can the calibration constant of an isoperibolic calorimeter be altered by magnetic fields enclosed within the calorimeter? Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: New light on LENR
Ed, Thanks for your more detailed answer, which addresses several points of interest in the Letts effect which were unclear from you published experiment, and your previous messages. Perhaps we should even reserve judgement on this name, the Letts effect, pending review of the similar work of Dr. Mitchell Swartz, who seems to claiming some priority in this discovery. More disturbingly, he seems to be insinuating that there is an ongoing effort on the part of LENR-CANR to censor or otherwise obstruct the distribution of his information. I have no idea how Mitchell thinks. I and Jed on numerous occasions have asked him for copies of his work. On the few occasions when he responded, the files were not in the right format to upload. He was told of this problem, but he never sent proper formats. The LENR-CANR site wants his work if he will provide it. As for his claims of previous laser studies, these never came to my attention at the time, nor to anyone else as far as I know. If Swartz wants to take credit for his ideas, he needs to publish them before the fact not afterwards. But back to the task of looking towards the future of a planet which is desperately in need of a prompt solution to its increasing energy needs, part of which might be met if the [eponymic] effect is truly reproducible, with or without the direct conversion of heat into electricity... I think everyone will agree with your first conclusion: In short, many of the details about the effect still need to be determined. However, in regard to the second, Therefore, it is premature to speculate about a model. Experimenters desirous of efficiency should disagree in the strongest terms with that conclusion for several reasons: 1) The important thing for the future, not only of this experiment but perhaps for the entire field, is to find the correct model expediently, in order to guide in the correct understanding of this anomaly; and this cannot be done efficiently without first designing experiments based on *most likely possible models,* so that the false models can be eliminated, one by one. No one is doing the work hit or miss, as you say. Everyone in the field has his own personal model, most of which have not been published. I'm only concerned about time wasted discussing a model that is based on what might be incorrect experimental claims. It is obvious, even without a theory, that the effect of polarization, a magnetic field, laser frequency, and laser power all need to be explored. A theory adds nothing to this effort right now unless you can predict where the best frequency might be. 2) To proceed in a hit-or-miss fashion, based on incremental improvements of past experiments, might provide some good answers also, but unless one is very fortunate or skilled, it will logically be a semi-blind effort, since there is no satisfactory underlying model. No doubt you have a personal model in the formative stages, which steers the design of ongoing work. But even though this Edisonian approach does work well sometimes, the only problem is, it may not be as efficient for others than yourself as the alternative: which is building speculative models first, and then performing experiments to prove/disprove those. 3) There are some easy-to-disprove new models, based on Quantum Mechanics, which can be put forward. No one is going to waste their time trying to disprove some one else's model. Experimentalists spend their time trying to prove their own models. 4) At least one of these models is poised to produce answers for less effort than is involved in the typical calorimetry experiment, because calorimetry is not needed-and in fact, in this model retention of excess heat in the active zone could be inhibitory to the effect. This model will depend on a newfound ability (hopefully), if the obvious extension to the Letts effect is correct, to construct the experiment in two separated steps a) loading and sealing a target, b) irradiating a stand-alone target, not with some randomly chosen frequency but with a frequency determined by the model, and irradiation the target outside of a liquid cell, so that charged particles can be collected, if they are present. Yes, that would be a good and obvious approach. However, we must first discover how to make the active sites. Right now nature does this by a random process. If charged particles are not found, and they should be easy to find if they are present, then that would be very temporarily disappointing, but might lead to a more refined model and subsequent experiment to prove/disprove the next model. A number of people are now looking for and finding charged particle emission using various methods to initiate the nuclear reactions. However, the emission rate is nearly 10 orders of magnitude below He4 production rate, causing a person to wonder if this has anything to do with the F-P effect. You are
Re: LENR-CANR editorial policy
What are you trying to accomplish, Mitchell? How is applying a pejorative word to the reason your papers are not on the site going to get your papers on the site? You might argue that some work is being censored but your work is not being censored. We will never agree as to why your previous attempts at sending copies did not work so your complaining just makes you look ridiculous and wastes time. All you need to do is send the papers you want in full text and be done with it. Ed Mitchell Swartz wrote: At 10:45 AM 8/23/2004, Jed Rothwell admits to censoring, but then purports it is for "political reasons", such as not to upset some of his "critics" (ROTFLOL) so he will not get hit with by "a baseball bat (given) to Robert Park". Rothwell: "I will not hand a baseball bat to Robert Park and ask him to please hit me over the head with it! It is a shame that CF is so political, but it is, and we must pay attention to politics, image and public relations. The claim that we are "censoring" is ridiculous." Given that Rothwell has brought this up again, it is important to correct his flawed arguments. The claim of censorship was correct. Also, Dr. Mallove was correct about the censorship. Also, those who posted me after this began, and those who discussed what happened to them at ICCF-10 have been also correct. There HAS been censoring at (the misnamed) LENR-CANR web site. It his their choice. However, removing cold fusion articles, or any article, for "political" reasons, -- or for any reason whatsoever-- is by definition censoring. This is quite consistent when compared to the definition, after Webster: "censor - to subject to censorship; an official who reads communications and deletes forbidden material." Q.E.D. Hence, Dr. Mallove, Mr. Webster, and the other were all correct, and in fact it would not matters if the reason was the purest of motives. However, in this case, as stated previously, given that it is admittedly at least "political", Subject: Storms/Rothwell censorship "This is known as science by politics -- it is disgusting. Storms doesn't have leg to stand on and he knows it." - - Gene
[Fwd: Joy of discussion]
---BeginMessage--- I have a few question as a simple observer of things I know little about. If the speed of light changed, would not the speed of the electron around the nucleus also change? Would not the rate of reactions within nature and within the body not change in proportion? In other words, would Methuselah have aged just as fast? In fact, how would anyone know that the speed of light had changed if all things that move change in proportion, as they must? Suppose, as many people are proposing, that another faster mechanism exists for communication. Would not the use of this method invalidate the conclusions about time that the speed of light implies? Just a few questions to keep you thinking. Ed Frederick Sparber wrote: Richard Macaulay wrote:"My view.. that the continents could not have drifted " apart" since the east and west side of land masses " fit". The discussion reached a point of maturity with each "cutting the other some slack" whereas he could grant me slack that the earth could have expanded .. but the additional water required to fill the oceans would need to come from a close approach by Mars allowing the water to be " stripped"."Going by the scriptures, Richard:"When Methuselah had reached the great age of one hundred and eighty-seven years he became the father of Lamech. Following this he lived the remarkable term of seven hundred and eighty-two years, which makes his age at his death nine hundred and sixty-nine years. It follows thus that his death occurred in the year of the Deluge."I interpret this as a change in lightspeed:E = mc^2 or m = E/c^2 suggesting that the lightspeed in the solar system at the time of Methuselahwas about 3.3 times it's present value , hence the mass of the earth was 1/10th of what it is now, andwas zipping around the sun ten times as fast as the present value. Conservation of mass and energyis thus satisfied: Orbital Kinetic Energy = 1/2 mv^2, Rotational energy = 1/2 Iw^2 where I is the moment of inertiaof a rotating sphere 2/5 MR^2, w =2(pi)/t.This would make old man Methuselah about 19 (of our years) when he fathered Lamech and 96+ when he went yonder.Note the decreasing ages of his progeny as the speed of light decreased. :-)http://www.earth-history.com/Generation.htmFrederick ---End Message---
Re: Cold Fusion And The Future book review copies
Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms writes: Pu238 emits a 5.5 MeV alpha with a 1/2 life of 87.7 y. This makes U234 which decays by 4.8 MeW alpha with a 1/2 life of 2.46 x10^5 years. This makes Th230 which decays by 4.7 MeV alpha with a 1/2 life of 7.54 x 10^4 years. . . . . . . This makes Pb214 . . . I got it right up to this point, but somehow I went off the track. Okay, part of the reason is that WebElements.com does not list Pb214. I somehow got the idea it was stable. Pb214 is a beta emitter with a 27 min half-life. All lead above 208 is unstable and they all are short-lived beta emitters. Jed, please send me the latest version of your book. I'm back from Washington and have a little more time to comment. Will do, as soon as I finish entering the latest batch of corrections. I hope you had a nice trip. Good trip going, bad trip returning. Apparently you people in Atlanta got some bad weather that threw the system out of whack. However the natives were friendly in Washington even though the Government area is like an armed camp. A person can not leave the street without passing through a metal detector, even to visit a museum. There were armed guards at every entrance. They must think they are more important than chemical plants and nuclear reactors. Most people on the street, except tourists, were wearing badges. It was like being at Los Alamos. Ed - Jed
Re: Latest from Szpak et al.
Personally I do not believe all that is claimed, even in cold fusion :-). I have seen such boulders on metal samples that clearly result from the environment. The normal environment has all kinds of small particles floating in the air, which can land on a sample and be completely unnoticed until after the experiment. As you point out, it makes no sense for transmutation products to move from where they are produced to form a boulder. This defies the concept of entropy. Ed Jones Beene wrote: From: Jed Rothwell Paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSprecursors.pdf Which contains one of the most amazing understatements that you are likely to ever see in any new energy technology (at least it will be most amazing to the mainstream of nuclear physics). That statement is found on page 8, where NOT just traces of transmutation products were found, but instead, well... in the authors own words: Fig. 6. Analysis of the boulder-like segment showed the presence of a single element, Al, [!]... Imagine that... in a Pd cathode one finds a micro-sized boulder but not a mix of elements - a boulder of a single transmutation product, aluminum... furthermore- and that resembling a crater, the presence of two elements, namely Mg and Al. Without the aid of a Maxwell demon, it would be difficult to argue that such directed motion of impurities can take place. The only sensible answer is that they were produced in the course of electrolysis of D2O in a cell placed in an external electric field by nuclear events. Why would aluminum be favored? And how could the nuclear events leading up to this substantial amount of aluminum happen and at the same time have been close to energy neutral. IOW the formative events must have been energy neutral or else one would have a deep cavity there rather than a mound... Maxwell's demon goes mainstream ? Jones
Re: Excitronics and Szpak
Horace Heffner wrote: At 3:47 PM 11/15/4, Edmund Storms wrote: Well Jones, I don't want to debate the possibility of Excitronics, but your use of the Szpak paper is not the best evidence. They made two errors. They claimed the aluminum resulted from transmutation and they claimed that the deposited morphology resulted from an applied external electric field. I addressed the first earlier. In the second case, the applied field could have only had an indirect effect. The electrolyte is a good conductor. An external electric field can not penetrate a conductor. Though the above statement might be found in many text books, it seems to me to be untrue on two counts. First, the charge balance inside the conductor is changed by the imposed field E. If the field were not actually present, and merely balanced by the internal changes in the conductor, then this charge imbalance would not be maintained. This is one arena where the field superposition concept seems to cloud what is really happening inside the conductor. Second, the surface effects on the conductor can be significant and increase with the width of the conductor in the imposed field. That is to say that the field intensity in any remaining conductor-free gaps is increased by the presence of the subject conductor. Conduction band electron concentration is reduced on the negative side and increased toward the positive side. It seems to me logical that a change in electron concentration in the conductor could have chemical and morpological surface effects. I detect a bit of confusion here. We need, for the sake of discussion, to separate the effects produced by changes in electron concentration within a electrolyte from changes in concentration outside of the electrolyte, i.e., on the container surface. Szpak has changed the concentration of electrons on the surface so as to impose a change in electric field on the electrons and ions within the electrolyte. As with all conductors, free electrons and ions will move in such a way as to neutralize any change in the local field. This being the case, the positive ions will tend to move toward the surface having the greater negative charge. As a result, the impact of this applied charge will be reduced so that ions within the electrolyte will no longer experience its presence. However, as the positive ions move, they carry liquid with them so that convection within the cell is altered. No change in electron concentration occurs within the electrolyte. A person might observe a somewhat higher concentration of positive ions next to the negative charged wall, but this effect would be very local. At the very least, the ions would follow the lines of electropotential in such a way as to neutralize the gradient. An electrolyte is part dielectric. It neutrolizes field gradients in part by polar molecule rotation. In the electrolyte a strong electrostatic field tends to orient the H3O+ ions in a polar manner. I would think a fixed orientation for some of the H3O+ ions would reduce the electrolytes ability to conduct by its primary method, that being H3O+ molecule rotation followed by proton tunneling. THis then should increase the amount of conduction by other ions and such an increase might affect dendrite formation rates and morphology. It might also change convection currents, especially in the vicinity of dendrite tips, which, as you say below, could cause a change in morphology. I suggest the mechanism you suggest would only occur in a very pure electrolyte, not one that has, as in the Szpak case, a high concentration of Li+ ions. There is another field effect in dielectrics. That is nucleus displacement. The positive nucleus is displaced toward the negative external field direction. In other words, the center of charge is displaced in order to neutralize the imposed field. In some texts the nature of this charge displacement is treated as if atomic electrons act like they exist at their center of charge. The nucleus is displaced from this center of charge by an imposed electrostatic field. From this assumption one can calculate the nuclear displacement given a field E. This is of course a great oversimplification. The nucleus has a much greater degree of freedom than this model indicates. That is because the nucleus is inside numerous spherical shells of electron quantum probability densities which have no net effect on the nucleus. A charge inside a spherical Faraday cage conductor experiences no net force upon that charge. The hydrogen nucleii in atoms in the interface, with its horrifically strong field intensities, especially in the presence of an alternating field, can experience dynamics which allow the nucleii to obtain closer distances than 0.5 the hydrogen atom radius. Yes, the Schrodinger equations will show thinning of the electron sheilding and thus increase repulsion and the resurrection
Re: Excitronics and Szpak
Horace Heffner wrote: At 12:40 PM 11/16/4, Edmund Storms wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: At 3:47 PM 11/15/4, Edmund Storms wrote: Well Jones, I don't want to debate the possibility of Excitronics, but your use of the Szpak paper is not the best evidence. They made two errors. They claimed the aluminum resulted from transmutation and they claimed that the deposited morphology resulted from an applied external electric field. I addressed the first earlier. In the second case, the applied field could have only had an indirect effect. The electrolyte is a good conductor. An external electric field can not penetrate a conductor. Though the above statement might be found in many text books, it seems to me to be untrue on two counts. First, the charge balance inside the conductor is changed by the imposed field E. If the field were not actually present, and merely balanced by the internal changes in the conductor, then this charge imbalance would not be maintained. This is one arena where the field superposition concept seems to cloud what is really happening inside the conductor. Second, the surface effects on the conductor can be significant and increase with the width of the conductor in the imposed field. That is to say that the field intensity in any remaining conductor-free gaps is increased by the presence of the subject conductor. Conduction band electron concentration is reduced on the negative side and increased toward the positive side. It seems to me logical that a change in electron concentration in the conductor could have chemical and morpological surface effects. I detect a bit of confusion here. We need, for the sake of discussion, to separate the effects produced by changes in electron concentration within a electrolyte from changes in concentration outside of the electrolyte, i.e., on the container surface. *Nothing* in my above paragraph references the electrolyte. Now I'm confused. I thought we were discussing the Szpak paper. He used an electrolyte and applied an electric field to it. Any discussion of the proposed effect of this field must involve the electrolyte. A general discussion of a conductor is not relevant unless it can be applied to the electrolyte, which I though you were doing. Szpak has changed the concentration of electrons on the surface so as to impose a change in electric field on the electrons and ions within the electrolyte. As with all conductors, free electrons and ions will move in such a way as to neutralize any change in the local field. This being the case, the positive ions will tend to move toward the surface having the greater negative charge. As a result, the impact of this applied charge will be reduced so that ions within the electrolyte will no longer experience its presence. However, as the positive ions move, they carry liquid with them so that convection within the cell is altered. The above sentence appears to be nonsense. The *current* movement to neutralize a sudden steady state field E, i.e. a large but one-time delta E, be the current ion flow or otherwise, is negligible. There should be *no* fluid flow change to accomodate a steady state field - unless of course that steady state field significantly affects the reactions at the interface layer. A fixed field has an effect because the ions are moving in the electrolyte, because of bubble action, and these ions are essentially a current that is caused to pass through a fixed field. This field changes the paths these ions take, hence changes the convection currents. At the same time, the paths tend to neutralize this field, as I said before. You are viewing this as a stationary system when it is actually a dynamic system. No change in electron concentration occurs within the electrolyte. I did not in any way imply there was a change in electron concentration in the electrolyte - other than *at the interface*. In the interface itself electron concentration can be increased by an increase in electrode concentration due to the fact electrons can freely tunnel the interface itslef. The surface free electron quantum wavefunction extends beyond the interface itself. Where is the interface? In the experiment, we have a glass container containing a conductive liquid. The field is applied between two external plates. The cathode, where the effects are proposed to occur, are parallel to the field. I do not know where in this assembly an interface can occur. A person might observe a somewhat higher concentration of positive ions next to the negative charged wall, but this effect would be very local. Well the effect on dendrite formation *is* in fact very local, occuring at the dendrite tip. Isn't this in part in agreement with Szpak's results? By local, I mean local to the liquid immediately adjacent to where the external electrode is located. This local region is far
Re: CF lattice building with carbon
Horace Heffner wrote: Codeposition electrolysis using a weak carbolic acid, i.e. phenol, an aromatic ring with attached OH, or oher organic compound, combined with Li2SO4 and heavy water to form the electrolyte, and a Pd anode, may form on the cathode surface a volume which supports a larger than typical nuclear active state (NAS) zone as Ed Storms calls it [See The Nature of Energy-Active State in Pd-D, Published in Infinite Energy #5,6 (1996)]. Ed's research shows the NAS to be located to within a zone about a micron in depth beneath the cathode surface, and that the active (successful) Pd cathodes tend not to expand when loaded. The Pd expands when loaded. This can not be stopped. However, this expansion does not produce cracking. The addition of carbon rings or even fullerenes to the matrix has a two fold objective. First, the carbon is intended to strengthen or harden the matrix by the addition of covalent bonds. Second, the presence of carbon rings or fullerenes in the matrix provides deformities in the matrix which allow the formation of D2 molecules under high pressure. In an ideal matrix the deformities adjacent to carbon molecules must tend not to initiate cracks in the matrix that release the hydrogen. In order that a high carbon content be obtained, perhaps Pd is not the best cathode material. Alloys that would not ordinarily permit sufficient hydrogen diffusion may be good NAS candidates if a sufficient deformity density can be obtained concurrent with the hydrogen codeposition. A final surface layer of Pd might be added though in order to facilitate hydrogen adsorbtion and to maintain cathode life. This is what I find. Pt is an ideal substrate on which to deposit the NAE. I expect other metals might work once we understand the nature of the NAE. Fullerenes inside the matrix may form nano-Case-cells, or a nano version of a hollow cathode cell. The objective of the suggested approach is converting a surface effect into a reliable bulk effect. Additionally, creation of a high volume (bulk CF) zone should increase the probability or density of active sites. Stimulation or control of bulk effect CF may require the use of x-rays in order to produce within the bulk a high density of energetic free electrons that catalyse the fusion. I suggest a distinction needs to be made between a bulk effect and an effect based on a large amount of the NAE. Once the NAE is understood, it will be made as a powder or deposited on a heat sink, which is simply exposed D2 to become a source of heat. Regards, Ed Regards, Horace Heffner
oomments on DOE report
To all, Now the wait is over and we are provided with an evaluation of the DOE, but not an evaluation of LENR. A cross section of experts used by the DOE to evaluate all proposals submitted to this agency have demonstrated for the world to see a profound lack of imagination and an indifference to a real need for new ideas in science. I'm not sure which is worse, the use of people having such a lack of imagination to evaluate proposals or the missed opportunity to develop a new scientific discovery. It would seem that incompetence has reached into many levels of the US government. Having gotten that off my chest, I do think the review will encourage imaginative people to support the field. The next test will come when individual proposals, as recommended, are submitted and evaluated. Regards, Ed Storms
Re: Recent message from Physics Today
This is a form letter that is sent in response to any such question. If the physicist who was interviewed responded, that would be important. Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: Here is a hysterical message about Physics Today. Frankly I am surprised Physics Today responded at all. Maybe they are feeling the heat? - Jed Below is the information submitted on Dec-2-104 17:5 EST realname: Guy Richards username: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Telephone: 815-963-6340 message: I read a recent editorial in Physics Today journal where the editor was interviewing a physicist of some repute on what criteria he would accept the LENR/cold fusion phenomenon as worthy of further research and DOE funding. The physicist replied that if the LENR/cold fusion community could demonstrate an input/output energy ratio of 1/10, 100% repeatability and economic feasibility he would recommend going ahead. Since I found this hurdle to be artificially high I wrote a letter to the editor asking him the following question: How many hot fusion experiments, trials or prototypes in the last 55 years after spending hundreds of billions of dollars and using the best minds in the scientific community had even claimed to have an energy ratio of even 1/1? The reply I received from the editor is as follows:The editors and staff of Physics Today do not have time to answer questions like these. Thank you for your interest in Physics Today. This just seemed to sum up the attitude of the physics community and I thought it worth sharing. Closed minds, bad for science. Regards, Guy Richards
Re: Latest from Iwamura
NRL is now attempting to duplicate this work. This program was undertaken well before the DoE review and apparently was unknown to the reviewers. If, as expected, they replicate the Iwamura claims, the ball game will be over. Ed George Holz wrote: Hi Jed, See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYobservatiob.pdf - Jed The results described in these papers show that the impurity migration idea is even more ridiculous (if that's possible) than before. The isotope of the starting element controls the isotope of the transmuted element. Explain that by contamination! Is there any way we can have this information forwarded to the DOE reviewers. Perhaps they may find that it is time to save their reputations by admitting the obvious. Duplicating the Iwamura experiment with additional starting elements seems like a reasonable suggestion to the DOE as a proposed experiment to improve our understanding of LENR. Perhaps some of the national labs have appropriate equipment that could be used by LENR researchers to speed further work. How can anyone deny the overwhelming theoretical and practical significance of this work! Thank you Jed for obtaining and posting this material. George Holz Varitronics Systems
Re: Bursts of power.
This is one of many statements made by the reviewers that is incomplete and based on confusion. The fact is that when solid palladium is used as the cathode, time is required for it to acquire the required high D/Pd ratio and time is required for the active material to plate on the surface. If this active surface is plated before it is put in the calorimeter and Pt or another inert metal is used as the substrate, the required time is much shorter. Cathodes once activated continue to produce energy until the surface has been covered by material dissolved from the anode. An electrolytic system is dynamic and can not be expected to perform immediately and for a long time. The method used by Arata is much more stable and long-lived, as are the ion bombardment methods. Ed Harry Veeder wrote: One of the criticisms of the DOE panel was that the cells did not provide continuous excess power over the entire time span of an experiment. I think this is natural trait of CF systems, but it is not without value as the DOE panel implies. If one can learn to predict when a cell will produce bursts of power, the cell is potentially a useful source of power. Harry Veeder
Re: Greenview Group: Cold Fusion
Well Lew, here is an enterprising group that might be worth contacting to see what they know. Ed Emeka Okafor wrote: Experts provide practical perspective to a new and challenging scientific field. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/12/prweb186609.htm
Re: NK Could Test TD-2 Anytime
John Fields wrote: On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 08:48:27 -0500, you wrote: Dr. Storms wrote: I think you all are missing the point of the missile defense system. It is to defend us from China in 10 years, not NK now. Possibly, however the premature deployment will inhibit only the irrational. China knows it is ineffective. --- And will watch as it's made effective? Yes, because Chine is gaining more by buying the US in contrast to taking. We are giving China the ability to develop its manufacturing infrastructure by going into debt to buy its products. When we run out of money in a few more years and need to use military power to keep China from taking over countries in its part of the world, we will need the missile defense to keep China from implementing a counter threat. The world is not what it seems to be because our government no longer holds truth in high regard. The Cold War is not over. Ed -- John Fields
Re: NK Could Test TD-2 Anytime
John Fields wrote: On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 08:42:02 -0700, you wrote: John Fields wrote: On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 08:48:27 -0500, you wrote: Dr. Storms wrote: I think you all are missing the point of the missile defense system. It is to defend us from China in 10 years, not NK now. Possibly, however the premature deployment will inhibit only the irrational. China knows it is ineffective. --- And will watch as it's made effective? Yes, because Chine is gaining more by buying the US in contrast to taking. We are giving China the ability to develop its manufacturing infrastructure by going into debt to buy its products. When we run out of money in a few more years and need to use military power to keep China from taking over countries in its part of the world, we will need the missile defense to keep China from implementing a counter threat. The world is not what it seems to be because our government no longer holds truth in high regard. The Cold War is not over. --- I agree. It seems we've decided to become denizens of the swamp, but I was disagreeing with Terry about the deployment being premature, in that even if it is ineffective now, as its efficacy improves and is proven through testing, it will provide another more or less real deterrent to military adventures with the US as a target. However, with one in four of us Earthlings being Chinese, I wonder whether it'll matter much if/when push comes to shove... I agree, it will not matter much. The world has changed so that using nuclear weapons, except by terrorists, no longer makes sense. Cooperations do not care who wins, just so they make money. In the future, most decisions will be made on this basis. Only when the natives become restless will this approach briefly change. In the future, governments by the people in the US will be only a dream of the young because whomever has the most money will be able to use the tools of advertising to get the voters to support whatever they want. Because the Chinese, in collaboration with the major cooperations, will eventually have the money and will have purchased the mass media, the average person in the US will do what the owners want, buy what they want, and support policies they want. Military force will no longer be needed, at least in the First World. The Third World will be encouraged to fight each other so that the manufactures of weapons will have a buyer. Its amazing how fast a cynical nature has gone from being considered a defect of old age to being just a simple extrapolation of common-place observation. Ed -- John Fields
Re: WHAT'S NEW Monday, Jan 03 05
Jed Rothwell wrote: John Steck wrote: I do not think that conclusion precludes fatalism however. Our future is not written in stone somewhere. We exercise free will, but it would be naive to think we are not largely predictable because of severe influences past and present. This strikes me as a false dichotomy. We can be completely bounded by influences and yet also have free will. Of course, the free will would have to be only within the particular set of limitations. Some people have a larger set of limitations than others, hence have less free will. The issue is magnitude, not the presence or absence of free will. While I hesitate to compare people to computers, an analogy does come to mind. Computers are 100% predictable, No, they are not. People are finding that the more complex the computer, the less predictable the results. In fact, some computers can only be checked using other computers to determine if the result is correct. and of course they are completely bounded by a small set of rules, Not any more. Increasingly, computers are asked to generate their own rules. Of course, you can say that the rule to generate your own rule is the limiting rule, hence is the basic boundary. However, I think this approach trivializes the argument. but that does not limit the number and variety of programs a computer can run. The set of programs is infinitely large, and as varied as the programmer's imagination. Programs are already the most complex structures ever devised by people, and there is no reason to think they could not be made far more complex, rivaling DNA and cells in complexity and the number of instructions. When this happens, I expect we will see computer insanity, just as was described in the movie 2001. In other words, computers will act just like humans. At that point, religion will have to readjust its attitude toward humans being the sons of God. (I am not suggesting that people are 100% predictable or bounded by a small set of rules.) People are domesticated primates -- like pet capuchin monkeys. They are as bound and limited by biology and primate psychology as chimpanzees or any other primates. People will never escape, outgrow or transcend these limitations for even one second, any more than a bat can voluntarily stop echolocation, or a plant can stop photosynthesis. Edwin Wilson, with whom I seldom disagree, once described human biophilia for certain landscapes: . . . people want to be on the height looking down; they prefer open, savanna like terrain with scattered trees and copses; they want to be near a body of water, such as a river or lake, or oceanfront. . . . People want to be in the environments in which our species evolved over millions of years. That is, hidden in a copse or rock wall, looking out over savanna and transitional woodland at acacia and similar dominant trees of the African environment. And, why not? Is that such a strange idea? Let me tell you that all mobile animals, down to the very simplest, with tiny brains, have what we call habitat selection, innate habitat selection. They have elaborate algorithms, searching for the right microenvironment -- the right spot to settle -- and hunt, or live and nest. This is a universal trait. Why then, would it be such a strange thing to find at least a residue of humanity's long, long evolutionary history. . . Of course humans and all life seeks that environment in which it can survive. Humans need water and the ability to see danger. It is trivial to suggest this is an ancestral memory. I like the mountains, my wife likes the ocean. Does this mean that we evolved from different places? - The Coming Synergism between Science and the Humanities, lecture given at the University of California, San Diego, broadcast on UCTV I agree with everything up to the last sentence. What we see is not a residue but the living, continuing, embodiment of these traits and this evolutionary history. It is as much a part of our present makeup as our metabolism -- and just as vital to us. These traits have as much power over us today as they did millions of years ago. They will *always* have this power. But here is the point -- or the escape clause, if you will: among those traits are free will and creative thinking. We have free will. So do chimpanzees. I think all mammals do. We also have hands, and tools, and these give us an outlet for creative thinking and action. It opens up an infinite variety of possibilities, both good and evil. A computer is a general purpose logic machine -- it is a universal Turing machine that can, in principle, perform any operation that any other Turing machine can do. Free will, imagination plus hands (or feet, actually -- our most unique appendages) make us general-purpose creativity machines. I suspect we are capable of achieving anything that any carbon based life form on any planet can achieve. As I said in the book: Ever since we
Re: Physics Today 1/25/05 - Feder
Dr. Swartz, if you have a problem with what Jed or I have done with your papers, take it up with us personally. Do not waste the time of everyone on Vortex. They can not solve your problem. God knows, Jed has tried and failed. Ed Storms Mitchell Swartz wrote: At 09:52 AM 1/26/2005, Jed Rothwell, as usual, confuses the subject and is disingenuous, wrote: Mitchell Swartz wrote: Second, some of the very papers which contain controls and time-integration are not present at the censored (and misnamed) LENR-CANR.org site. Well, in that case, whoever wrote these very papers should upload them somewhere else -- or submit them to LENR-CANR.org. The site is not censored, and the Internet *cannot be censored*. Google makes it flat with all papers equally accessible. Nonsense. Rothwell is not accurate, and his use of confidential email and a non-relevant paper from ICCF-9 which was NEVER an issue are immaterial. Rothwell's banter does not change the fact that he and Ed Storm's removed the titles of our three papers (and reportedly others) from the ICCF10 list of papers at the censored (and misnamed) LENR-CANR site. [Background: FWIW, our two papers which used the controls and time-integration demanded by the DOE group and have been censored by Storms/Rothwell are Swartz. M., G. Verner, Excess Heat from Low Electrical Conductivity Heavy Water Spiral-Wound Pd/D2O/Pt and Pd/D2O-PdCl2/Pt Devices, ICCF-10 (Camb. MA), Proceedings of ICCF-10, (2003), and Swartz. M., Photoinduced Excess Heat from Laser-Irradiated Electrically-Polarized Palladium Cathodes in D2O, ICCF-10 (Camb. MA), Proceedings of ICCF-10, (2003). Interesting that both papers listed originally for ICCF10, and assigned Monday and Tuesday for the dates. They were thereafter deleted from the censored LENR/CANR website.] Because these titles WERE originally on the list, and because those who actually conducted ICCF-10 have written that they are disappointed by the Storms/Rothwell mischief, it is apparent that the censorship of the misnamed LENR-CANR site exists. BTW, this Rothwell/Storms censorship has been confirmed in conversations by them to others, and it has been discussed by the late Dr. Mallove, just as it has been of concern to others who responded to me by private email after a previous net-discussion of the Rothwell-Storms censorships. This is known as science by politics -- it is disgusting. Storms doesn't have leg to stand on and he knows it. - the late Dr. Eugene Mallove In summary, those who rely only on Rothwell for information eventually will, or have, become aware that many of his posts should have a warning label with them. Dr. Mitchell Swartz
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
I suggest several facts must be kept in mind when proposing the hydrino explanation. 1. Energy is only released when hydrinos are formed, not when accumulated hydrinos are returned to normal. 2. Hydrino production can only be produced rather slowly, only as rapidly as normal H diffuses to the active site and the resulting hydrino diffuses away. 3. According to Mills, hydrinos do not react with oxygen to produce hydrino water. These facts would seem to make the hydrino explanation unlikely. Nevertheless, I agree that too much energy seems to have been released to be accounted for by a normal H2+O2 reaction. Ed Storms Jones Beene wrote: Jed Rothwell writes. I have to admit, the people pursuing the hydrino explanation do have a point. Here is a suggestion (w/ input from Fred Sparber) that might be woth mentioning to Mizuno, or anyone else working with K or Sr or Rb electrolytes, alone or in combinations. BTW, Rb should be the most active of these, based on the theoretical fit but a combination of the three should have synergy becasue of the spread of IP energy holes based on Table 5.2 in my edition of CQM. The most active combination of electrolytes would most likely be a trade secret, so don't expect any confirmation from Mills. It is potentially possible to easily detect hydrinos in ongoing electrolytes as they form over time, in a simple procedure, without much expense and without moving the cell. You would only need to shut it off for a few seconds, take your reading and continue. Assuming that the tighter orbital of the hydrino would create a drastically altered magnetic field, and there is every reason to suspect this, then If one were to measure the bulk magnetic field of a hydino-active electrolyte with any magnetometer, especially a proton precession magnetometer, which can be easily contructed by anyone at minimal cost; and then measure before the electrolysis begins and periodically during electrolysis (there is no need to even remove the reactor, as this can be done 'in situ'... then after a few days of potassium (etc) hydroxide electrolysis, there should be a drastic change in the bulk magnetic field properties of the reactor, IF but only if lots of hydrinos were being created. http://www.portup.com/~dfount/proton.htm In a simple proton precession magnetometer, a bottle of fluid rich in hydrogen atoms, usually distilled water or a hydrocarbon such as kerosene or alcohol, is surrounded by a coil of wire which can be energized by a direct current to produce a strong magnetic field. When the current is shut off, the precessing protons induce a very weak signal into the same coil, which is now connected to a suitable output device. This output circuitry may be a frequency counter calibrated to give a direct readout of of magnetic field strength. Jones BTW, if one wished to maximize hydrino manufacture then it would seem that a combination of both Rb, K and Sr electrolytes would be an improvement as they cover different IP ranges. Since you need to get to the first stage quickly, I would suggest that half or more of the mole% be Rb hydroxide.
Re: Physics Today 1/25/05 - Feder
Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: We publish all papers that can be understood and are of value to the field. As anyone can see, our standards are rather low, but not absent. Ahem! I would prefer to say our standards are rather broad minded or perhaps forgiving. Our standards are low, as anyone working in conventional science will clearly see. Mincing words only makes us look like we are playing word games or do not know how to judge good and bad work. Of course the standard has to be low because the field has only just matured sufficiently so that good papers are possible. Many of the early papers had to be poorly written and wrong in many respects, because the information and concepts were so incomplete. Nevertheless, they contain useful information that becomes more easily identified as we better understand the effect. All new discoveries go through this process and the problem is not usually used to totally reject the idea, as is done in this field. Ed Okay, it means the same thing, but the situation calls to mind Darrell Huff's observation in his immortal book How To Lie With Statistics: The fact is, despite its mathematical base, statistics is as much an art as it is a science. A great many manipulations and even distortions are possible within the bounds of propriety. Often the statistician must choose among methods, a subjective process, and find the one that he will use to represent the facts. In commercial practice he is about as unlikely to select an unfavorable method as a copywriter is to call his sponsor's product flimsy and cheap when he might as well say light and economical. - Jed
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Sat, 29 Jan 2005 09:53:23 -0700: Hi, [snip] I don't understand how instantly is possible. Two entities must get together. This takes time. Of course it does, however that time is very short on human scales, provided that the density of catalyst and fuel particles is high. High-which is the operational word. I suggest the concentration can never be sufficiently high. Even in a normal gas at room temperature, each molecule undergoes about 500 million collisions every second. Even if only 1 in a hundred thousand results in a shrinkage reaction, that still means that the average shrinkage reaction only takes a fraction of a millisecond. In short, when a chain reaction occurs, it could easily all be over in less than a millisecond. IMO that qualifies as instantly. For an explosion to occur, a shock wave must be produced. Simply having energy suddenly produced in a volume would only cause the temperature go up, and ionization to occur with a flash of radiation. The sudden heating would expand the gas to a higher pressure, say from 1 atm to 10 atm. This would not be enough to shatter a heavy glass vessel - blow the lid off, maybe. Once energy is released from this collision, the local process stops. If additional energy is to be released, two more entities must find each other. True, but the reactions don't wait on one another. I.e. the reactions are not all consecutive, many of them happen in parallel. In fact, in a chain reaction scenario, the number of parallel reactions is constantly increasing. My point here was that each event adds its contribution and then is spent. The O++ catalyst is not reused. It is not clear that the reaction its self is even capable of producing more O++. Such a replacement is only an assumption needed for your explanation. This is not like explosive decomposition where all of the ingredients are already together. Actually it is. It is akin to the chain reaction which takes place in a fission bomb, except that neutron production rate is replaced by catalyst ion production rate. Though in this case together means in the same container, rather than in the same molecule. I don't see how you get a chain reaction. A very dilute mixture of H2 and O++ is present, both of which are used up in the process. Even if O++ were replaced, this would not be expected to occur at a significant rate, i.e. in micro seconds. After all, the original concentration of O++ was accumulated only after minutes of previous electrolysis. Even in a natural gas explosion, which would be similar to the H + O++ condition, a near stoichiometric mixture is required to have significant shockwave production. Otherwise, one justs get a moving flame. This may explain why there are so few hydrino explosions. The conditions need to meet strict minimum requirements. A chain reaction using O++ can occur when the rate of formation of both catalyst and H atoms exceeds the consumption rate. O++ is formed through collisions with energetic particles (or UV photons or gamma rays). O++ can be formed when a hydrino of at least level 3 is formed, however most level 3 reactions will not result in O++ formation, because the energy will end up elsewhere. Consequently either reactions of on average much higher level must take place, or fusion reactions must take place. The latter lifts the average O++ production rate, because each fusion reaction can produce hundreds to thousands of O++ ions, while it may only take one O++ ion to finally trigger a fusion reaction, among a population of previously existing severely shrunken hydrinos. I don't understand what kind of fusion reaction you imagine using H2. In any case, such a reaction would release nuclear energies, which would be expected to produce visible particle and X-ray emission, unlike the cold fusion process in a solid. These are apparently not seen, or felt. (Here the dead graduate student effect comes in again.) Also, extra volume is not produced in the hydrino reaction so that the shock wave can not grow. Extra volume is produced in hydrino reactions, because plasma growth results in the production of free electrons, each of which counts as a separate particle. Hence the particle count is commensurate with the average ionisation level. A hot plasma formed from an electrolyte (which contains many multi-electron atoms), could therefore easily result in a doubling of the number of particles per reaction, and possibly more, as the temperature increases. Not to mention normal thermal expansion. [snip] Free electrons are generated by formation of ions. These ions quickly recapture their electrons so that only initially are these extra particles part of the shock wave. I don't think this would be a serious source of expansion. Heating is another matter, but not very effective. Regards, Ed
Re: Britz: Not enough gas to cause explosion?
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Sat, 29 Jan 2005 20:51:49 -0700: Hi, [snip] For an explosion to occur, a shock wave must be produced. Simply having energy suddenly produced in a volume would only cause the temperature go up, and ionization to occur with a flash of radiation. The sudden heating would expand the gas to a higher pressure, say from 1 atm to 10 atm. This would not be enough to shatter a heavy glass vessel - blow the lid off, maybe. Nuclear weapons essentially work on this principle, creating very little in the way of extra atoms compared to the size of the shock wave, which is essentially a result of thermal ionisation of the surrounding air. (The actual amount of material present is only a few kg, while the shock wave can have an extent of many km's). Nuclear weapons produce so much radiation that all molecules near the device are decomposed into atoms and ions, which occupy a much larger volume. In addition, the energy density is huge. Furthermore, in the case at hand, the surrounding medium is water rather than air, so flash vaporization will also produce a shock wave (which the surrounding water will very effectively transmit to the walls of the container). Good point. The shock wave might originate in the water as you propose. It really all depends on just how much energy is liberated, and in what time frame. [snip] My point here was that each event adds its contribution and then is spent. The O++ catalyst is not reused. This is actually only partly true. The reaction goes like this: O++ + H - O+++ + H* followed by O+++ + e- - O++ + UV where the e- comes from the plasma, or just about anything else in the neighbourhood that happens to have electrons attached to it. :) So the O++ is reconstituted after use. The only problem is to reuse it before it captures another electron and becomes O+. The window of time during which oxygen has the correct charge would seem to be rather short. I guess it is a matter of intuition whether the time is too short for sufficient O++ to be present. It is not clear that the reaction its self is even capable of producing more O++. Such a replacement is only an assumption needed for your explanation. When H[n=1/3 (or more)] is formed from H, a total of 108.8 eV is liberated. Of this, 54.4 eV goes to the catalyst, leaving 54.4 eV either in the form of UV, or as kinetic energy of the hydrino. In either case, there is sufficient energy present to ionise O+ to O++ (which requires about 35 eV). The UV from the reaction: O+++ +e- - O++ + 54.9 eV is also sufficient to convert O+ to O++, or there is also the reaction: O+++ + O+ - 2 O++ However as previously mentioned, most of the time this energy won't be spent in this way. That means either that the UV/hydrino needs to have more initial energy so that even after losing some energy to competing processes, enough remains upon encountering O+ to ionise it to O++, or supplementary O++ needs to be formed from fusion reactions. I should point out that by the time n gets to e.g. n=1/10, a drop of 2 levels, such as would be catalyzed by O++, to n=1/12, results in an energy release of 598 eV, which with luck may even produce multiple O++ ions. Given an initial population of severely shrunken hydrinos, it should therefore be possible to reach a self sustaining (chain) reaction. (For n=1/120 - n=1/122 this is 6582 eV according to Mills). What I am trying to make clear here, is that once shrinkage has progressed far enough, the reaction can be self-sustaining, even though the production of O++ is not very efficient, simply because the inefficiency is out weighed by the energy excess from the reaction. OK, I understand. Presumably the reaction proceeds until all of the accumulated hydrinos are used up. It's just a matter of using hydrinos that are at such a level that O++ production rate exceeds consumption rate. (I don't know what that level is, but I hope to have shown that such a level may well exist). [snip] I don't see how you get a chain reaction. A very dilute mixture of H2 and O++ is present, both of which are used up in the process. Even if O++ were replaced, this would not be expected to occur at a significant rate, i.e. in micro seconds. After all, the original concentration of O++ was accumulated only after minutes of previous electrolysis. There was no original concentration of O++. What was accumulating over time is hydrinos of ever high levels of shrinkage. Once the average shrinkage level reaches a certain point, an explosion becomes possible (in water). It then only requires a trigger to set it off. IOW the most important point in the Mizuno experiment is that fact that the cell had been in use for about 5 years. This gave plenty of time to cake the inside wall (and/or electrode(s)) with high level hydrinos. It also means that others using the same container (or electrode(s)) for extended periods should also be prepared
Re: Fw: Role of God in government
RC Macaulay wrote: Interesting subject - Original Message - From: RC Macaulay mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Christian Fellowship mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 10:21 PM Subject: Re: Role of God in government The reference article by Brooke Allen attached to Dr. Storms post quotes Ben Franklin. as for Jesus of Nazareth.. is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it and think it needless to busy myself with now, Franklin had the insight to admit he could not express an opinion because he had NOT studied the words of Jesus Christ. That is a most revealing statement. At least Franklin had the wisdom to defer an opinion because he didn't know the subject. Today, our nation has an entire cadre of learned educators that have no qualms about expressing their opinions without knowing their subject. What do people find that is offensive in Jesus teaching? No, not what people say that Jesus taught.. BUT.. what Jesus taught.. His words. I doubt that anyone rejects the words of Jesus. In any case, that is not the issue. The issue is the teachings of certain religious sects that have been created based on their understanding of the Bible. These sects are based on conclusions that are not universally accepted and are damaging to the general public when they are put into policy. I am a believer, I am a servant / follower of Jesus Christ. I believe in the separation of church and state. I believe in voluntary prayer in schools and in government. I do not believe it should be mandated. If everyone had this approach, the problems would not exist. I cannot change anyones mind about their beliefs. I can tell you what wonderful things that God has done for me . You have the freedom in this great nation to make up your own mind. After all, you are the one that is betting your life on your decision. Dr. Storms quotes a poorly written article in the Nation , an AP/CBS interest which hardly compares with Paul's writing in Romans 1st chapter. Compare them for yourself. Paul's writing is an accurate portrayal of what happens to people that lie to themselves. Poorly written or not, a reading of any good history book shows that the founding fathers did not believe that Christianity should be the basis for the US government. The point of the article is that the Bush administration is giving the impression that this is a Christian nation in which the other religions are tolerated. Therefore, he feels free to impose policies that is based on what certain Christians believe. For example, that homosexuality is a sin, that life begins at conception, and that the Rapture is a real event. All of these beliefs are unique to certain Christian sects and not to religion in general, yet the beliefs are being supported with enthusiasm by the administration. Perhaps the greatest hindrance to the advancement of science is the habit of lying to oneself, not to others. Perhaps, but eventually people who lie to themselves also lie to others. Also, two kinds of lying people exist. Some people lie because they can not help it. They base their view of reality on their unique understanding that is unmodified by experience. On the other hand, people lie for personal gain. These people know they are lying and are only intent on gaining power and advantage over other people. Politicians are noted for being this kind of liars. For those of you who think this thread has gone too far from an accepted subject for Vortex, let me propose that the attitude of government plays a significant role in the creation and solving of problems. Science can not do everything, especially when the insights of science are ignored. For example, as a previous thread has argued, ignoring global warming may require creative solutions that may not work. Would it not be better to have a government that saw the danger and stepped in before such solutions are required. The question is, why does the US government and the Christians who support it fail to recognize obvious problems, the example above being only one of many? Why do they accept obvious lies and policies that are clearly harmful to the general population? What makes Christians so blind? Science in the US would have fewer problems to solve if such blindness did not exist. Also, to be practical, science would have more money to solve the unavoidable problems if the policies were not so wasteful. Why are conservatives and Christians not up in arms and on the street demanding that changes be made rather than ranting against people who suggest that the system is broken? Perhaps answers to these questions can not be given. In which case, I apologize for the bother. Regards. Ed Storms Richard
Re: Role of God in government
Thanks, Steve. Hume did a good job. Too bad it had no effect on the election. Ed Steven Krivit wrote: Ed, I think this a follow-up thread to that of Bill Moyers discussing the relationship between environment, religion and our government. I'll add my $0.01 (devalued dollar, you know.) -This- high-tech worker has been significantly replaced by inexpensive labor in India, too. I think you'll like Hume's work: Filmmaker Chris Hume's Provocative Red State Road Trip http://www.truthout.org/multimedia.htm http://www.truthout.org/multimedia.htm Steve
Re: SOLVING REALLY BIG PROBLEMS
Just a few words so as to reduce your feeling of being ignored. revtec wrote: What is our collective goal regarding the commercialization of CF? Is it to reduce the level of CO2 emissions to reverse global warming? Yes, this is an important goal. Is it to improve the quality of life by providing an inexhaustable source of cheap energy to everyone on the planet? Eventually mankind will run out of carbon-based energy. At this point civilization will collapse unless a substitute is found. Why not start now to solve this problem rather than waiting until the last minute, as is the usual approach? Perhaps the reduction in CO2 emissions will be more than offset by the waste heat output of billions of CF engines, and that global warming will accelerate by direct heating alone! Could it be that with perfecting CF we are about to open pandora's box? Not possible. Mankind's use is too trivial compared to the sun and sources internal to the earth. I brought this up before without getting a single comment. Did I have silent agreement with this concern from most of the group, am I considered totally nuts, or maybe most subscribers dump every post from revtec without reading a single word. I really don't know. God stuff is considered off topic in this forum, but I'm covinced that it is central. Our perception of threats to our existance is directly linked to our perception of God. Our attitudes toward God sized problems are determined by our concept of God. The thermal condition of this planet is set by the output of the sun. Compared to a one or two percent fluctuation in solar radiation, anything humans can do down here is totally irrelevant. Not true. We can change how much of the energy we get from the sun stays on earth. The earth is not a perfect absorber. Changes in the amount of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere changes the amount of energy retained by the earth. This is the issue, not the total amount of energy emitted by the sun. Christians think God has his hand on the solar thermostat. Athiests think no one does. Christians trust God to dial it back if necessary in response to our increased heat load. People, who either don't believe in God or don't trust God, think we must master these adjustments ourselves. Anyone that thinks God is concerned about the survival of the human race has no understanding of how God works. Christianity teaches free will. If we as a species freely act in such a way to destroy our world, we are free to do so. Why would God care? Many species on other planets would have the common sense not to destroy their world so that intelligent life would go on. We would be just one more attempt to produce intelligent life that failed. The presumption that we are special to God is just too self-serving to be real or rational. Christians are thought callous for not recognizing the need to tackle God sized problems while there are nonbelievers amoung us who think the solution to planetary thermal overload and other environmental problems is to eliminate five of the six billion people on the Earth's surface. Where did you get this idea? This is not only not true, but not even rational. For anyone who wants to play the God game, the stakes are fantastically high. What will be the most likely cause of calamity: trusting God or playing God? The route to survival is to observe how nature works and adjust behavior to be consistent with a behavior that allows survival. This is true of individuals as well as nations. It does not involve playing God, but simply understanding the consequences of one's actions. The US, especially, has lost the ability to understand the consequence of actions, instead has substituted what a few people WANT to happen. Unfortunately, these wants seem to be justified by assuming that this is what God wants. The arrogance is overwhelming. Regards, Ed Storms Jeff
Re: Energy War
I'm not an economist, but I have been doing considerable reading about the problem. The Chinese can do the following: 1. They can use dollars obtained from providing products to Wal-Mart et al. to buy oil and other commodities that are sold in dollars. This will drive up the prices of these commodities and drive up most prices in the US. (Think fuel prices for airlines as one example.) 2. They can sell the treasury bonds on the open market, which will drive down the price of the bonds and increase interest rates. This will increase the cost of money to individuals and business, causing massive bankruptcy, both for businesses and for individuals as they lose their homes. 3. They can sell dollars and buy Euros. This will reduce the value of the dollar. As a result oil will cost more in dollars and the price of energy will go up. All of these actions will increase inflation and require the government to borrow even more money at a higher price. Business costs will rise causing more job loss and more moving of business to other countries. Meanwhile, the hope of selling our products to the world at a lower price will be frustrated because China and Japan now make and sell at a much lower price a lot of what we might have sold. Ironically, we gave them the wealth to develop their industry so that their products are just as good as ours and cheaper. Thanks to the greed and shortsighted planning of major companies and the ignorance of the government, we are slowing selling to China the power to weaken our country without firing a shot. Meanwhile, we go into debt and transfer funds from important programs for our people, to fight terrorism that has been created to a large extent by our failure to address the real problems in the world and to some extend is being encouraged by China. China is playing Go while we are playing Chess. Regards, Ed Jones Beene wrote: Terry An interesting treatise on the future war with China: http://www.321energy.com/editorials/winston/winston020905.html There is probably a better adjective... maybe terrifying, alarming, etc. but is it really accurate? Are there any economists on Vortex? As China's Master Plan to Destroy America manifesto outlines, the multifaceted battle plan recommended by the Chinese military has taken shape...Financially: Using Currency as the Primary Weapon...[snip] While America's media is hypnotizing us with frivolous entertainment such as American Idol or The Amazing Race, they are totally ignoring the perilous economic time bomb the Chinese have placed against us. The Government of China is holding U.S. currency and Treasury notes in a $1.9 trillion Treasury bond trap. When they pull the trigger on their primary weapon, the dollar will crash and gold will break $600 in a heart beat and just keep going. [End of quote] I wonder how accurate this is... what can the Chinese do with this paper, in reality. Since Nixon took us off any international gold standard, they have no choice but to hole the paper, correct? We do not back up any T-bills with gold anymore do we? Jones
Re: Energy War
Jed Rothwell wrote: Jones Beene wrote: As China's Master Plan to Destroy America manifesto outlines, the multifaceted battle plan recommended by the Chinese military has taken shape...Financially: Using Currency as the Primary Weapon...[snip] I think that is ridiculous. No one is more conservative than stable communist dictator. The last thing the Chinese leaders want to do is rock the boat or cause instability anywhere in the world. My father, who was posted to the Soviet Union during WWII, said the Stalinists were the most stick-in-the-mud right-wing conservatives he ever met in his life. As you have probably noticed, policy is based on what a country CAN do not on what we think it WILL do. Not only is it not possible to know how a country will behave, we have found that a country usually does what it CAN do. Consequently, given a clear advantage or an perceived threat, China has the power to destroy our economy. If it WILL do that depends on our behavior and on the rational behavior of China's leaders. Neither restriction gives me much comfort. The North Korean Communists are not stable, and they may be a threat to other countries, but the Chinese leaders love the status quo. This position paper from PLA should not be taken any more seriously than these kooky right wing American plans to invade Iran, North Korea and Syria over the next six months (or whenever it is). By the way, I doubt the North Koreans have actually made nuclear weapons. Why should they bother? What use would they have for a bomb? If they used it on anyone they would be blown to smithereens by the U.S. They have all the leverage they need just by claiming to have bombs. I read interviews with retired U.S. scientists from Los Alamos who visited North Korea a few months ago. The Koreans tried to convince them that they have weapons, but the experts saw no credible. They got the impression that Koreans are trying to make everyone think they have weapons. Saddam Hussein did the same thing for a long time, for reasons only he can tell. If the Koreans actually had weapons or a weapons production facility, they could have convinced the Los Alamos experts in 15 minutes. The NK would not use the weapon, they would sell it. That way they get money and they have someone else do the dirty work and get the blame. Actually, they appear to be using the threat of selling as a way to gain influence and money. As long as a doubt remains about their having a weapon, they are safe from attack. Consequently, they playing poker while we are playing chess. I doubt there will be an energy war -- either economic or the shooting kind of war. Fixing the energy crisis with conventional alternative energy would be at least a thousand times cheaper. But if there is conflict over energy, it will prove how right Arthur C. Clarke was when he wrote in 1963: Cheaper yes, doable no. The oil companies will not give up the power and money they are making. A lot of things would be cheaper, but they are not done because too much pride and ignorance are involved. The heavy hydrogen in the seas can drive all our machines, heat all our cities, for as far ahead as we can imagine. If, as is perfectly possible, we are short of energy two generations from now, it will be through our own incompetence. We will be like Stone Age men freezing to death on top of a coal bed. That should be, Stone Age barbarians. It is great to believe that mankind would act in an ideal and rational way - it helps a person sleep nights. However, too many examples of opposite behavior are available to count on the ideal occurring- or am I just getting too old? Regards, Ed - Jed
off topic economics
In case some of you are still not too bored about economic discussion, here is a very good article about how we got into the mess we are in. The combination of low interest rates, outsourcing, and deficit spending both in government and industry has created a witches brew that is expected to produce economic collapse in the very near future, regardless of what China does. Bush et al., based on the submitted budget, show no awareness of the problem and are continuing to base policy on lies. The only defense is personal awareness on which you can base a personal defense before the axe falls. Regards, Ed GREENSPAN'S WHOPPER by Bill Bonner You are wasting your life and your talents writing about Alan Greenspan every day, said an old friend. For years, we have been working on Greenspan's obituary. As far as we know, the man is still in excellent health. But we do not want to be caught off guard. Maybe we could even rush out a quickie biography, explaining to the masses the meaning of Mr. Greenspan's life and work. Perhaps our friend is right. But then again, we weren't doing anything special before we started keeping up with the Fed chairman. Besides, we see something in Alan Greenspan's career...his comportment...his betrayal of his old ideas...his pact with the Devil in Washington...and his attempt to hold off nature's revenge at least until he leaves the Fed...that is both entertaining and educational. It smacks of Greek tragedy without the boring monologues or bloody intrigues. Even the language of it is Greek to most people. Though the Fed chairman speaks English, of course, his words often need translation and historical annotation. Rarely does the maestro make a statement that is comprehensible to the ordinary mortal. So much the better, we guess. If the average fellow really knew what he was talking about, he would be alarmed. And we have no illusions. Whoever attempts to explain it to him will get no thanks; he might as well tell his teenage daughter what is in her hotdog. We persevere anyway, more in mischief than in earnest. The background: The U.S. economy faced a major recession in 2001 and had a minor one. The necessary slump he held off by a dramatic resort to central planning. The invisible hand is fine for lumber and poultry prices. But at the short end of the market in debt, Alan Greenspan's paw presses down, like a butcher's thumb on the meat scale. The Fed quickly cut rates to head off the recession. Indeed, never before had rates been cut so much, so fast. George W. Bush, meanwhile, boosted spending. The resultant shock of renewed, ersatz demand not only postponed the recession; it misled consumers, investors and businessmen to make even more egregious errors. Investors bought stock with low earnings yields. Consumers went further into debt. Government liabilities rose. The trade deficit grew larger. Even on the other side of the globe, foreign businessmen geared up to meet the phony new demand; China enjoyed a capital spending boom as excessive as any the world has ever seen. What the Greenspan Fed had accomplished was to put off a natural, cyclical correction and transmogrify an entire economy into a monstrous ECONOMIC bubble. A bubble in stock prices may do little real economic damage. Eventually, the bubble pops and the phony money people thought they had disappears like a puff of marijuana smoke. There are winners and losers. But in the end, the economy is about where it began - unharmed and unhelped. The households are still there...and still spending money as they did before...and the companies still in business. Only those that leveraged themselves too highly in the bubble years are in any trouble - and they probably deserve to go out of business. Even a property bubble may come and go with little effect on the overall economy. House prices have been running up in France, for example, at nearly the same rates as in America. But in France there is very little mortgage refinancing...or taking out of equity. The European Central Bank was repeatedly urged to lower rates in line with those in America. It refused to budge. Without falling rates, there was no refi boom. Nor were European banks offering home equity lines of credit. Property could run up...and run down...and the only people who cared would be the actual buyers or sellers, who either cursed themselves or felt like geniuses, depending on their luck. But in Greenspan's bubble economy something remarkably awful happened. Householders were lured to take out the equity in their homes. They believed that the bubble in real estate priced created wealth that they could spend. Many did not hesitate. Mortgage debt ballooned in the early years of the 21st century - from about $6 trillion in 1999 to nearly $9 trillion at the end of 2004. Three trillion dollars may not seem like much to you, dear reader. But it increased the average household's debt by $30,000.
Re: BBC Horizon to feature Taleyarkhan
Once again, we are being treated to one more example of exaggeration and BS. The Taleyarkhan cavitation work is hot fusion occurring in bubbles, not cold fusion. The rates are very low and the method would not work if power output were at commercial levels, yet this work gets attention. In contrast, Stringham has caused cold fusion to occur at near commercial levels in metals by applying deuterium to the metal using cavitation, yet this work is ignored. We are not being treated to dreams, but to nightmares. Ed Keith Nagel wrote: Hey Jed + Knuke, If the dream dies, can the reality of LENR finally come out? I for one am getting kind of sick of the dreaming K. -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 12:05 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: BBC Horizon to feature Taleyarkhan Michael Huffman wrote: Gnorts, Taleyarkhan has been doing cavitation experiments for over thirty years, Jed. And the BBC has been doing them for -- what? -- six weeks? And yet they claim: If the experiment works, then the world could be on the way to a new form of cheap, unlimited, pollution free energy. But if it fails, then that dream will die. The DREAM WILL DIE, folks!!! All of you in viewing audience: please, clap your hands! Keep Tinker-bell alive! - Jed
Re: BBC Horizon to feature Taleyarkhan
I think it's easier not to confuse cold fusion with hot fusion by introducing the Beta-ether concept. We have enough trouble just talking about what is known without introducing what is unknown. Cold fusion describes nuclear reactions that take place in special atomic lattices without application of significant ambient energy, and result in helium when fusion occurs. On the other hand, hot fusion occurs in a plasma or when significant energy is applied, is independent of the atomic environment, and produces neutrons and tritium in equal amounts. The Taleyarkhan work produces a microplasma and detects neutrons. Based on the observed behavior, this is hot fusion, not cold fusion. I might add, the reaction rates are over 12 orders of magnitude less than those observed by Stringham. Even if the observations are real, they have a long way to go before the effect is useful. Regards, Ed Grimer wrote: At 10:44 am 17-02-05 -0700, you wrote: Once again, we are being treated to one more example of exaggeration and BS. The Taleyarkhan cavitation work is hot fusion occurring in bubbles, snip or cold fusion occuring in Beta-aether vacua cavities. 8^) Grimer
Re: Evangelical environmentalists
revtec wrote: - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 5:57 PM Subject: Re: Evangelical environmentalists revtec wrote: I'm all for sound science including CF research. I have spent hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars trying to coax some over unity performance out of a series of PAGD experiments, but only succeeded in finding some interesting anomalies. A little elaboration here: I havn't fired up the PAGD apparatus since last April, because I was running out of reasonable circuit variations to try. Even though I have an Aerospace degree, I in no way consider myself a scientist. Mike Carrell observed my early efforts in 1996 and referred to me as a tinkerer in a later post. That may be an accurate assessment of my capability. I remain strongly convinced that true religion and true science are never in conflict. Well Jeff, I agree. However I would phrase this a little differently. I would say that a true understanding of science is never in conflict with a true understanding of the spirit reality. The word Religion should not be used in this context because it is only an imperfect effort by man to understand the spirit reality, much like physics is an imperfect effort by man to understand the physical world. Both fields of study are fractured into warring factions because they are based on an imperfect understanding. I really don't like the word religion, but I use it because that is the word most people expect to see. Religions in general are man's attempts at reaching out to God. Christianity, however, is God reaching out to man. I though prayer was the act of reaching out to God, while religion was the codified understanding of God's wishes and laws as believed by a particular group. I think that all religions believe that their particular interpretation of God is also God reaching out to them with a message. The problem comes when different messages are received because each religion believes they have received the only true message. This raises an additional issue with respect to the literal interpretation of the Bible. Some people argue that the statements in the Bible are exactly true even though they were made by men writing in another language, who believed the earth was flat and was the center of the only universe, and who were talking to an entirely different culture. I have read the Bible cover to cover several times but have not encountered in my recollection a verse implying that the earth was flat. I could have missed it. Do you have a reference? I agree, the Bible does not comment on the shape of the earth. However, as best as we now can determine, a flat earth was the conventional belief at the time. If God wanted to give authenticity to what was written, he/she could have had the writers note that the earth was round and that the heavens were populated by many suns. However, these ideas, even if God were so inclined, would probably have been deleted by the authorities of that time. There are cases in the Bible where the author accurately reports a statement which is untrue. As an example, the scriptures state in many places that there is life after death, but in the book of Ecclesiastes, Solomon says there is not. That is what he thought at the time he wrote it, and that thought is accurately reported. But, it is fairly clear to me that he was nuts at the time he wrote it. If you had 500 wives, how sane would you be? Nevertheless, God is supposed to have given these men superhuman and universal knowledge, evidence for which is not obvious in the text. I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Jeff If the Bible is literal truth of the physical reality, then the writers at that time would have had to be given knowledge about how the world was created and what would happen in the future that no normal man could have at that time. Instead, the Bible contains conflicting statements, allegorical descriptions of creation, and predictions of the future that can be related to events only after the fact. Consequently, no evidence exists within the text that the knowledge base of the writers was beyond what was known or imagined at the time. As a result, the Bible as the literal word of God has to be taken on faith. The conflict with science occurs because science attempts to take nothing on faith. This is why science and religion can never agree. Regards, Ed What are scientists to make of statements given by religion based on such evidence? This is rather like assuming the works of Aristotle are literally true and should be the basis for science. How do Christian scientists deal with this problem?
Re: BBC Horizon to feature Taleyarkhan
thomas malloy wrote: Ed Storms responded' Once again, we are being treated to one more example of exaggeration and BS. The Taleyarkhan cavitation work is hot fusion occurring in bubbles, not cold fusion. I don't understand how hot fusion in bubbles differs from what the other LERN researchers are doing, LENR describes nuclear reactions made to occur under conditions that conflict with all conventional experience and theory, while hot fusion in bubbles is normal high-energy fusion. The rates are very low and the method would not work if power output were at commercial levels, yet this work gets attention. In contrast, Stringham has caused cold fusion to occur at near commercial levels in metals by applying deuterium to the metal using cavitation, yet this work is ignored. It is regrettable that the physics establishment ignores this research. OTOH, once commercially feasible amount of energy are produced, things will change. Unfortunately, commercial amounts of energy are impossible using this technique. The amount of energy generated by each bubble is just too small. We are not being treated to dreams, but to nightmares. Ever the pessimist Guilty. In my defense, some times are more consistent with pessimism than others. This happens to be one of those times. Regards, Ed
Re: BBC Horizon to feature Taleyarkhan
thomas malloy wrote: thomas malloy wrote: Ed Storms responded' Once again, we are being treated to one more example of exaggeration and BS. The Taleyarkhan cavitation work is hot fusion occurring in bubbles, not cold fusion. I don't understand how hot fusion in bubbles differs from what the other LERN researchers are doing, LENR describes nuclear reactions made to occur under conditions that conflict with all conventional experience and theory, while hot fusion in bubbles is normal high-energy fusion. I've always assumed that any induced nuclear reaction, other than lasers in a plasma, was an LENR. Particularly if it involved bubbles in a liquid, which I assume was water. Because of the Coulomb barrier, all nuclear reactions, excluding LENR and neutron reactions, require high energy. The discovery that such reactions can be initiated without high energy is the unique aspect of LENR. The rates are very low and the method would not work if power output were at commercial levels, yet this work gets attention. In contrast, Stringham has caused cold fusion to occur at near commercial levels in metals by applying deuterium to the metal using cavitation, yet this work is ignored. It is regrettable that the physics establishment ignores this research. OTOH, once commercially feasible amount of energy are produced, things will change. Unfortunately, commercial amounts of energy are impossible using this technique. The amount of energy generated by each bubble is just too small. Interesting observation. I've heard about inducing reactions by sonic stimulation of water. You're saying that the energy output for a reactions induced by what ever stimulation he was using will never go over unity, since you've studied it and I haven't, I'll take your word for it. I've been reading about the Yuri Popatov's Yusmar machine, which AFAIK, produces LENR's in an aquas solution by means of a vortex. Heat is a big item with Russians, and electricity costs something there too. The fact that he has lots of orders for the machines, should tell you something. The Yusmar machine has been tested several times, once at LANL under the direction of Popatov, and none of the tests showed excess energy. However, as a method to convert electric energy to heat energy, it is very practical because it is simple and does not require maintenance. Russian water is frequently impure so that using a resistor for conversion results in build up of deposit that requires removal. This is the major reason the method is popular in Russia. Regards, Ed We are not being treated to dreams, but to nightmares. Ever the pessimist Guilty. In my defense, some times are more consistent with pessimism than others. This happens to be one of those times. Regards, Ed I know what you mean.
Re: Scientific American again misrepresents cold fusion research
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:20:25 -0700: Hi Ed, [snip] Actually Robin, hydrino production has been ruled out. Cells are now sealed and contain a recombiner. If hydrinos were produced and did not react with oxygen to reform water, extra oxygen would accumulate and been detected as increased pressure or extra gas. If they did react, either they would revert to normal D, absorbing their energy of formation, or they would produce abnormal D2O, which has not been seen. In any case, abnormal behavior would be observed. [snip] Not necessarily, because hydrinohydride could undergo new chemical reactions (i.e. form strange salts) which could bind any excess oxygen as a solid. (Though I am somewhat grasping at straws here). Laying all my cards on the table, I would say first, that not all cells are sealed, and secondly that it is highly likely that putative hydrinos are not responsible for all forms of CF, though IMO they may be responsible for at least some past reports of excess heat. In short, I tend to agree with you that there is likely to be *at least* one form of CF/LENR/CANR, that has nothing to do with hydrinos. However I think it's going too far to say that hydrinos have been definitively ruled out as a contender in some cases. Well Robin, you just proved the one law that can never be disproven, i.e. in the presence of a clever person, no law can be proven correct. Regards, Ed Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: A cause celebre?
Dear Frank, I totally agree with you. The time for being nice has past. The DOE has shown gross dishonesty and the energy situation is getting out of hand. The Manifesto is just the start. With a little luck and enough effort, we hope to get the public concerned. However, I have no allusions about the difficulty. If the issue involved any subject other than Cold Fusion, and perhaps UFOs, the press would be interested. Unfortunately, so many other issues are being generated these days by the US government that the press has difficulty keeping up even when it wants to. Anyway, if you know anyone in the press who might take an interest, please let me know. Regards, Ed Grimer wrote: At 06:10 pm 26-02-05 -0500, Jed wrote: A mainstream CF researcher asked Ed Storms and I to tone down or remove the Manifesto we posted on Thursday, THE DOE LIES! I asked Mel Miles whether he thinks it is over the top. He replied with a very depressing message. He says he understands why traditionally minded academic researchers may feel this is excessive, but he thinks the Manifesto is justified, and he agrees we should leave it. snip As for what else we can do . . Does anyone here have suggestions? snip I have a suggestion - but you will probably find it far too Machiavellian. I believe, and I speak from real life experience, that the best way to get people's attention is to scare the shit out of them. As an illustration consider this personal history. = When I was working in the Structural Division of the Building Research Station, my particular section was charged with the responsibility of anticipating systemic structural failure before they happened. Our cutting edge research on concrete had shown that existing ideas about concrete failure were seriously defective. This had relevant implications for the safety of the British AGRs (Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors) since they use prestressed concrete for their pressure vessels. However, though what we had discovered suggested that AGRs weren't as safe as people imagined, I wasn't to fazed about it since I didn't live near one. g However, Chernobyl and a BBC TV programme on the Hartlepool AGR which described how they were tightening the loose tendons (rather than loosening the tight ones) brought home to me the frailty of human endeavours. I acquainted my division head with my views just in case he ever came across more detailed information of problems in that area. Some years later we had a re-tread Director (from Porton Down) who happened to read one of my way out internal notes to which he took violent exception. So much so that I was banned from internal publication on my own authority. As you might expect this really pissed me off. So, to his utter fury, I appealed against the decision on the grounds that the suppression had implication for the safety of nuclear reactors. Now about that time there had been a lot of worry about civil servants whistle blowing by taking information on internal shenanigans to the press. To reduce this leakage an appeal system was set up giving every civil servant the right of appeal to the very head (Permanent Secretary) of his Department. Furthermore, if the PS saw fit, the appeal could proceed all the way up to the Head of the Home Civil Service and Cabinet Secretary, Robin Butler himself, (now Lord Butler) and, not unnaturally in view of the subject matter, the buck was passed right to the top. Nigel and I finished up in the RB's room in the Cabinet Office explaining the problem. Needless to say poor Robin was as out of his depth as Christopher Robin would have been. He was very nice about though but explained that he had no choice but to rely on the advice of his underlings. On its journey our appeal went through the scrutiny of a supposedly Expert Committee (what a farce that was but I'll save that for another time) with the inevitable fudge that I was given 15 weeks to write a paper going into the reasons for my concerns in greater depth. I said I needed 2 years to do the job properly (that being the time to my retirement ;-) ) and if they weren't prepared for that then they obviously weren't taking the matter seriously. There the matter rested. = So if you want to get people's attention, all you have to do is to point out to the great unwashed, in as lurid a way as you can, that if the Evil Empire harnesses Cold Fusion before the US, they will all finish up reading the koran and wearing chadors. It's no good saying the development of small CF bombs is unlikely. Until we know why and how cold fusion works we are only guessing as to what's likely and what ain't. The point is, since nine-eleven the American public are running
Re: A cause celebre?
Keith Nagel wrote: Frank writes: You wrote I asked Mel Miles whether he thinks it is over the top. Goodness me! You sound like Ned Flanders. All credit to Mel Miles for his gutsey reply. Why on earth did it depress you. I can't answer for Ed or Jed, but it depresses me because it's a sign of desperation and failure. Fear is a good motivator for destroying things; the techniques and methods you describe are generally used for destructive purposes. For example, if we wished to _stop_ CF research fear would be a good way to go about it. Granted this is a sign of failure. However, we are not using fear, only embarrassment, at least with respect to the DOE. The population needs to realize the advantages of CF. The fear only comes if the advantages are ignored, in the same manner death comes if the advantages of medicine are ignored. But we're trying to _create_ something here. And therein lies the rub. If you're looking to engage the emotions, the relevant one here is seduction, not fear. Think Clinton, not Bush. Needless to say, if you think scientists are bad at the fear game, their general ineptitude at seduction is legendary (grin). But you can't frighten people into the new, they must be seduced there. Tell me Keith, how does one go about seducing the DOE? My experience with the government is that it is immune to seduction. It can be bought, it can be threatened by popular pressure, or it can be embarrassed. Otherwise, it does what current attitudes dictate. By the way, what's so horrible about China? If China gets CF before we do, we are toast. Also, China is not a pleasant place to work, being very polluted. Regards, Ed K.
Re: Correa, etc.
Jed Rothwell wrote: Mike Carrell wrote: joules to 17,800 volts. To prevent the terminal voltage from rising to, say 100 volts, 100 farads of capactors would be needed, or 17,857 capcitors. By comparison, batteries look pretty good. . . . You absolutely do not use a capacitance across the tube. What you have built is a gas-discharge relaxation oscillator equivalent to any common strobe flash. It is ***not*** a PAGD reactor. If this is the case, then Jeff has taken a serious wrong turn, and he has been wasting his time. That has often happened with cold fusion over the years. It is a terrible shame. Message to Mike: Why can't you Jeff get together and iron this out? Message to Jeff: Would you be willing to try again? Keith Nagel is probably right when he says, practically speaking a replication is impossible unless Paulo participates in an active way, which he will not. That is the worst shame of all. Evidently, cold fusion was much easier to reproduce than the pagd (assuming the pagd is real). In 1989, knowledge of electrochemistry was widespread, so even though Fleischmann and Pons were not available to go around holding other people's hands, many researchers such as Bockris, Oriani, Huggins and Miles were able to reproduce it on their own. If the necessary skills and knowledge have been as obscure as those required for the pagd, it probably would have been lost. While I agree with Jed about the basic point he is making, success in replicating the cold fusion claims is not based on skill, or at least not the kind of skill Jed is noting. Success has been based on chance creation of the nuclear active environment. No one, even today, knows what this environment looks like or how to create it on purpose. Repeated success is based on having a chance success that the researcher was able to duplicate by holding the conditions constant. Naturally, because many variables are involved, not all of them can be held constant. Consequently, success is frequently marred by many failures, even for the more successful researchers. Only gradually, have some of the variables been identified. This has happened only because a few people kept trying and failing. Initially, the effect was thought to occur in bulk palladium. Consequently, great effort was devoted to obtaining palladium that could load to high D/Pd ratios. Now we know that this approach is not important. A variety of materials work and these can be applied as thin layers to inert materials. The point is that if the PAGD effect is like cold fusion, it probably can be initiated several different ways, some of which can be found by the same kind of trial and error used by the Correas. Replication is a slippery standard. When an effect is successfully replicated, you know the it is real -- simple enough. But when it is *not* replicated, it can be very difficult to judge what happened. Perhaps the effect does not exist after all. Or the people trying to replicate are making honest mistakes. Or they are only making a desultory effort. They may even be deliberately trying to prove that the effect does not exist. You would have to be a mind reader to sort out events. A replication is a clear signal from Mother Nature. A non-replication is a complicated human event, colored by understanding, knowledge, politics, emotion, and so on. l would also like to point out that a strict duplication is not replication. It is possible for both studies to make the same mistakes. Replication is most impressive when the same effect can be produced several different ways, each of which show that the same variables are having the same effect on the outcome. Cold fusion has passed this test. The PAGD effect has not. Regards, Ed - Jed
Re: Dr. K. L. Shanahan, Savannah River National Laboratory
Apparently, Kirk does not give up easily even when the facts that dispute his claim are presented to him on several occasions. His mechanism is at odds with observation because recombination does not occur on the cathode surface, as has been demonstrated by measurement and by simple logic. In addition, the calorimeter I used is insensitive to where heat is produced within the cell. based experimental measurement. All of these facts have been given to Kirk without having any effect on his behavior. On the other hand, he shows no experimental evidence that his model is real, in contrast to being a figment of his imagination. Such is the kind of people cold fusion has to deal with. Regards, Ed Steven Krivit wrote: Vorts - Kirk Shanahan posted the following message to the Wiki cold fusion page on 2 March, at 16:45. Eight minutes later, Wiki watchdog David W. Brooks, an apparent sysop for the page - most appropriately - erased this entire entry, reverting to the prior revision. I wonder if Dr. Shanahan is reading Vortex and picked up the recent threads regarding Wiki and decided to use that to express his views. If so, I wish you luck in your efforts, Dr. Shanahan, and hope that you do your homework. Steve Recently, a chemical explanation of the excess heat observations has been promoted by Dr. K. L. Shanahan, Savannah River National Laboratory in two publications in the scientific journal Thermochimica Acta (TA). In the first -(TA, 387(2), (2002), 95), experimental data collected by Dr. E. Storms and posted to the Internet in January/February, 2000, and presented at the 8th International Conference on Cold Fusion was reanalyzed from the point of view of a system that produced no true excess energy, but that apeared to do so. What was found was that -a simple variation in calibration constants within +/- 3% would account for the observed apparent excess heat. The article focused on presenting these results, which provide a convenient explanation for a large fraction of observed excess heat results. However, no detailed mechanism for the calibration constant shift mechanism was presented there, and subsequently Szpak, Mosier-Boss, Miles, and Fleischmann, while reporting new claims of observed cold fusion (TA, 410(1-2), (2004), 101), criticized Shanahan's work. In response Shanahan has submitted a new paper (TA (2005, article in press)) responding to the criticism and detailing the proposed mundane (but interesting) chemical mechanism, while also commenting on the Szpak, et al, paper. - -In simple terms, the Shanahan explanation consists of the slow development of a contaminated electrode surface which promotes the at-the-surface, under-the-electroyte joining of H2(D2) and O2 bubbles, which then ignite and burn on the electrode surface. This redistributes the heat produced in the cells, and can produce a calibration constant shift, which in turn produces an apparent excess energy signal. This surface chemistry explanation is driven by the realization that the work of Dr. Storms was done on a Pt cathode, instead of the 'ususal' Pd, and Pt does not hydride. Thus, bulk hydriding levels are not directly relevant to the effect, in contrast to the claims of McKubre and Hagelstein. - -Excess heat claims constitute the most common form of evidence presented for a nuclear explanation of the cold fusion claims, but there are additional claims to have observed a wide variety of nuclear ash (nuclear reaction products). Dr. Shanahan has posted extensive discussions of how such nuclear ash observations could have been obtained by the various researchers involved on the Internet Usenet newsgroup sci.physics.fusion. Most of these explanations invoke poor analytical chemistry practices. - -The claims of Dr. Shanahan represent an alternative explanation to the nuclear version of 'cold fusion' and, barring some reasonable explanation as to why Dr. Shanahan's theses are incorrect, as such clearly establish that the issue of the nuclear nature of 'cold fusion' is not yet decided, over 15 years afer the initial announcements of such. * The following subsequent conversation occurred between Shanahan and Brooks: KS: David, Any particular reason that you reverted my addition to the Cold Fusion main page (Hidden Chemistry)? Kirk Shanahan (new Wikipedia user - KirkShanahan) DB: Yes - I apologize for not putting a discussion on the Talk page; I was having wikipedia problems and the system kept timing out on me. Your posting was way, way too long. It was more appropriate for a research publication or a Web forum; this is supposed to be an overview encyclopedia article, not an in-depth analysis of all old, new and potentially relevant research findings. You can imagine what would happen if every research lab in the world that has new data relating to cold fusion were to put in three or four paragraphs about its work here - the article would be so enormous that no
Re: Transistors, replication, and PAGD
Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: So I ask, what is the basic process in the PAGD effect? For example, how can moving ions extract energy from their surroundings? Why must the ions and/or electrons only move in a certain way, as caused by the unique applied voltage? I think the point is that the Correas themselves do not know yet, so the only way to investigate this phenomenon is to build a slavishly exact copies of the original gadget, and then begin experimenting with it. The problem is that it is almost impossible to build an exact duplicate of a complex device. Without guidance based on even a crude model, it is impossible to know which of the many variables are important and which can be ignored. For example, using the cold fusion effect about which I have some experience, it was impossible to duplicate the F-P work exactly because F-P did not know most of what was important, even when they finally revealed what they had done. Even after years of work, attention was still directed to the physical and chemical properties of bulk palladium. Only recently has it become clear that the action is in surface deposits. Now the number of variables can be reduced and redirected to those that really matter. At this point, we do not know whether the energy extraction process in the PAGD apparatus occurs in the plasma, in the electrode surface, or in the attached components through which unusual waveforms pass. If, as Mike suggests, the apparatus acts as an antenna that picks up energy from aether waves, then where is this antenna located within the apparatus. What aspect of the apparatus is important to allow such extraction? Suppose the plasma is only required to create the required waveform experienced by elections passing through the connecting wires, similar to the way normal antenna work. Too many variables are available to allow an exact duplication, even using the patents. That is why the Correas must show that their apparatus actually does what they claim, because only that device has achieved all the known and unknown features that are important. Regards, Ed
Re: Energy - The Big Picture
Last week my 10-year-old Volvo station wagon needed an expensive valve job. It turned out it cost 4000 bucks! Anyway, I thought about getting a new car and I spec'ed them out. My car gets ~20 mpg city and 30 mpg highway. I was disgusted to find that the new station wagons get 18 mpg city and 26 mpg highway! Apparently this is because they are all-wheel-drive AWD -- which I assume means four-wheel-drive. A few of the old front-wheel drive models still get 30 mpg. This is crazy. Who the heck needs four-wheel-drive in suburban Atlanta for crying out loud?!? Just for your information Jed, my Forester, which is AWD, gets 25 mpg at 7000 ft in the city and over 28 mpg at 70 mph. Also the Prius (front wheel drive) get 45 mpg in the city and 55 mpg at 75 mph. Soon several SUV models will be hybrid with good gas mileage. Last year I would see another Prius every few few weeks. Now, I expect very soon collisions between two Prius will become common. Ed There are probably not more than a hundred people in greater Atlanta who actually do drive off-road a few times a year, and it is ironic that I happen to be one of them, but as my mother used to say, any car will do. My mother drove anything with wheels starting in the Model T Ford era, including WWII trucks. The people I know who actually live in the countryside do not own SUVs. They drive a Volvo or a VW bug into the woods to collect firewood. On the few occasions when really need to get someplace off in the woods we borrow a 35-year-old tractor from the neighbor. *That*, by golly, is off road. - Jed
Re: Sci. Am. attacks CF again
Well Jed, if this the worst they can do, I'm not worried. In fact, they might have also said that my next car would run on hydrogen or french-fry grease with as much sarcasm. Actually, I expect my next car will be a hybrid Diesel running on biofuel mixed with a fuel made from oil and coal. Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: The Sci. Am. has attacked cold fusion again, two months in a row. See the illustration to the April fools editorial, print edition page 10. - Jed
Re: OT: The will of God
The my God is better than your God approach to religion disgusts and frightens me. This use of God is only a thin disguise used by one group to justify taking life, liberty, and property from another group. For example, the white race thought they had the God given right to enslave the blacks and the Germans thought they had the God given right to kill the Jews and other people, to provide only some recent examples. The use of a god justification does not excuse the actions. This attitude is so alien to the basic teachings of all religions that it is a wonder that a sane person would have the nerve to make such an argument. Christ, as well as every other spokesman of God, taught us to treat others as you would treat ourselves. This is not limited only to those people who worship our idea of God, an idea I might add that changes with time. Christians are taught that we are all made in the image of God. This concept is not applied only to Christians. We are all part of God, we are all trying to make sense of a confused message, and we all are expected to give each other a chance to learn the message in our own way. Killing or condemning other people who fail to learn our lesson or share our limited beliefs is not permitted. When hate and killing is motivated and justified by assuming that the action is God's wish, civilization breaks down and countries are destroyed. How often must these events be repeated before people learn that this approach leads to disaster. If evil exists in the would, this attitude must be at the top of the list. Ed Horace Heffner wrote: At 2:45 AM 3/26/5, thomas malloy wrote: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii ; format=flowed Horace Heffner replied At 11:14 AM 3/24/5, thomas malloy wrote: The idea that Yehovah, and Allah are the same entity is pure nonsense. Ditto for the idea that Shariah is a substitute for Torah. I thought I'd made the case adequately, but apparently I didn't. You completely failed to address the issue and you seem to not even understand the point. Jews and Christians worship the god of Abraham. Islamists worship the god of Abraham. If it is the same Abraham it is the same god. You believe what you want to believe. I have suggested two propositions and a conclusion. These things are not a matter of my faith or what I believe. What matters is the general doctrine of Christians, Jews, and Moslems concerning Abraham and his one god. I've pointed out that the two entities have; different names, different legal systems, and the train of human thought that they produced bore different fruit. If you still believe that they are the same entity, you have blinded yourself to what is obvious. Once again you have failed to address either the propositions or the logic. Instead you again frame the problem as a matter of personal faith and attack the conclusion on the basis of what men have done in the interim. [snip] There is only one way in which peace can be achieved when one system, or group of people, is sworn to destroy the other. One of us has to destroy the other. When civilized men are unwilling to do what needs to be done in order to maintain their existence, they will be replaced by uncivilized men, who are willing to do what needs to be done. I believe that this quote is from Victor Davis Hanson, frequent guest on the Hugh Hewitt Show. Genocide can not be the only means to peace. If anything in this world is utterly evil, genocide has to be at the top of the list. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: OT: If I were Pope.
Like in science, the conclusion one reaches depends on the assumptions made at the beginning. The beliefs of each religion and the rules supposed to be God-given suffer from this same limitation. In this article the author makes the argument that the rules of the Catholic Church, i.e. no abortion, no condoms, and no gay marriage, would not advance mankind because their change would separate the sex act from its primary intention, thereby causing injury to mankind. The fact not considered is that all three prohibitions would lead to a smaller population. The assumption not considered is that this fact might be a good thing. Providing a growing Catholic population has always been the self-serving policy of the church. For centuries, this policy gave an advantage to the human race. However, this advantage is rapidly decaying away as population grows at a compounding rate. How many more people must suck the resources out of the earth before the Church changes its policy? I suggest that even science can not mediate the damage if population grows at a sufficiently rapid rate. Ed Grimer wrote: I thought this was a rather intelligent article which some Vorts might appreciate, i.e. those that believe that objective truth is not merely confined to science.;-) Why progressive Westerners never understood John Paul II By Mark Steyn (Filed: 05/04/2005) If I were Pope - and no, don't worry, I'm not planning a mid-life career change - but, if I were, I'd be a little irked at the secular media's inability to discuss religion except through the prism of their moral relativism. That's why last weekend's grand old man - James Callaghan - got a more sympathetic send-off than this weekend's. The Guardian's headline writer billed Sunny Jim as a man whose consensus politics were washed away in the late 1970s. Is it possible to have any meaningful consensus between, on the one hand, closed-shop council manual workers demanding a 40 per cent pay rise and, on the other, rational human beings? What would the middle ground between the real world and Planet Zongo look like? A 30 per cent pay rise, rising to 40 per cent over 18 months or the next strike, whichever comes sooner? By contrast, the Guardian thought Karol Wojtyla was a doctrinaire, authoritarian pontiff. That doctrinaire at least suggests the inflexible authoritarian derived his inflexibility from some ancient operating manual - he was dogmatic about his dogma - unlike the New York Times and the Washington Post, which came close to implying that John Paul II had taken against abortion and gay marriage off the top of his head, principally to irk liberal Catholics. The assumption is always that there's some middle ground that a less doctrinaire pope might have staked out: he might have supported abortion in the first trimester, say, or reciprocal partner benefits for gays in committed relationships. The root of the Pope's thinking - that there are eternal truths no one can change even if one wanted to - is completely incomprehensible to the progressivist mindset. There are no absolute truths, everything's in play, and by consensus all we're really arguing is the rate of concession to the inevitable: abortion's here to stay, gay marriage will be here any day now, in a year or two it'll be something else - it's all gonna happen anyway, man, so why be the last squaresville daddy-o on the block? We live in a present-tense culture where novelty is its own virtue: the Guardian, for example, has already been touting the Nigerian Francis Arinze as candidate for first black pope. This would be news to Pope St Victor, an African and pontiff from 189 to 199. Among his legacies: the celebration of Easter on a Sunday. That's not what the Guardian had in mind, of course: it meant the first black pope since the death of Elvis - or however far back our societal memory now goes. But, if you hold an office first held by St Peter, you can say been there, done that about pretty much everything the Guardian throws your way. John Paul's papacy was founded on what he called - in the title of his encyclical - Veritatis Splendor, and when you seek to find consensus between truth and lies you tarnish that splendour. Der Spiegel this week published a selection from the creepy suck-up letters Gerhard Schröder wrote to the East German totalitarian leaders when he was a West German pol on the make in the 1980s. As he wrote to Honecker's deputy, Egon Krenz: I will certainly need the endurance you have wished me in this busy election year. But you will certainly also need great strength and good health for your People's Chamber election. The only difference being that, on one side of the border, the election result was not in doubt. When a free man enjoying the blessings of a free society promotes an equivalence between real democracy and a sham, he's colluding in the great lie being perpetrated by the prison state. Too many Western politicians of a
Re: OT: If I were Pope.
Kyle Mcallister wrote: Vortexians, OK, this is getting a little crazy-go-nuts. 1. Margaret Sanger was responsible for some good, yes. She was also crazy. Not the kind of person I would want to spend much time with. Very pro-eugenics. If you support that, then congratulations, go build yourself a private Gattaca. Leave me the hell out of it. The problem is that some people would be very willing to leave you and people with your belief system alone. However, there seems to be an unwillingness of certain religious belief systems to leave the rest of us alone. 2. I am not pro-abortion for a few reasons. A: It does nothing to encourage people to stop the numerous meet and f**k flings. Lack of abortion does not stop f**kings, which all the statistics and personal experience shows. B: I wouldn't know if I was destroying someone who might be something very important one day. Or someone who was a mass murder. Of course, if God wanted a person available to do something considered important, why would it matter if that body were destroyed? Many more bodies would be available. Also, if God is all powerful and all knowing, why would a body that might be aborted be chosen? C: I do not have to be pro-abortion just because you say so. So many people have tried to force me to be pro-abortion that I am now totally against it mainly in defiance of those who would control my thinking. Why do you think you are being forced to be proabortion and how is this done? Of course, many people are being forced to be antiabortion just because the doctors are being driven out of business. 3. A religious person really really must have made you mad once, Jed? It is fine by me if you are anti-religion, do what you want to. But if you want to try and say you and the anti-religionists are better than anyone who has a religion, or worse force your views on them via legislature, well, kindly knock the hell off. I know of no proposed legislation that is antireligious. However, I know that the religious right is trying to make gay marriage illegal. You know, if we are supposed to be so pro-women-liberation in other countries, so pro-freedom, so pro-lets-all-get-along-as-equals, so pro-insert theme of day here then why the HELL is it ok and dandy to hate religion? I did not get the impression that Jed hates religion, nor do I. However, I do hate the attitude of certain religions in their belief that their God is better than the other God. If you think I am overreacting, then re-read your posts. They were pretty damned irritating to me at least, and I am sure others. Not for your opinion, that is fine. Do what you want. But do not ever try to force it on anyone else. By legislation or otherwise. This statement (the last part anyways) is not directly aimed at anyone. I would also like religious people not to force their beliefs using legislation, which is the common approach. 4. Contraception? Sure, why not. I have no problem with this. But please, if anyone out there wants to force the use of them on people who do NOT want to use them, kindly take a hike. This statement is not directly aimed at anyone. As far I know, no one is forced to use contraception. However, for awhile in this country and even now in some other countries, condoms were not easily available because the Catholic Church was opposed. 5. Are you guys actually reading this? I don't get many replies Does this quantify? 6. You know, the Pope just died. He meant alot to many people. (I am not catholic, by the way, but I damn sure respect them and am not going to say they are 400 years behind!) If this form of lack of respect for the dearly departed is implicit in your atheistic-utopia vision, then count me completely out. I think you miss the difference between respect and agreement with opinion and policy. I respect the pope, but I think, for what its worth, his policy is harmful to humanity. I respect you but I do not share your beliefs. 7. If this continued anti-religious bias is to be embraced and accepted, then do not EVER ask me to show compassion towards some special interest group of to feel sorry for Muslims who might have been discriminated against in the days to follow September 11th. Why should one group be discriminated against and not another? Why indeed? I agree, we should be equal opportunity discriminators. :-) 8. DISCLAIMER!!! This is aimed at no one in particular! (so don't take it as being aimed at you, Jed). If there is someone who feels that the need for population control is so severe that we need to force people to go against their religious and/or moral views and be forced to employ contraceptives or abortion, then here is an alternative. If there is someone who really wants to force that kind of control on other people, then kindly do the following: get yourself a gun, and shoot yourself now. You will have accomplished what you set out to do: you have reduced the worlds population by 1, and I guarantee you that the
Re: OT: If I were Pope.
thomas malloy wrote: thomas malloy wrote: snip Lets start over at the beginning. There are these two super human entities who both want to be G-d, Unfortunately there's only room for one, One's going to toss the other into a black hole, him and all his followers with him. Now this all results from the angels and humans having free will. There have been a series of prophets who have recorded G-d's message. Lets start at the real beginning. According to your belief system, one God created the universe some ? billion years ago. During that time many civilizations have come and gone on other planets and civilizations have come and gone on this planet. Recently, relatively speaking, humans have develop sufficiently to write down their conversations with God. From these documents we learn that at some time in the past, another God came into being who wants to kick out the original God and all humans who follow this God. How about the many advanced civilizations that exist on other planets? Are all the followers of the original God on these planets going to be destroyed as well or do you think we are the only beings your God has created? And why now after so long a time? Frankly this story seem too childish. Even humans who have acquired some wisdom do not act this self-serving and ruthless. I would expect Gods to have a higher standard. But then this is your God, not mine. To make this difference more clear and using your concepts, we both believe in a God but we attribute different characteristic to that God. You are willing to fight over the different characteristics because one of the characteristics you attribute to your God is his wish for you to wage such a fight. The characteristics I attribute to my God are more forgiving and compassionate, more wise rather than ruthless. Then there is the matter of the Islamists, who want to rule the world. This is no more true than to say that Christianity wants to rule the world. But our G-d has a right to rule his world. So, in your belief system, Christians-Jews have the right to war against people who do not share their understanding of God because your God is the only true and real God, hence has the right to rule all people. In other words, believe or die. This sounds rather old fashion, like the attitude toward witches which we have now outgrown. Both religions are trying to spread their beliefs and both belief systems have groups under whose rule I and you would not want to live. Speak for yourself, I live in a theocracy, I answer to Rabbi Stan, we both answer to G-d. On the other hand, in a few countries now and especially in the past, Islam provided a very good religious base for civilized development. If you don't mind living in the Middle Ages, and don't care if you worship the true G-d, in spirit and truth. If it weren't for that, I'd make a good Islamist. Turkey is not in the Middle Ages, yet it is Moslem. When you say worship the true God you are missing a very critical concept. You are not worshiping a God, but you are worshiping your concept of a God. You believe this concept is the only true and correct one. Therefore, everyone should share this understanding. This is like someone saying that they worship Physics and insist on making everyone believe that the earth is the center of the universe. Our understanding of Physics as well as of God has evolved. Your understanding has apparently remained locked in the past. If you think that you'd have problems with a Christian theocracy, you'll really hate them, they make us look like liberals. 2. I am not pro-abortion for a few reasons. A: It does nothing to encourage people to stop the numerous meet and f**k flings. Lack of abortion does not stop f**kings, which all the statistics and personal experience shows. But the ability to kill people who are inconvenient does cheapen life War is the most outrageous ability to kill inconvenient people yet it does not get the same criticism as does abortion. I expect you will say that the fetus is innocent so it should be protected while soldiers and people who start wars are not innocent. Nevertheless, innocent people are killed in war. To be consistent, any Christian who objects to abortion should object to war just as strongly. Abortion isn't a real hot button issue, but it is with most of my friends, particularly my Christian sisters, I am well aware of the human suffering caused by war. I believe that there are some humans who are profoundly evil, and that when one of them gets his hands on the levers of state power, the only way to stop his activities, force. There are just and unjust wars. I agree. However, the definition is difficult to apply. Hitler and the German people thought their war was just, Bush and the American people think the present war is just, and hundreds of small wars are ongoing at any one time with each side thinking their fight is just. Of
Re: [Vo]: Fake nuclear test?
Jed Rothwell wrote: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: No. As I suggested, trace amounts of radioactive material migrate out via the instrument leads. See: http://www.slate.com/id/2151214/nav/tap2/ Even if small amounts of radioactive material did come out via the instrument leads, or even through cracks in the ground, I still fail to see how this could be detected in Hokkaido. The prevailing winds would carry radioactive isotopes directly to Hokkaido. Mizuno feels they could not miss them, even with an underground test. Also, I am sure there are spy planes prowling the sky closer to the test site at this moment. I have seen no announcements confirming the isotopes. Despite the New York Times I still suspect it is a hoax. One should not always trust the Times. On my third hand ;) , we only have reports on the news that any of this happened at all. Perhaps the whole thing is a planted story to make the North Koreans look bad? The North Koreans want to look bad. That's the weird part. If it is a hoax, they have fooled the Chinese government, and enraged it. Since they depend on that government for survival, it seems like a stupid thing to do. Of course, this assumes the Chinese are really upset. Having NK being a nuclear power to distract attention from what the Chinese are doing would be a clever ploy. We shall have to wait to see what the Chinese actually do to NK. Ed - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Empathy (was Re: More about the skeptics' mindsets)
Let me throw my two cents into this discussion. Of course some people doing cold fusion have made mistakes and reported bad data. This is not the issue. When this happen in normal science, people go back to the lab and try again. In cold fusion, the error is used to discredit the whole idea. That is the issue! Cold fusion needs to treated just like any other science, mistakes and all. Ed Michel Jullian wrote: I said imagine one CF experimenter, just one for a start, has been wrong and won't admit it, and you keep throwing various things at me to avoid the perspective. Why? Can't you question your beliefs even as a mere hypothesis? I am not saying this is so, just imagine. Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 10:13 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Empathy (was Re: More about the skeptics' mindsets) Michel Jullian wrote: I never asked what was the probability (which you underestimated BTW, in all fields of science there is at least _one_ renowned scientist who has made an error, can't you think of examples?) Not just one! I know HUNDREDS of renowned scientists who have made huge errors for 17 years. They think cold fusion does not exist. People can always have wrong ideas. Throughout history most of our ideas have been wrong, and probably still are. Furthermore, experimental scientists often make mistakes. As Stan Pons says, if we are right half the time we are doing well. However, it is the experiments which are right, not the researchers. As I said, the researchers at Caltech did the experiment correctly, they got the expected result, but they misunderstood their own work and they do not realize it proves cold fusion is real. On average, scientists doing experiments get it right. That is why we can be sure that replicated results are real. If that were not the case, science would not work. Individual automobile drivers do have accidents, but when you randomly select a group of 200 drivers you can be certain they will not all have an accident the same morning. When you take a group of 200 electrochemists and have them do research for 17 years, they will not all get the same wrong answers. What scientists do is a form of animal behavior -- primate behavior. Like any other animal behavior, it works most of the time, or they would stop doing it. Cats are good at catching birds and mice. Even though a cat will often fail to catch a mouse, you can be sure that as a species cats successfully catch mice because otherwise they would go extinct. . . . only what you would do if you were that scientist, or how you could distinguish that their claims are erroneous if you knew such scientists and trusted them because of their high skills. I do not judge claims according to whether I trust the scientists or whether they are skilled and not. I judge the claims to be correct when the experiment is good, and it has been replicated. I interpret it according to the laws of physics. I know how calorimeters work. I know a good calorimeter when I see one, and I am confident that the laws of thermodynamics are intact, so I can be sure that cold fusion produces excess heat beyond the limits of chemistry. I do not trust researchers any more than I trust cats to catch mice. I do not need to have faith in cats. I know a dead mouse when I see it, and I know excess heat. As for the missing skill or knowledge, nobody can know everything, why wouldn't say a highly competent electrochemist totally lack say EE skills? First of all, that is impossible. No one can totally lack such skills and still get a degree in electrochemistry. All experimental scientists learn to use such instruments. Second, I have enough EE skills to recognize that a calorimeter is working -- or not. I recognize schlock research. Third, the the EE skills, instruments and techniques required to do cold fusion are not all that advanced. As I said, most of the instruments were perfected between 100 and 160 years ago. Of course even ancient instruments and tools can be difficult to use. Violins and axes were invented thousands of years ago yet they take skill to use correctly. I cannot play a violin, and although I have operated calorimeters, I have a lot to learn about them. But I can tell when someone else is using a violin or calorimeter correctly. If cold fusion called for advanced knowledge of complex instruments, and if the claims were extremely esoteric and subject to interpretation, or complex mathematical analysis, like the claims of the top quark, then perhaps hundreds of scientists working in one group might all be wrong. But hundreds of scientists could not have made independent mistakes measuring excess heat or tritium. If you're satisfied now that the probability is not zero . . . The probability of 200 professional scientists making elementary mistakes day after day for for
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
In answer to your question, cold fusion is real. In fact it is more real than is the uninformed opinion of Michael Shermer. By this I mean, cold fusion is a phenomenon of nature that has been witnessed now by hundreds of people. Obviously, Michael Shermer has not taken the responsibility to learn about the field even thought he prides himself on being an honest skeptic. As a result, it is hard to believe anything he says about any subject. A book entitled The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction will be published soon by World Scientific Publishers that will summarize the evidence for the reality of cold fusion and give a plausible model for its initiation. Regards, Ed Storms Paul Lowrance wrote: Did anyone listen to Coast to Coast AM (replay) last night where the skeptic Michael Shermer, director of The Skeptics Society, kept using Cold Fusion as a prime example of a debacle hoax. For those working in cold fusion, is cold fusion real? Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
My last successful heat production was about 6 months ago. At the present time, the effect is initiated by chance when the required conditions happen to be in place. We do not yet know how to create the conditions on purpose. However, I can tell you a lot of conditions that don't work, conditions worth avoiding. Also, some conditions are more likely to work than others, but not every time. This problem is not caused by error or by cold fusion not being real. It is caused solely by ignorance. People who have the financial support to run many studies are having increased success, but still not every time. Like all complex phenomenon, parameter space is huge and success only happens after a considerable investment of time and money. This investment has not been applied, thanks to the skeptics. Ed Michel Jullian wrote: Paul probably meant in your experience, could you e.g. relate when you last witnessed the effect personally Ed? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer In answer to your question, cold fusion is real. In fact it is more real than is the uninformed opinion of Michael Shermer. By this I mean, cold fusion is a phenomenon of nature that has been witnessed now by hundreds of people. Obviously, Michael Shermer has not taken the responsibility to learn about the field even thought he prides himself on being an honest skeptic. As a result, it is hard to believe anything he says about any subject. A book entitled The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction will be published soon by World Scientific Publishers that will summarize the evidence for the reality of cold fusion and give a plausible model for its initiation. Regards, Ed Storms Paul Lowrance wrote: Did anyone listen to Coast to Coast AM (replay) last night where the skeptic Michael Shermer, director of The Skeptics Society, kept using Cold Fusion as a prime example of a debacle hoax. For those working in cold fusion, is cold fusion real? Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Michel Jullian wrote: It's a chicken and egg problem, money can only come with demonstrable success, Many eggs have been laid. The chickens are now growing. Success has now been demonstrated over 200 times and people who study the effect every day have a much better success rate than mine. How much success is required? and success once every 6 months is hard to demonstrate obviously. What was the magnitude of your last heat production BTW, in terms of COP? These are the wrong questions to ask. This is like asking about superconductivity 20 years ago and rejecting the answer when the transition temperature is quoted as being only 10°K. What's the good of such a low temperature you would ask. After many millions of dollars and thousands of man hours, superconductivity is a practical technology. No one at the time believed the transition temperature could be increased to near room temperature. Yet people kept working and are now gradually succeeding. Cold fusion is real. When the conditions are understood, the effect will be huge and will work every time. Or you can believe the effect is pure nonsense and never make an effort to improve the results. The people who succeed will be very wealthy and the people who reject the idea will look like fools. Your choice. Regards, Ed Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer My last successful heat production was about 6 months ago. At the present time, the effect is initiated by chance when the required conditions happen to be in place. We do not yet know how to create the conditions on purpose. However, I can tell you a lot of conditions that don't work, conditions worth avoiding. Also, some conditions are more likely to work than others, but not every time. This problem is not caused by error or by cold fusion not being real. It is caused solely by ignorance. People who have the financial support to run many studies are having increased success, but still not every time. Like all complex phenomenon, parameter space is huge and success only happens after a considerable investment of time and money. This investment has not been applied, thanks to the skeptics. Ed Michel Jullian wrote: Paul probably meant in your experience, could you e.g. relate when you last witnessed the effect personally Ed? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer In answer to your question, cold fusion is real. In fact it is more real than is the uninformed opinion of Michael Shermer. By this I mean, cold fusion is a phenomenon of nature that has been witnessed now by hundreds of people. Obviously, Michael Shermer has not taken the responsibility to learn about the field even thought he prides himself on being an honest skeptic. As a result, it is hard to believe anything he says about any subject. A book entitled The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction will be published soon by World Scientific Publishers that will summarize the evidence for the reality of cold fusion and give a plausible model for its initiation. Regards, Ed Storms Paul Lowrance wrote: Did anyone listen to Coast to Coast AM (replay) last night where the skeptic Michael Shermer, director of The Skeptics Society, kept using Cold Fusion as a prime example of a debacle hoax. For those working in cold fusion, is cold fusion real? Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Michel, no one is being evasive. The data have been made public in many publications. I identify over 1000 in my book. People who are truly interested in the subject can read my reviews and get the answers to most of their questions. Many people have done this and a few who are wealthy enough are putting money into the research. The problem of acceptance involves people who will not read the literature or are not able to understand the information. Of course, a few people, such as Shermer do not want the effect to be real because the myth is too useful to their skeptical view of science. In any case, if you want answers to your questions, read my reviews or buy my book. Regards, Ed Michel Jullian wrote: Not pressing you for an answer but I don't follow your reasoning Ed. I would think early superconductivity researchers answered 10°K right away when asked about their transition temperature. If they had been evasive, I doubt further research would have been financed. Or what am I missing? Michel - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 1:37 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer CF is not at the What's the good stage yet I am afraid. What was the COP then? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 12:16 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer ... What was the magnitude of your last heat production BTW, in terms of COP? These are the wrong questions to ask. This is like asking about superconductivity 20 years ago and rejecting the answer when the transition temperature is quoted as being only 10°K. What's the good of such a low temperature you would ask. After many millions of dollars and thousands of man hours, superconductivity is a practical technology. No one at the time believed the transition temperature could be increased to near room temperature. Yet people kept working and are now gradually succeeding. Cold fusion is real. When the conditions are understood, the effect will be huge and will work every time. Or you can believe the effect is pure nonsense and never make an effort to improve the results. The people who succeed will be very wealthy and the people who reject the idea will look like fools. Your choice. Regards, Ed Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer My last successful heat production was about 6 months ago. At the present time, the effect is initiated by chance when the required conditions happen to be in place. We do not yet know how to create the conditions on purpose. However, I can tell you a lot of conditions that don't work, conditions worth avoiding. Also, some conditions are more likely to work than others, but not every time. This problem is not caused by error or by cold fusion not being real. It is caused solely by ignorance. People who have the financial support to run many studies are having increased success, but still not every time. Like all complex phenomenon, parameter space is huge and success only happens after a considerable investment of time and money. This investment has not been applied, thanks to the skeptics. Ed Michel Jullian wrote: Paul probably meant in your experience, could you e.g. relate when you last witnessed the effect personally Ed? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer In answer to your question, cold fusion is real. In fact it is more real than is the uninformed opinion of Michael Shermer. By this I mean, cold fusion is a phenomenon of nature that has been witnessed now by hundreds of people. Obviously, Michael Shermer has not taken the responsibility to learn about the field even thought he prides himself on being an honest skeptic. As a result, it is hard to believe anything he says about any subject. A book entitled The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction will be published soon by World Scientific Publishers that will summarize the evidence for the reality of cold fusion and give a plausible model for its initiation. Regards, Ed Storms Paul Lowrance wrote: Did anyone listen to Coast to Coast AM (replay) last night where the skeptic Michael Shermer, director of The Skeptics Society, kept using Cold Fusion as a prime example of a debacle hoax. For those working in cold fusion, is cold fusion real? Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Excess energy from electrolysis is seldom over unity. Energy in excess of that applied to the cell is the only important measurement during such studies. My latest excess energy is about 2.5 W for a calorimeter with an error of about 25 mW. The cell was not designed to maximize the efficiency. Therefore, the Power out/Power in ratio has no meaning. Ed Michel Jullian wrote: No, no, I was asking specifically about your last overunity COP, which you got personally 6 months ago. I know about your reviews, they are available on lenr.org. Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 4:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer Michel, no one is being evasive. The data have been made public in many publications. I identify over 1000 in my book. People who are truly interested in the subject can read my reviews and get the answers to most of their questions. Many people have done this and a few who are wealthy enough are putting money into the research. The problem of acceptance involves people who will not read the literature or are not able to understand the information. Of course, a few people, such as Shermer do not want the effect to be real because the myth is too useful to their skeptical view of science. In any case, if you want answers to your questions, read my reviews or buy my book. Regards, Ed Michel Jullian wrote: Not pressing you for an answer but I don't follow your reasoning Ed. I would think early superconductivity researchers answered 10°K right away when asked about their transition temperature. If they had been evasive, I doubt further research would have been financed. Or what am I missing? Michel - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 1:37 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer CF is not at the What's the good stage yet I am afraid. What was the COP then? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 12:16 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer ... What was the magnitude of your last heat production BTW, in terms of COP? These are the wrong questions to ask. This is like asking about superconductivity 20 years ago and rejecting the answer when the transition temperature is quoted as being only 10°K. What's the good of such a low temperature you would ask. After many millions of dollars and thousands of man hours, superconductivity is a practical technology. No one at the time believed the transition temperature could be increased to near room temperature. Yet people kept working and are now gradually succeeding. Cold fusion is real. When the conditions are understood, the effect will be huge and will work every time. Or you can believe the effect is pure nonsense and never make an effort to improve the results. The people who succeed will be very wealthy and the people who reject the idea will look like fools. Your choice. Regards, Ed Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer My last successful heat production was about 6 months ago. At the present time, the effect is initiated by chance when the required conditions happen to be in place. We do not yet know how to create the conditions on purpose. However, I can tell you a lot of conditions that don't work, conditions worth avoiding. Also, some conditions are more likely to work than others, but not every time. This problem is not caused by error or by cold fusion not being real. It is caused solely by ignorance. People who have the financial support to run many studies are having increased success, but still not every time. Like all complex phenomenon, parameter space is huge and success only happens after a considerable investment of time and money. This investment has not been applied, thanks to the skeptics. Ed Michel Jullian wrote: Paul probably meant in your experience, could you e.g. relate when you last witnessed the effect personally Ed? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer In answer to your question, cold fusion is real. In fact it is more real than is the uninformed opinion of Michael Shermer. By this I mean, cold fusion is a phenomenon of nature that has been witnessed now by hundreds of people. Obviously, Michael Shermer has not taken the responsibility to learn about the field even thought he prides himself on being an honest skeptic. As a result, it is hard to believe anything he says about any
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
The input in my case was about 0.5 watt with 2.5 watts excess. The ratio looks good in this one case, but it means nothing. The best and most complete heat measurements have been published by McKubre et al. However, similar results have been experienced in at least 157 independent studies. Ed Michel Jullian wrote: Thanks Ed, to get a better picture I would have liked to know at least an order of magnitude of the input (or output) power too, I mean is it closer to 100W or to 1kW? Also, among your published CF experiments on LENR.org, which one in your opinion presents the best evidence of excess heat? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 8:44 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer Excess energy from electrolysis is seldom over unity. Energy in excess of that applied to the cell is the only important measurement during such studies. My latest excess energy is about 2.5 W for a calorimeter with an error of about 25 mW. The cell was not designed to maximize the efficiency. Therefore, the Power out/Power in ratio has no meaning. Ed Michel Jullian wrote: No, no, I was asking specifically about your last overunity COP, which you got personally 6 months ago. I know about your reviews, they are available on lenr.org. Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 4:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer Michel, no one is being evasive. The data have been made public in many publications. I identify over 1000 in my book. People who are truly interested in the subject can read my reviews and get the answers to most of their questions. Many people have done this and a few who are wealthy enough are putting money into the research. The problem of acceptance involves people who will not read the literature or are not able to understand the information. Of course, a few people, such as Shermer do not want the effect to be real because the myth is too useful to their skeptical view of science. In any case, if you want answers to your questions, read my reviews or buy my book. Regards, Ed Michel Jullian wrote: Not pressing you for an answer but I don't follow your reasoning Ed. I would think early superconductivity researchers answered 10°K right away when asked about their transition temperature. If they had been evasive, I doubt further research would have been financed. Or what am I missing? Michel - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 1:37 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer CF is not at the What's the good stage yet I am afraid. What was the COP then? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 12:16 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer ... What was the magnitude of your last heat production BTW, in terms of COP? These are the wrong questions to ask. This is like asking about superconductivity 20 years ago and rejecting the answer when the transition temperature is quoted as being only 10°K. What's the good of such a low temperature you would ask. After many millions of dollars and thousands of man hours, superconductivity is a practical technology. No one at the time believed the transition temperature could be increased to near room temperature. Yet people kept working and are now gradually succeeding. Cold fusion is real. When the conditions are understood, the effect will be huge and will work every time. Or you can believe the effect is pure nonsense and never make an effort to improve the results. The people who succeed will be very wealthy and the people who reject the idea will look like fools. Your choice. Regards, Ed Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer My last successful heat production was about 6 months ago. At the present time, the effect is initiated by chance when the required conditions happen to be in place. We do not yet know how to create the conditions on purpose. However, I can tell you a lot of conditions that don't work, conditions worth avoiding. Also, some conditions are more likely to work than others, but not every time. This problem is not caused by error or by cold fusion not being real. It is caused solely by ignorance. People who have the financial support to run many studies are having increased success, but still not every time. Like all complex phenomenon, parameter space is huge and success only happens after a considerable investment of time and money. This investment has
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 11:45 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer The input in my case was about 0.5 watt with 2.5 watts excess. The ratio looks good in this one case, but it means nothing. 0.5W electrical in, 0.5W+2.5W=3W heat out? So this would be a COP of 6, why do you think it means nothing? It means nothing because no effort was made to control or maximize the COP. The COP is an engineering measurement that is only be relevant to a working device. Once the mechanism is understood and can be modified to maximize efficiency, the COP can be made very large. At the present time, the important parameter is the measurement of excess energy. Even the amount is not important as long as it is greater than the error in the calorimeter. The important issue is measuring and understanding the phenomenon, not making it efficient. The best and most complete heat measurements have been published by McKubre et al. However, similar results have been experienced in at least 157 independent studies. No, I was asking about a published excess heat experiment of yours, sorry if I was unclear. I tried to publish the 2.5 W measurement but this was rejected. As a result, I have stopped wasting my time publishing experimental work. I will probably describe the result at ICCF-13. Writing a book is a better use of my time and it cannot be stopped by skeptics. My last experimental publication was at ICCF-10. Ed Michel Ed Michel Jullian wrote: Thanks Ed, to get a better picture I would have liked to know at least an order of magnitude of the input (or output) power too, I mean is it closer to 100W or to 1kW? Also, among your published CF experiments on LENR.org, which one in your opinion presents the best evidence of excess heat? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 8:44 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer Excess energy from electrolysis is seldom over unity. Energy in excess of that applied to the cell is the only important measurement during such studies. My latest excess energy is about 2.5 W for a calorimeter with an error of about 25 mW. The cell was not designed to maximize the efficiency. Therefore, the Power out/Power in ratio has no meaning. Ed Michel Jullian wrote: No, no, I was asking specifically about your last overunity COP, which you got personally 6 months ago. I know about your reviews, they are available on lenr.org. Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 4:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer Michel, no one is being evasive. The data have been made public in many publications. I identify over 1000 in my book. People who are truly interested in the subject can read my reviews and get the answers to most of their questions. Many people have done this and a few who are wealthy enough are putting money into the research. The problem of acceptance involves people who will not read the literature or are not able to understand the information. Of course, a few people, such as Shermer do not want the effect to be real because the myth is too useful to their skeptical view of science. In any case, if you want answers to your questions, read my reviews or buy my book. Regards, Ed Michel Jullian wrote: Not pressing you for an answer but I don't follow your reasoning Ed. I would think early superconductivity researchers answered 10°K right away when asked about their transition temperature. If they had been evasive, I doubt further research would have been financed. Or what am I missing? Michel - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 1:37 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer CF is not at the What's the good stage yet I am afraid. What was the COP then? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 12:16 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer ... What was the magnitude of your last heat production BTW, in terms of COP? These are the wrong questions to ask. This is like asking about superconductivity 20 years ago and rejecting the answer when the transition temperature is quoted as being only 10°K. What's the good of such a low temperature you would ask. After many millions of dollars and thousands of man hours, superconductivity is a practical technology. No one at the time believed the transition temperature could be increased to near room temperature. Yet people kept working and are now gradually succeeding. Cold
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
As a cold fusion researcher, I can tell you that your opinion is not correct. First of all, cold fusion is only cold because the energy provided by a high temperature, as is necessary for hot fusion too work, is not needed for cold fusion. Second, cold fusion and hot fusion make energy by similar nuclear reactions. Third, we in cold fusion measure power. As I said before, we do not focus on COP because this is not an engineering program, but one trying to understand the phenomenon. Regards, Ed Harry Veeder wrote: Many CF researchers like to compare CF cells to a mini nuclear fission reactor, but instead of fission process providing the excess heat, it is a low temperature fusion process. This is why they tend not to be interested in power measurements and focus on energy measurements instead. Basically, this reflects the theoretical bias that cold fusion does not depend on any LofT violations. Or to put it another way cold fusion is a process which releases stored energy, instead of producing power from nothing. Harry Michel Jullian wrote: Since you know them all and for a reason, a link to a CF paper describing a COP of the order that ED described (6) would be welcome Jed. TIA Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer Edmund Storms wrote: Excess energy from electrolysis is seldom over unity. Energy in excess of that applied to the cell is the only important measurement during such studies. My latest excess energy is about 2.5 W for a calorimeter with an error of about 25 mW. The cell was not designed to maximize the efficiency. Therefore, the Power out/Power in ratio has no meaning. It has no meaning in the sense that it does not predict whether cold fusion can be made practical. It tells us nothing about whether one technique is more promising than another in the long term. However, a high ratio does make the calorimetry easier. That is to say, it is easier to measure 2.5 W with 5 W of electrolysis input than with 35 W input. (The input power is sometimes called the background, as in a 5 W background.) It resembles instrument noise in this respect, except that electrolysis input is a deliberate and inescapable part of the experiment. Gas loading and some other methods have no input background power, so they are easier to confirm with a high s/n ratio. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Michel Jullian wrote: - Jed I think you mean the ratio of chemical energy out (energy stored in electrolysis products H2 and O2, which you can recover as heat by recombining them) to electrical energy in. This ratio is close to but cannot exceed one, and not only won't it make any useful difference to improve it, but since the difference is not lost but recovered as heat, it won't make any difference _at all_ to the overall COP, which will always be: COP = (electrical_in + nuclear)/electrical_in = 1 + nuclear/electrical_in agreed? - Ed The title of your paper: Anomalous Heat Produced by Electrolysis of Palladium using a Heavy-Water Electrolyte comprises a surprising confusion in electrochemical terms. At least I thought it was only in the title until I read the abstract: a sample of palladium foil was electrolyzed as the cathode in D2O+LiOD Can you see your error Ed? I am just making sure you are like Jed and myself the humble type who gladly admit their errors and even go out of their way to do so, as a real scientist should, unlike two other famous CF researchers we know, who would rather die :) I don't see what your problem is. Ed - Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:41 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer Harry Veeder wrote: point to bothering with them. We can improve the COP anytime, but that proves nothing and contributes nothing to our understanding of the phenomenon. It is hypothetical until you try it. It may be that the conditions which they think will increase the COP actual decrease the COP. Okay, hypothetical. But the methods have been common knowledge since around 1840, and I doubt you will find many people who do not believe they work. They work only a little, however. The COP cannot be improved enough to make a practical device, or any useful difference. If you doubt that the textbook methods of improving electrochemical efficiency work, I suggest you do some electrochemistry yourself. Calling these methods hypothetical is like saying that Faraday's laws are hypothetical, and you will not believe that coulumbs = amps * seconds until I prove it to you. Go test it yourself. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer)
Michel, electrolysis is a process. When I said palladium was electrolyzed, I'm saying that palladium was subjected to the process of electrolysis. This is a common usage that I don't think is important enough to debate. Ed Michel Jullian wrote: I am not pressing you for an answer Ed, but I Googled for your book soon to be published you advertised here the other day: The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and found its home page here: http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/6425.html It says Pub. date: Scheduled Fall 2007, hopefully it is not too late to correct it for such errors? Or have you had it proofread by an electrochemist maybe? I imagine you hadn't taken such precaution for the paper you submitted last year to Thermochimica Acta whose terminology of title and abstract we are discussing (haven't read it further yet BTW, waiting until we agree on the definition of electrolysis since that's what the paper is about). A pity since the thermochemists who reviewed that paper probably read no further than the title and abstract before rejecting it, whereas apart from terminology the paper may be quite good on the merits! Michel - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 7:05 AM Subject: [Vo]: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer) Do you still not see it Ed? Michel - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:29 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer I'll let you find the error yourself it's quite obvious. Same error in the two quotes. Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:17 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer ... - Ed The title of your paper: Anomalous Heat Produced by Electrolysis of Palladium using a Heavy-Water Electrolyte comprises a surprising confusion in electrochemical terms. At least I thought it was only in the title until I read the abstract: a sample of palladium foil was electrolyzed as the cathode in D2O+LiOD Can you see your error Ed? I am just making sure you are like Jed and myself the humble type who gladly admit their errors and even go out of their way to do so, as a real scientist should, unlike two other famous CF researchers we know, who would rather die :) I don't see what your problem is. Ed - Michel
Re: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer)
So that no confusion remains in any reader's mind. The word electrolyze applies to a process of passing current through an ionic solution. Various chemical reactions are initiated by this process. The title of the paper says that the process was applied to palladium. In this process, deuterium and lithium are added to the palladium, some of the palladium dissolves in the solution, and occasionally conditions are produced that result in excess energy. I could have said that palladium was used as an electrode in an electrolytic cell and was caused to be modified by the process. While this would have satisfied Michel, it is too long for a title. The present title accurately and briefly describes what was done. I hope this discussion can move on to more important issues. Ed Michel Jullian wrote: It follows that saying palladium was electrolyzed in D2O+LiOD is like saying a blood tester was analyzed in blood, sounds absurd doesn't it? If it's too late to correct your book for such absurdities, could you correct at least the paper so it doesn't disgrace the lenr.org library? Michel - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:13 PM Subject: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer) - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 4:01 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer) Michel, electrolysis is a process. When I said palladium was electrolyzed, I'm saying that palladium was subjected to the process of electrolysis. This is a common usage that I don't think is important enough to debate. Ed, this is not even open to debate. If it was a common usage among professional electrochemists, which it isn't fortunately, then it would be a common mistake. Believe the man who invented the terms rather than the first ignoramus who electrolyzed palladium whoever that was: Many bodies are decomposed directly by the electric current, their elements being set free; these I propose to call electrolytes ([Greek: elektron], and [Greek: lyo], soluo. N. Electrolyte, V. Electrolyze). Water, therefore, is an electrolyte. [...] Then for electro-chemically decomposed, I shall often use the term electrolyzed, derived in the same way, and implying that the body spoken of is separated into its components under the influence of electricity: it is analogous in its sense and sound to analyse, which is derived in a similar manner. Faraday, Michael, Experimental Researches in Electricity. Seventh Series, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (1776-1886), Volume 124, 01 Jan 1834, Page 77, reprinted in: Faraday, Michael, Experimental Researches in Electricity, Volume 1, 1849, freely accessible Gutenberg.org transcript http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14986/14986-h/14986-h.htm Controversy solved? -- Michel
Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack
The issue of importance on Michel's mind is whether the word electrolysis is being used correctly. He and I agree that the word describes initiation of a chemical reaction by passage of current. Thus, H2O can be electrolyzed. In fact, palladium can also be electrolyzed because it is chemically changed by passing current trough it in an electrolytic cell, something Faraday did not know. The palladium reacts to form PdD and it dissolves in the solution. Both reactions are consistent with chemical reactions being initiated by flowing current. Therefore, it is correct to say that palladium is being electrolyzed. The problem with Michel's approach is that he is unwilling to see beyond the conventional and limited understanding of electrolysis while maintaining that only he is correct in how the word is used. Ed Terry Blanton wrote: On 3/18/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the same book he also illustrated what I was saying yesterday BTW, the fact that a good scientist always doubts :)) Yes, but this whole issue has arisen because you French are so bloody anal about language. I have a contract administrator who is French and she is excellent in what she does. She speaks perfect english and will enter into heated arguments about some fine aspect of her second language. Indeed, she is usually correct in her argument; but, in the process, she alienates herself from her coworkers. She comes off as smug and aristrocratic. Sometimes it's better to let us wallow in our ignorant bliss. Terry
Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack
Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 3:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack The issue of importance on Michel's mind is whether the word electrolysis is being used correctly. I must be inhabited by Faraday's ghost ;-) He and I agree that the word describes initiation of a chemical reaction by passage of current. Yes but not any reaction, check the definition, a reaction of decomposition. Decomposition of course is separation of a composed body into the elements it is composed of, e.g. D2O - D2 + 0.5 O2 No decomposition is not the only definition. Electroplating is also considered electrolysis. Thus, H2O can be electrolyzed. In fact, palladium can also be electrolyzed because it is chemically changed by passing current trough it in an electrolytic cell, something Faraday did not know. The palladium reacts to form PdD and it dissolves in the solution. Therefore it is not decomposed. Palladium cannot be decomposed BTW, as you know it is an element, not a composed body. Palladium is converted from a metal to an ion. D2O is converted from an ion to neutral elements. The issue is only the direction of the reaction. Both reactions are consistent with chemical reactions being initiated by flowing current. Therefore, it is correct to say that palladium is being electrolyzed. It would only be correct if it was decomposed into constituting elements, which even if it was (it isn't because it can't as I said) would be of course a minor effect compared to the main decomposition that takes place, that of D2O, which would make your description about as accurate as Dissolution of a mug to describe an experiment where you dissolve sugar in your coffee. The problem with Michel's approach is that he is unwilling to see beyond the conventional and limited understanding of electrolysis while maintaining that only he is correct in how the word is used. Not just me, me and all dictionaries and textbooks which say that electrolysis is electrochemical decomposition. I suggest the dictionaries are not up to date or at least not complete. Does this put an end to the controversy? I hope so. Ed Michel Ed Terry Blanton wrote: On 3/18/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the same book he also illustrated what I was saying yesterday BTW, the fact that a good scientist always doubts :)) Yes, but this whole issue has arisen because you French are so bloody anal about language. I have a contract administrator who is French and she is excellent in what she does. She speaks perfect english and will enter into heated arguments about some fine aspect of her second language. Indeed, she is usually correct in her argument; but, in the process, she alienates herself from her coworkers. She comes off as smug and aristrocratic. Sometimes it's better to let us wallow in our ignorant bliss. Terry
Re: [Vo]: Which is electrolyzed in PF, palladium or heavy water? (was Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack)
Michel Jullian wrote: No decomposition is not the only definition. Electroplating is also considered electrolysis. If by this you mean that electroplating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroplating is not electrical decomposition you are quite mistaken Ed, it is. What decomposes in electroplating is --as in any electrolysis-- the electrolyte, a metal salt solution whose metal component plates out on the cathode, by the dissolved positive metal ion acquiring one or more electrons from the power supply's negative pole to become solid metal. In one technique (but not all) electroplating also involves dissolution of the _anode_ as a way to replenish the ions in the bath. However in PF experiments such as yours palladium is the _cathode_ so this phenomenon doesn't occur, therefore it cannot be invoked to say that palladium is being electrolyzed. Controversy solved? I now see the problem, you have not read or believe what I write. First of all, I did not say that electroplating was not decomposition. I said that electroplating is a another form of electrolysis. As to the issue regarding palladium, palladium does in fact dissolve as the cathode. The process begins by Li plating on and reacting with the Pd to form soluble alloys. These dissolve and the Pd is replated back on the cathode surface. The process is complex, but involves decomposition and electric current flowing through a solution. Rather than insisting on your interpretation being the only correct one, I suggest you expand your viewpoint. I might point out I have been studying electrochemistry for the past 18 years and do understand the subject. Ed Michel Lobbying for a proper use of the terms of electrochemistry --terms on which, which may explain my sensitivity to their misuse, I have become by chance a specialist cf my contributions to the anode and cathode articles on wikipedia-- and more generally for calling a cat a cat (sorry for being such a smug aristocratic French smart ass Terry) - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 3:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack The issue of importance on Michel's mind is whether the word electrolysis is being used correctly. I must be inhabited by Faraday's ghost ;-) He and I agree that the word describes initiation of a chemical reaction by passage of current. Yes but not any reaction, check the definition, a reaction of decomposition. Decomposition of course is separation of a composed body into the elements it is composed of, e.g. D2O - D2 + 0.5 O2 No decomposition is not the only definition. Electroplating is also considered electrolysis. Thus, H2O can be electrolyzed. In fact, palladium can also be electrolyzed because it is chemically changed by passing current trough it in an electrolytic cell, something Faraday did not know. The palladium reacts to form PdD and it dissolves in the solution. Therefore it is not decomposed. Palladium cannot be decomposed BTW, as you know it is an element, not a composed body. Palladium is converted from a metal to an ion. D2O is converted from an ion to neutral elements. The issue is only the direction of the reaction. Both reactions are consistent with chemical reactions being initiated by flowing current. Therefore, it is correct to say that palladium is being electrolyzed. It would only be correct if it was decomposed into constituting elements, which even if it was (it isn't because it can't as I said) would be of course a minor effect compared to the main decomposition that takes place, that of D2O, which would make your description about as accurate as Dissolution of a mug to describe an experiment where you dissolve sugar in your coffee. The problem with Michel's approach is that he is unwilling to see beyond the conventional and limited understanding of electrolysis while maintaining that only he is correct in how the word is used. Not just me, me and all dictionaries and textbooks which say that electrolysis is electrochemical decomposition. I suggest the dictionaries are not up to date or at least not complete. Does this put an end to the controversy? I hope so. Ed Michel Ed Terry Blanton wrote: On 3/18/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the same book he also illustrated what I was saying yesterday BTW, the fact that a good scientist always doubts :)) Yes, but this whole issue has arisen because you French are so bloody anal about language. I have a contract administrator who is French and she is excellent in what she does. She speaks perfect english and will enter into heated arguments about some fine aspect of her second
Re: [Vo]: Which is electrolyzed in PF, palladium or heavy water? (was Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack)
Michel Jullian wrote: So, this complex process you just described, whereby Li plates on and reacts with the Pd to form soluble alloys, these dissolve and the Pd is replated back on the cathode surface --- which indeed involves decomposition and electric current flowing through a solution, just like electrolysis! --- is in fact what your paper talks about principally, and that's why it says electrolysis of palladium, right? Oh dear, how unfortunate, you forgot to mention this process in the paper! I hope Profs. Fleischman and Pons did mention it in their paper, since you write in page 1 that in 1989 they too electrolyzed a platinum anode, a palladium cathode, using a LiOD + D2O electrolyte. Note they seem to have beaten you, they even managed to electrolyze platinum, will you please explain the detailed process too? Apart from that, any electrolysis of heavy water going on, accessorily? ;-) Thanks for the good laugh Ed : You many find this funny. I, on the other hand, find your approach very sad. Your primary interest has been to show that my use of a word is wrong. Apparently, the results described in the paper in which this word is used have no value at all to you. You initially asked some good questions that I accepted as honest interest. When I supplied the information you requested, the only issue was my use of a word. Am I mistaken or has Vortex ceased to be where science is discussed? Ed Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 3:48 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Which is electrolyzed in PF, palladium or heavy water? (was Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack) Michel Jullian wrote: No decomposition is not the only definition. Electroplating is also considered electrolysis. If by this you mean that electroplating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroplating is not electrical decomposition you are quite mistaken Ed, it is. What decomposes in electroplating is --as in any electrolysis-- the electrolyte, a metal salt solution whose metal component plates out on the cathode, by the dissolved positive metal ion acquiring one or more electrons from the power supply's negative pole to become solid metal. In one technique (but not all) electroplating also involves dissolution of the _anode_ as a way to replenish the ions in the bath. However in PF experiments such as yours palladium is the _cathode_ so this phenomenon doesn't occur, therefore it cannot be invoked to say that palladium is being electrolyzed. Controversy solved? I now see the problem, you have not read or believe what I write. First of all, I did not say that electroplating was not decomposition. I said that electroplating is a another form of electrolysis. As to the issue regarding palladium, palladium does in fact dissolve as the cathode. The process begins by Li plating on and reacting with the Pd to form soluble alloys. These dissolve and the Pd is replated back on the cathode surface. The process is complex, but involves decomposition and electric current flowing through a solution. Rather than insisting on your interpretation being the only correct one, I suggest you expand your viewpoint. I might point out I have been studying electrochemistry for the past 18 years and do understand the subject. Ed Michel Lobbying for a proper use of the terms of electrochemistry --terms on which, which may explain my sensitivity to their misuse, I have become by chance a specialist cf my contributions to the anode and cathode articles on wikipedia-- and more generally for calling a cat a cat (sorry for being such a smug aristocratic French smart ass Terry) - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 3:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack The issue of importance on Michel's mind is whether the word electrolysis is being used correctly. I must be inhabited by Faraday's ghost ;-) He and I agree that the word describes initiation of a chemical reaction by passage of current. Yes but not any reaction, check the definition, a reaction of decomposition. Decomposition of course is separation of a composed body into the elements it is composed of, e.g. D2O - D2 + 0.5 O2 No decomposition is not the only definition. Electroplating is also considered electrolysis. Thus, H2O can be electrolyzed. In fact, palladium can also be electrolyzed because it is chemically changed by passing current trough it in an electrolytic cell, something Faraday did not know. The palladium reacts to form PdD and it dissolves in the solution. Therefore it is not decomposed. Palladium cannot be decomposed
Re: [Vo]: Cold fusion back on the menu (ACS) 2007 conference
I suggest Park has simply reiterated his belief that the Jones claims are real but not what Pons and Fleischmann discovered. This has been the attitude of the skeptics from the very beginning. In short, I see no change. I wrote to both Park and Garwin, describing by book and asking if they would like to review a preprint. I have received no reply. If a change in attitude were real, I would expect they would want to know what has been discovered in 18 years. A change in attitude is taking place at other levels and I suggest no credit be given to the traditional skeptics. Ed Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: The Chemistry World magazine article that DonW posted here has a surprising statement: Bob Park, at the University of Maryland . . . concedes that 'there are some curious reports - not cold fusion, but people may be seeing some unexpected low-energy nuclear reactions'. Coming from him, that is an astounding admission. I do not recall ever seeing Park betray even a hint of a positive attitude toward CF. - Jed
[Vo]: The lastest word on cold fusion
For those who are interested in knowing what has been discovered about cold fusion, or better yet the Fleischmann-Pons Effect, I call your attention to the latest book on the subject. This book contains 1070 citations to publications up to 2006 and describes all aspects of the phenomenon. In addition, some of the theory is evaluated and some plausible mechanisms are suggested. Anyone who rejects the reality of the phenomenon after reading this description clearly is not objective. I will be interested to see what Park and the other skeptics have to say after they read this book. Regards, Ed http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?dest=97product_id=5682407sourceid=010030660805302498 http://newenergytimes.com/Books/StormsSLENR/SLENR.htm
Re: [Vo]: Lots of press reports about cold fusion
Interesting that the ACS seems to create more press interest than does the APS where the same papers were given a month earlier. Nevertheless, this exposure is good news and will give other writers the courage to say something positive about CF. Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: Here is an article in Norwegian, apparently pro-CF (judging by an automatic transaction): http://www.forskning.no/Artikler/2007/mars/1174909392.3 Google Alerts brought me five stories plus one about Hair Extensions: Symposium to discuss http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=30396Cold Fusion experiments http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=30396 Resource Investor - Herndon,VA,USA Researchers say they have new evidence supports ‘low energy nuclear reactions,’ also known as cold fusion. Scientists will discuss evidence of cold fusion, ... ' http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070329095612.htmCold Fusion ' Rebirth? Symposium Explores Low Energy Nuclear Reactions http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070329095612.htm Science Daily (press release) - USA Science Daily In 1989, 'cold fusion' was hailed as a scientific breakthrough with the potential to solve the world's energy problems by providing a ... Scientists shed new light on http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/45750.htmlcold fusion http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/45750.htmlEarthtimes.org - USA CHICAGO, March 29 US scientists say the concept of cold fusion, a controversial concept once hailed as a scientific breakthrough, may be ready for rebirth. ... Fusion http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/03/fusion_0329 Experiments Show Nuclear Power's Softer Side http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/03/fusion_0329 Wired News - USA For a few months in 1989, tabletop cold fusion -- even simpler to construct than fusors -- seemed to hold enormous promise, following claims of success from ... Cold fusion http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070326/full/070326-12.html is back at the American Chemical Society http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070326/full/070326-12.html Nature.com (subscription) - London,England,UK After an 18-year hiatus, the American Chemical Society (ACS) seems to be warming to cold fusion. Today that society is holding a symposium at their national ... - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Congress seeks documents in Purdue cold-fusion probe
This makes no sense at all. The sonofusion work has no hope of being practical and the issue of reproducibility is trivial. Why would Congress get involved? If the oil industry were worried about cold fusion, many methods much closer to a practical device than this one are being investigated. Why are they not being targeted. Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: Here is an AP story describing the latest attempt to bully cold fusion researchers. I suspect someone like Robert Park is behind this. - Jed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Congress seeks documents in Purdue cold-fusion probe Associated Press INDIANAPOLIS – Purdue University has become the target of a congressional inquiry nearly two months after a university panel cleared allegations of research misconduct against a scientist who claimed to have produced nuclear fusion in tabletop experiments. A congressional subcommittee has given Purdue until Thursday to turn over copies of its findings into the allegations raised last year against Rusi Taleyarkhan, a professor of nuclear engineering. Purdue announced Feb. 7 that an “internal inquiry” found no evidence supporting those allegations and “that no further investigation of the allegations is warranted.” School officials, citing a Purdue confidentiality policy, have declined to discuss what the inquiry found.
Re: [Vo]: Possible problem with LENR-CANR. Please check.
Since you mention this problem, I would like to remind those who own a PC that all of these problems can be eliminated by getting an iMac that runs both system OS-X and Windows. The Mac can be used on the internet with Netscape, which avoids most of the nasties and the Windows version can be used for everything else, if you insist. Microsoft is not the only game in town anymore. Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: I use mainly the Firefox browser version 2.0.0.3. I recently installed Windows Internet Explorer 7, which is an abomination. I need to use occasionally for websites that do not work otherwise. Just now I tried to download a paper from LENR-CANR.org. It gave me the following message: This website wants to run the following add-on: IE PDFPlus OCX from 'Zeon Corp. (unverified publisher)'. If you trust the website and the add-on and want to allow it to run click here . . . This happens with papers converted recently using the program PDF plus!, and also with papers compiled years ago using the original Acrobat program. If anyone else here is using Internet Explorer 7, or some other version, please try to download a paper and let me know if it gives you this message. I have never heard of PDFPlus OCX from 'Zeon Corp. I hope this is not some sort of virus that has invaded the website, and I hope this warning does not frighten off readers. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The usual garbage from a skeptical professor
Thanks Jed for trying to keep such people honest. You do a masterful job. You might ask the dear Professor a question about honesty since his article was about moral and honest behavior in science. Clearly, to publish fraudulent information supporting a discovery is wrong. Is it also not equally wrong to report fraudulent information dismissing a discovery? Does not a respected scholar have an obligation to learn something about a subject before dismissing it? Would the professor respect a scientist who simply made up information in his publication? Why is the information he has published about cold fusion any different? Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: Here is romanticized view of scientists, which includes a dig at cold fusion: http://www.crisispapers.org/essays7p/sci-morality.htm I wrote the author a letter, which he uploaded here, along with a rebuttal by an anonymous professor who buys his opinions wholesale from Robert Park. I could probably have written the Professor's side of the debate better than he himself managed to do it, since left out a few cliches such as extraordinary claims . . . bla, bla, bla. See: http://www.crisispapers.org/features/ep-blogs.htm Here is my response to the author, Dr. Partridge: Thanks for putting the messages in one place. It looks good. I agree the professor should have the last word, especially when he claims that Julian Schwinger and Heinz Gerischer were isolated and they resembled ESPers, or that Naturwissenschaften and the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics are not principal physics journals and the Japanese Institute of Pure and Applied Physics is a peripheral scientific organization. It is Japan's preeminent physics society, equivalent to the APS or the Royal Society. This is like saying Toyota is a peripheral automobile manufacturer. Such assertions speak for themselves! No rebuttal is needed. The professor illustrates why it is essential to look carefully at primary sources, and at the actual content of a claim, rather than trying to judge based on rumors and second-hand impressions, and by one's fragmentary impressions of, say, a foreign physics society one has only vaguely heard of, or never heard of. The professor dismisses the claim based on an opinion expressed by Robert Park, which in turn was based on what some other unnamed people told Park. This is a third-hand opinion, or perhaps fourth hand. No one in this chain of whispers has cited an experimental fact or figure. No one has demonstrated knowledge of what instruments were used, what was measured, what the signal-to-ratio was, or any other salient, objectively measured fact. It is hard to imagine a less scientific approach! Regarding your statements, I never asserted that there is a conspiracy against cold fusion. That's absurd. I know most of the main opponents, and they are not conspiring together in any sense. See chapter 19 of my book, which you can now read in English, Portuguese or Japanese: http://lenr-canr.org/BookBlurb.htm Also, you made an annoying technical error in your statement, and I wish you would correct it. You wrote: Mr. Rothwell will surely complain that the critics of Cold Fusion have no right to dismiss the theory if they refuse to read the published reports. Cold fusion is not a theory; it is an experimental observation. There is a world of difference. Most cold fusion researchers are experimentalists, and it irks them when people confuse them with theorists. To be more exact, cold fusion is: a set of a widely replicated, high signal-to-noise experimental observations of excess heat without chemical ash, tritium, gamma rays, helium production commensurate with a plasma fusion reaction, transmutations and other nuclear effects that have been published in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals of physics and chemistry. That's a mouthful, but anyway, please call it an experimental observation. You wrote: I feel confident that if and when Cold Fusion can come up with unequivocally and decisively replicable experiments, mainstreams physicists will take notice. In my opinion, they came out with unequivocally and decisively replicable experiments in 1990. But I do not know why you are so confident that mainstream physicists will take notice of such things. I can list hundreds of major technological and scientific breakthroughs that were ignored or denigrated for decades. See, for example, the history of marine chronometers, aviation, semiconductors, hygiene (Semmelweis), pasteurization (which was not enforced in New York City until 1917), the effects of AIDS in women, helicobacter and ulcers, amorphous semiconductors, and the maser and laser. Someone who calls himself a gadfly should know this kind of history. It shows that gadflies are important, and that people often swat at them. Regarding the maser, here are some thought-provoking quotes from the autobiography of Nobel laureate Townes: One day
Re: [Vo]:Bollocks from the BBC
Considerable confusion seems to exist around the concept of reproducibility. A phenomenon must be easily reproduced in order to be studied by science in general. Difficult to reproduce phenomenon are frequently studied by experts in an effort to discover the variables preventing easy reproducibility. Easy reproducibility is not required to believe a phenomenon is real. Acceptance is a psychological event that is characteristic of the individual. Some people require some phenomenon to be shown to work in an applied device before they will accept their existence, while other people will accept what they see happen once. In general, most scientists base their belief on who does the experiment, how well described the results are, and where it is published. The phenomenon does not have to be easily reproduced by anyone who tries to make it work. This criteria is only reserved for cold fusion and similar phenomenon. Ed leaking pen wrote: That an experiment is reproducible is the cornerstone of the scientific method. What, precisely, is your issue with the statement? As has been stated before, that is the difference between scientist and inventor. For an inventor, getting it to work now and again is enough. for a scientist, it must be reproducible under the same conditions. On 5/29/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have never seen such a dense collection of nonsense about cold fusion or science in general: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/a1045883 See, for example: Does a phenomenon have to be totally or partially reproducible to be real? As far as science is concerned, the answer is 'totally'. Reproducible phenomena imply reproducible and well-understood conditions, which then gives the theorists something to get their teeth into. What an incredible thing to say! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Uploaded Karabut paper
I'm surprised, Jones, that the Widom/Larsen theory is even being considered. This theory has some serious faults that have not been addressed by the authors I summarize a few below which are extracted from a recent paper of mine. In brief, a theory needs to not only be consistent with what is observed but also consistent with what is NOT observed. In addition, it must be consistent with the basic laws of nature about which there is no debate. This theory fails on all counts. A mechanism has been suggested recently by Widom and Larsen (37-40) based on a series of especially extraordinary assumptions, as follows: 1. Energy provided by the voltage gradient on an electrolyzing surface can add incrementally to an electron causing its mass to increase. This implies the existence of energy levels within the electron able to hold added energy long enough for the total to be increased to 0.78 MeV mass equivalent by incremental addition. This idea, by itself, is extraordinary and inconsistent with accepted understanding of the electron. 2. Once sufficient energy has accumulated, the massive electron will combine with a proton to create a neutron having very little thermal energy. This implies that the massive electron reacts only with a proton rather than with the more abundant metal atoms making up the sample and does not shed energy by detectable X-ray emission before it can be absorbed. 3. This “cold” neutron will add to the nucleus of palladium and/or nickel to change their isotopic composition. This implies that the combination of half-lives created by beta emission of these created isotopes will quickly result in the observed stable products without this beta emission being detected. 4. The atomic number distribution of transmutation products created by this process matches the one reported by Miley (41) after he electrolyzed Pd+Ni as the cathode and Li2SO4+H2O as the electrolyte. This implies that the calculated periodic function calculated by the authors actually has a relationship to the periodic behavior observed by Miley in spite of the match being rather poor. In addition, residual beta decay has not been detected. 5. Gamma radiation produce by the neutron reaction is absorbed by the super-heavy electrons. This implies that the gamma radiation can add to the mass and/or to the velocity of the super-heavy electron without producing additional radiation. In addition, to be consistent with observation, total absorption of gamma radiation must continue even after the cell is turned off. If this assumption were correct, super-heavy electrons would provide the ideal protection from gamma radiation. These assumptions are not consistent with the general behavior of the LENR phenomenon nor with experience obtained from studies of electron behavior. Indeed, these assumptions, if correct, would have extraordinary importance independent of cold fusion. As for the relationship between particle emission and heat, no conclusion can be drawn until all of the various kinds of probable particles are detected and measured. So far, only the alpha particles and a few X-rays have been detected. Obviously other emissions are present and are providing the additional energy. We can debate all day what these particles might be. I suggest it is much more efficient to actually measure them and then debate their source. Regards, Ed Jones Beene wrote: To cut to the chase: Many who follow this sort of thing might wonder if this older paper is consistent with Widom/Larsen (W/L)? That particular theory is gaining a huge foothold among those 'in the know' in LENR, it seems and at the expense of competing theories (D fusion). [side note] Although W/L have thus far refused to include the implication, their theory is ideally suited (almost to the point of demanding it) to interpretation within the guidelines of 'below ground state' hydrogen (Mills hydrino). Widom/Larsen (with backing from Miley) postulate that many ultra-low momentum neutrons are produced by the weak interaction annihilation of electrons and protons when an electrochemical cell is driven strongly out of equilibrium. The reason that neutrons are never seen (seldom is a better word), going back as far as PF, is that their momentum is so exceedingly low (subthermal) that they are almost always captured before leaving the matrix. Large quantities of these neutrons are produced near the surface of a metal hydride cathode in an electrolytic cell but still do not exit. The low momentum implies extremely large cross-sections for absorption by various seed nuclei present including Pd isotopes and especially boron if there is any present even in ppm amounts. This absorption is relieved by beta decay processes (or fission in the case of boron). As stated in their paper, most of the periodic table of chemical elements may be produced, at least to some extent. Query: is Karabut consistent with W/L ?
Re: [Vo]:Message never showed up . . .
It arrived at my end. Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: I uploaded a message from Russ George three times, but it never showed up. Did anyone here see it? I am not going to repeat it because something might be filtering it, at my end or Eskimo.com. - Jed
[Vo]:availibility of my book
To those who are interested, my book The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction has been released by the World Scientific Publishing Co. and copies are now on a boat to the US from Singapore. If you order now, you should get your copy in a few weeks. Of course you can order through the web, but an order through your local book store will have a greater effect on book sellers being willing to stock the book. The ISBN number is ISBN-13 978-981-270-620-1 or ISBN-10 981-270-620-8. Ed
Re: [Vo]:availibility of my book
I wish it were. However if it were, my book would be ancient history. By the way, if you can't stand the wait, you can order the book directly from the publisher and have it sent airmail for a higher price. Ed Harry Veeder wrote: Is that boat powered by cold fusion? ;-) Harry On 13/7/2007 12:32 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: To those who are interested, my book The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction has been released by the World Scientific Publishing Co. and copies are now on a boat to the US from Singapore. If you order now, you should get your copy in a few weeks. Of course you can order through the web, but an order through your local book store will have a greater effect on book sellers being willing to stock the book. The ISBN number is ISBN-13 978-981-270-620-1 or ISBN-10 981-270-620-8. Ed
Re: [Vo]:Requesting comments to this comment
Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote: At 02:26 PM 7/20/2007 -0400, disingenous Jed Rothwell wrote: Swartz I do not understand, except for his comments about flow calorimetry, which are wrong. Continuum electromechanics and engineering may be foreign to Jed Rothwell, but they are not wrong. Our papers demonstrated that Rothwell was frankly inept in his calorimetry of the Patterson beads, to wit: by him falsely and deliberately claiming a kilowatt, through the use of vertical flow calorimetry while simultaneously refusing to use a thermal control. In fact, as was discussed at the time on spf, the evidence was that there was nothing like a kilowatt of excess heat. Result: The field was hurt by Rothwell's uncalibrated nonsense. Patterson got a half watt of excess heat which was remarkable, and there was no need for Rothwell to purport it was a 'kilowatt'. In the end, people looked for a kilowatt, and walked away when it was not there, thus ending Patterson and Motorola's input. This systematic error was a result of the vertical flow calorimetry, and has to do with Bernard instability, which like other concepts, Rothwell is oblivious to. Rothwell ignored the correction, downplayed the result, impugned the work, and has kept the papers which demonstrate how to do correct flow calorimetry off the LENR site. The second paragraph above is the real reason for the censorship and Jed's putdowns of of a semiquantitive technique which would have led to a more accurate result. For those who are interested in science, rather than Rothwell's uncalibrated nonsense, the papers are: Swartz, M, Improved Calculations Involving Energy Release Using a Buoyancy Transport Correction, Journal of New Energy, 1, 3, 219-221 (1996), and Swartz, M, Potential for Positional Variation in Flow Calorimetric Systems, Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130 (1996), and Swartz. M.., Patterns of Failure in Cold Fusion Experiments, Proceedings of the 33RD Intersociety Engineering Conference on Energy Conversion, IECEC-98-I229, Colorado Springs, CO, August 2-6, (1998) . As to the rest of his crap and continual put downs, I will not respond except to say that when Rothwell was given the papers in pdf form of images (so that he could not misedit them), he and Storms elected (to this day) to censor them. In fact, they would not even list the papers were delivered at ICCF10 orally (including an open demonstation for a week) until more than a year later, after Dr. Mallove was murdered. Swartz has repeatedly accursed me of censoring his work. This is simply not true. In fact, several weeks ago, Mitchell called me and during this conversation I assured him that if he sent me his papers in a useable format, I would see that they were placed on the website. In addition, Jed and I both have made this promise several times in the past. Nevertheless, as yet, I have not received the papers even though various people on Vortex have also suggested Swartz provide the papers. I can only conclude that Swartz gets some satisfaction by accusing Jed and I of censorship and does not wish to end this false accusation. Hopefully, this subject will not waste any more time. Ed We have said before that it their right to keep the misnamed LENR site censored and to pick whatever papers they want, but in the end as regards flow calorimetry and the science involved, it is Jed Rothwell who was, and is, wrong.
Re: [Vo]:Requesting comments to this comment
Since Swartz has once again brought up his obsession about censorship at LENR, this gives me an opportunity to clarify the criteria used to put papers on the LENR website. For the sake of this discussion, the website has two parts: a listing of over 3000 papers having some relevance to cold fusion and a collection of papers that can be read in full text. Papers are added to the listing if they have been published in some form that gives access to the general public. Readers are encouraged to suggest papers that might have been missed without an accusation of censorship. Thirty papers by Swartz are listed in the collection and are available from the author upon request. Full text papers are accepted provided three conditions have been met. 1. The paper is available in suitable electronic or physical form. 2. Permission by the author and/or the copyright holder has been obtained. 3. The paper meets a minimum level of professional competence. These are criteria used by all publications and journals, and are not considered censorship. The main issue in Swartz's complaint appears to involve Item #3. A significant number of papers in the cold fusion field are poorly written or do not advance an understanding of the subject. Occasionally, with the author's permission, Jed has attempted to make a paper more understandable. If an author can not or will not improve a paper and/or it is deemed to be unprofessional, it will not be put on the website in full text, even though it will be listed and would be available from the author upon request. Jed's use of the political argument for this approach is only a part of the issue. Like any source of information, the LENR website tries to maintain a standard of credibility and competence that reflects well on the field. As he argues, what we all publish and how we all describe the subject influence how well the subject itself is accepted. If Swartz believes a good paper has been overlooked, he is free, as are all users of the website, to bring this omission to Jed's attention without accusation. Occasionally, a good paper can not be provided in full text because the author will not give permission. Occasionally, the copyright holder will not give permission. And, occasionally we do not think the paper is suitable. This is not censorship, but instead two people trying to do the best they can to advance the field. Ed Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote: Swartz has repeatedly accursed me of censoring his work. This is simply not true. In fact, several weeks ago, Mitchell called me and during this conversation I assured him that if he sent me his papers in a useable format, I would see that they were placed on the website. In addition, Jed and I both have made this promise several times in the past. Nevertheless, as yet, I have not received the papers even though various people on Vortex have also suggested Swartz provide the papers. I can only conclude that Swartz gets some satisfaction by accusing Jed and I of censorship and does not wish to end this false accusation. Hopefully, this subject will not waste any more time. Dear Edmund, There are many untruths in your above statements (vide infra). Censorship at the misnamed LENR site is longstanding, and no-one gets any satisfaction as the two of you impair the community. Science is based upon truth and full reporting, Ed. 1) For example, even tonight, I observed that the papers of Dr. Ken Shoulders still are censored. What a shame. His work is incredibly important. Proof: Sankaranarayanan Savvatimova Scaramuzzi Schreiber Schwinger Shamoo Shanahan Shrikhande Shyam Spallone Srinivasan Storms Stringham Szpak 2) Rothwell has already admitted censorship. At 10:45 AM 8/23/2004, Jed Rothwell wrote to vortex admitting to censoring, but then purported it was for political reasons, such as not to upset some of his critics (ROTFLOL) so he will not get hit with by a baseball bat (given) to Robert Park. Rothwell: I will not hand a baseball bat to Robert Park and ask him to please hit me over the head with it! It is a shame that CF is so political, but it is, and we must pay attention to politics, image and public relations. 3) This is quite consistent when compared to the definition, after Webster: censor - to subject to censorship; an official who reads communications and deletes forbidden material. 4) Hence, Dr. Mallove, Mr. Webster, and the other were all correct. == from the late beloved Dr. Eugene Mallove= Subject: Storms/Rothwell censorship = Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 Subject: Storms/Rothwell censorship From: Eugene F. Mallove [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mitch, FYI -- this was a message that Rothwell posted to Vortex about a month ago: At LENR-CANR.org we have censored out some of the controversial claims related to CF, such as transmuting macroscopic amounts of gold, or biological
Re: [Vo]:Re: Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment)
Michel, you seem to miss the point to this discussion. The LENR website is whatever Jed wants it to be. We started the site and Jed operates it without pay for the benefit of the field. In addition, he applies the highest standards to this operation. Yet, when Swartz raise the issue of censorship based on his own inability to communicate, this is accepted as a plausible complaint. At any time Swartz could make his papers available either on LENR by meeting our standards or on his own site. This is not a two-sided issue. On the one side are two people who are working hard to advance knowledge about cold fusion and on the other side is someone who complains about an issue he could easily correct, all the while insulting Jed and I by his insinuation. Ed Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 12:47 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment) Michel Jullian wrote: Jed wrote: There are none in dispute. We will accept any or all. You are hereby sentenced to add in the form of his choice, because readers don't give a damn about the format in which they can access a previously unavailable resource . . . That is incorrect. Readers care a lot about format, and even more about presentation quality. I know a lot more about this subject than you do. I have distributed 800,000 previously unavailable papers about cold fusion, so I know what readers want. Messy, low-quality papers at LENR-CANR attract very few readers, whereas good papers are downloaded thousands of times a year. If you upload fax-machine quality low-res scanned images of a paper, with sideways, blacked-out overexposed figures and spelling mistakes, you will be lucky if 5 people a week read it. Convert that same paper to a proper format and if the content is any good, hundreds of people will download it every week. I enumerated the reasons why I think this standard is best. If you see a technical problem on that list of reasons, let's hear it. Otherwise, don't tell me how to do my job. I have been publishing technical information for decades, and I do not take kindly to amateur kvetching. Jed, your standard is indeed best for online publishing, this kvetching amateur doesn't deny this. But please clarify: is LENR.org a publishing house or a library? If it is an online library as advertised, I respectfully submit that its role is not to edit/improve the original work, especially not against the will of its author. As a professional technical information publisher but, as you will certainly agree, an amateur librarian, you could take example on Google Books, or Amazon Look/Search Inside, who provide high quality scanned images of the original works, see e.g. http://books.google.com/books?id=O5f3L2GfXBQChl=en (Relativity: the special and the general theory By Albert Einstein) and try the search function, you'll see it is quite usable. Would you agree to a searchable image pdf format of this kind of quality? Would Mitchell? Of course you realize that apart from its technical merits (quality/fidelity/searchability), this format has the additional advantage of being a neutral ground where you and Mitchell could meet without any of you winning or losing this regrettable dispute. Just my 2 cents Michel
Re: [Vo]:Walmart delay on CF Book
Dear Horace, The book is available from www.worldscientific.com and can be obtain by airmail in a few days. The books being distributed by WalMart are in transit from Singapore were they are printed. Ed Horace Heffner wrote: Walmart last notified me the shipping date was July 28, 2007 for *Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: A Comprehensive Compilation of Evidence and Explanations about Cold Fusion*. I just checked their email so that's for sure. When I enquired about why it didn't ship they told be it would ship August 28, 2007 because The release date for this item is August 28, 2007. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook?
Hi Horace, The reason the conduction of water is said to be caused by ions is because pure water is essentially an insulator. In fact, the purity of water is normally measured by measuring its conductivity. As for the speed of ions, an individual ion moves only a very short distance. This is like electron conduction in a metal. When the field is changed, the whole electron collection or, in this case, ion collection moves as a unit all at the same time instantaneously, i.e. with a speed of light reaction time. A third electrode in an electrolytic can be thought of as two cells in series, with one side of the third electrode being the cathode to one cell and the other side being the anode to the other cell. As a result, nothing special is created. Ed Horace Heffner wrote: On Aug 26, 2007, at 9:06 AM, Stiffler Scientific wrote: A conversion (in some) way takes place by interaction of this control electrode and the ions which allow electrons to flow in the control electrode without gas production. There appears to be what? (an increase of electrons) or some incomplete guess at my tunneling idea. I don't know the nature of your experiments, but it is important to consider that almost no conduction takes place via electrons in water electrolytes - most all the current is via ions, and mostly through proton conduction. An amazing thing is that most conduction in electrolytic cells is, according to Bockris, a venerable electrochemist, due to ordinary ion diffusion. The reason he says this is the potential drops are almost entirely right up next to the electrodes. One interesting thing about inserting a third electrode in there is you are essentially dropping the voltage drops for the primary electrode interfaces, because the third electrode has to support its own interface potential drops as well in order to conduct. Until the third (middle) electrode conducts it is merely increasing the cell DC resistance, though it does conduct capacitively - and the higher the frequency the more so. I have to say, despite my admiration for Bockris, I'm not sure I buy the conduction by diffusion argument, though. I experimented with a 10 m long electrolytic cell and got within an order of magnitude light speed DC conduction rise times (which I consider to be way different from AC conduction, which can be by EM surface wave.) I should redo that very confused and amateurish work now I have better equipment and a better handle on basic physics. Here is a summary of my 1996 experiments: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Ecell10m.pdf I think there has not been nearly enough basic physics done in this arena. Here is a neat group working on Soft Condensed Matter at least: http://softsolids.physics.uq.edu.au/our_research.html It may be of interest that actual proton conduction in water is considered by Bockris to be 100 percent by tunneling followed by H3O+ ion rotation. It may be of possible use to compare ice conductivity to water conductivity to distinguish tunneling conduction from ion diffusion. Richard I have a 'stupid' formulation that has proved extremely accurate in the calculation of the added energy obtained from the cell. Yet if I publish it here I will never hear the end of it due to its apparent non-sense nature. But what the heck, maybe at the 'Dime Box' after a few pickled eggs and a few brew, something funny might help 'clear the air'. Eg = (Vs * Is) - (( Is * Na * ec ) / f) Eg - energy gain Vs - source or supply voltage Is - supply current (amps) Na -Avogadro's number ec - Electron charge f - pulse freq. 50% duty cycle There is something wrong with the above equation. The (Vs * Is) part is in watts. The (( Is * Na * ec ) / f) part is in coulombs^2/mole. When you subtract them you don't get either energy or power. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook?
Hi Richard, The diagram you give is similar to how a vacuum tube would be configured. Unfortunately, no relationship exists between the behavior of an electrolytic cell and a vacuum triode. For example, unlike the grid in a triode, the grid in the electrolytic cell does not act as a high impedance controlling element. Instead, it acts alternately as a cathode and anode with respect to the other electrodes, depending on the direction of current flow. Because of C1, the current flow is limited by the charge that can accumulate before the voltage across C1 is equal to applied voltage. As a result, you have created two electrolytic cells in series that have a fixed charge that can flow. Depending on what kind of ions that are in the cell, some of this charge will decompose water and some will initiate other chemical reactions, most of which are reversible when current changes direction. It seems to me, the major problem involves measuring just how much energy is being delivered to the entire cell because the current and voltage will be out of phase and divided between several inputs. How have you solved this problem? Ed Stiffler Scientific wrote: If either of you wish, I think it would clear up the idea of the 'third electrode'. It is indeed not as its being thought of here. The circuit is www.stifflerscientific.com/images/cre_sc.jpg Horace I sent an amended post saying I was not clear on the Eg result and it applies to current and not energy. -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 2:01 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [VO]: Hydrogen outlook? Hi Horace, The reason the conduction of water is said to be caused by ions is because pure water is essentially an insulator. In fact, the purity of water is normally measured by measuring its conductivity. As for the speed of ions, an individual ion moves only a very short distance. This is like electron conduction in a metal. When the field is changed, the whole electron collection or, in this case, ion collection moves as a unit all at the same time instantaneously, i.e. with a speed of light reaction time. A third electrode in an electrolytic can be thought of as two cells in series, with one side of the third electrode being the cathode to one cell and the other side being the anode to the other cell. As a result, nothing special is created. Ed Horace Heffner wrote: On Aug 26, 2007, at 9:06 AM, Stiffler Scientific wrote: A conversion (in some) way takes place by interaction of this control electrode and the ions which allow electrons to flow in the control electrode without gas production. There appears to be what? (an increase of electrons) or some incomplete guess at my tunneling idea. I don't know the nature of your experiments, but it is important to consider that almost no conduction takes place via electrons in water electrolytes - most all the current is via ions, and mostly through proton conduction. An amazing thing is that most conduction in electrolytic cells is, according to Bockris, a venerable electrochemist, due to ordinary ion diffusion. The reason he says this is the potential drops are almost entirely right up next to the electrodes. One interesting thing about inserting a third electrode in there is you are essentially dropping the voltage drops for the primary electrode interfaces, because the third electrode has to support its own interface potential drops as well in order to conduct. Until the third (middle) electrode conducts it is merely increasing the cell DC resistance, though it does conduct capacitively - and the higher the frequency the more so. I have to say, despite my admiration for Bockris, I'm not sure I buy the conduction by diffusion argument, though. I experimented with a 10 m long electrolytic cell and got within an order of magnitude light speed DC conduction rise times (which I consider to be way different from AC conduction, which can be by EM surface wave.) I should redo that very confused and amateurish work now I have better equipment and a better handle on basic physics. Here is a summary of my 1996 experiments: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Ecell10m.pdf I think there has not been nearly enough basic physics done in this arena. Here is a neat group working on Soft Condensed Matter at least: http://softsolids.physics.uq.edu.au/our_research.html It may be of interest that actual proton conduction in water is considered by Bockris to be 100 percent by tunneling followed by H3O+ ion rotation. It may be of possible use to compare ice conductivity to water conductivity to distinguish tunneling conduction from ion diffusion. Richard I have a 'stupid' formulation that has proved extremely accurate in the calculation of the added energy obtained from the cell. Yet if I publish it here I will never hear the end of it due to its apparent non-sense nature. But what the heck, maybe
Re: [Vo]:Yet another ignorant attack on cold fusion
Jed, I was tempted to wade in to this fight, but I think you not only made the necessary points but showed that this person is not worth the trouble. She is a good writer, but her style is very common these days because it gets uneducated people's attention. She and Robert Park have a lot in common. For this reason, the fight can not be won by direct assault. As she says, it is her blog and she will say what she wants. We have LENR.org, which has much more influence on the thinking of responsible people than her little effort. Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: Esa Ruoho wrote: i think what hes expecting is.. a fight. and yep, you got one, jed have fun with it! It would be a lot more fun if the Blogger would play by the rules of academic discourse, and stop deleting my messages whenever I make a decisive point. I really should stop adding messages, because she will only delete my work. It is good practice I suppose, but I guess I have enough practice by now. Chris Tinsley as I used to moan about how shallow people's education is these days. They learn facts, facts, facts but nothing about the fundamentals of logic, clear thinking, how to conduct a fair debate. This blogger supposedly writes books about science yet she is constantly coming up with strawman arguments, ad hominem, and other logical errors, and apparently she never learned that you are supposed to read original sources rather than second and third-hand newspaper reports. Even if the authors of the original sources are mistaken, you will learn what they actually said, rather than what some reporter heard from some other reporter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Something to think about
For those of you who have been following this story and who are not overloaded with things to worry about, here is some interesting information. Ed Is USAF Stand Down To Find A Missing Nuke? Someone, operating under a special chain of command within the United States Air Force, just stole a nuclear weapon. By Chuck Simpson AboveTopSecret.com 9-12-7 Some History Barksdale Missile Number Six deserves far more public attention than it's received to date. Missile Number Six is potentially the major story of at least this year. Until 1968 under the Airborne Alert Program, informally called Operation Chrome Dome, the Air Force routinely kept about a dozen strategic bombers with nuclear weapons flying at all times. One predictable result was crashes and incidents. In 1968 the Department of Defense published a list of 13 serious nuclear weapons accidents that occurred between 1950 and 1968. In 1980 the list was revised to include 32 incidents through that year. Notably, the Pentagon has not acknowledged any accidents since 1980. This alone highlights the importance the Pentagon is placing on the recent transportation of nuclear weapons from North Dakota to Louisiana. Through 1968, several reported incidents involved plane crashes or malfunctions, beginning with the crash of a B-29 near Fairfield, California in August 1950. The resulting blast was felt 30 miles away. In July 1950 a B-50 crashed near Lebanon, Ohio. The high-explosive trigger for the nuclear weapon detonated on impact. The blast was felt over 25 miles away. In May 1957 a nuclear weapon fell from the bomb bay of a B-36 near Albuquerque, New Mexico. Parachutes malfunctioned and the weapon was destroyed on impact. In October 1957 near Homestead, Florida a B-47 crashed. The nuclear weapon was burned. In March 1958 a B-47 accidentally dropped a nuclear weapon near Florence, South Carolina. The high-explosive trigger detonated on impact. In November 1958 a B-47 crashed near Abilene, Texas. The trigger of the nuclear weapon exploded upon impact. In July 1959 a C-124 crashed near Bossier City, Louisiana. Both plane and nuclear weapon were destroyed. In October 1959 a B-52 with two nuclear weapons was involved in a mid-air collision near Hardinsburg, Kentucky. One weapon partially burned. In January 1961 a B-52 broke apart in mid-air near Goldsboro, North Carolina. Two nuclear weapons were released. The parachute on one weapon malfunctioned, and contamination was spread over a wide area. The uranium core was never recovered. Daniel Ellsberg reported that detonation was a very real risk because five of six safety devices failed. In that month near Monticello, Idaho a B-52 carrying nuclear weapons exploded in mid-air. No information was made available as to the weapons. In March 1961 a B-52 with two nuclear weapons crashed near Yuba City, California. In January 1964 a B-52 carrying two nuclear weapons crashed near Cumberland, Maryland. In January 1966 a B-52 carrying four hydrogen bombs crashed after a mid-air collision near Palomares, Spain. Two weapons exploded on impact, with resulting plutonium contamination. A months-long program was undertaken to locate and extract the other two weapons from the ocean. Major policy changes were taken under consideration. In January 1968 a B-52 carrying four hydrogen weapons crashed and burned near Thule AFB in Greenland. Explosives in one bomb detonated, spreading plutonium contamination. Apparently, the other three weapons have never been accounted for. Following large public protests Denmark, which owns Greenland and prohibits nuclear weapons on or over its territory, filed a strong protest. A few days later the Secretary of Defense ordered the removal of nuclear weapons from planes. After that order was issued, all aircraft armed with nuclear weapons were grounded but kept in a constant state of alert. In 1991 by Presidential order, nuclear weapons were removed from all aircraft. Bomber nuclear ground alerts, during which nuclear weapons are loaded onto bombers during test and training exercises, were halted. After that time, all nuclear weapons to be delivered by plane were permanently maintained in secure storage facilities. August 30, 2007 All of which makes the transport of nuclear weapons in combat position on a combat plane so newsworthy. On August 30, for the first time since 1968, nuclear warheads in combat position were carried by an American bomber. Numerous international treaty provisions were violated in the process. That Thursday, a B-52H Stratofortress flew from Minot AFB in North Dakota to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana while carrying twelve cruise missiles. Either five or six of those missiles were armed with nuclear warheads. Cruise Missiles The missiles on the B-52 were AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missile units, specifically designed to be launched from wing pods of B-52H planes. A total of 460 units were manufactured by Raytheon. A
Re: [Vo]: Something to think about
Yes Jones, to your credit you first pieced together this information and alerted us on Vortex. However, the essay I sent put together a great deal more background information that gives the impression, at least to me, that the writer knows what he is talking about and has information unavailable to most people, including the popular press. You reaction is to reject his claims because his website has no credibility and the popular press has not made a big deal of the claims. As we all know from personal experience, the popular press often overlooks important issues and claims, especially if the information is a threat to certain groups. Nevertheless, in spite of your reaction, this issue is so important that it needs to be resolved. If true, it means the government not only can't be trusted to tell the truth, is incompetent at basic levels, which are no surprise, but that it might be involved in terrorist acts in the US. I don't think it is wise to ignore this information even if it has credibility problems. Ed Jones Beene wrote: For the benefit of Michel and others who get an occasional chuckle over the you heard it first on vortex shtick - which is the lure sometimes used to entice readers to a particularly far-out message ... well, in this case, perhaps you really did hear it first on Vo. All of the connections in the information which Ed Storms mentions in the AboveTopSecret posting - was first pieced together here last week from assorted reports which had not been connected before, and is older news. Hey, if I were a Copyright-Troll (to extend another thread) then maybe I would vehemently protest, but in this case, the website in question has even less-credibility (if that is possible!) than yours truly ;-) Hey, maybe that is inexplicable reason why someone in Congress (a rabble rouser like Pelosi) has not yet dug deeper into this incident. IOW a staffer told Nancy that this information comes from a forum which touts pathological science so stay away!?! But seriously, folks - how could the actual number of warheads be overlooked in the press, till now? Early news reports (CNN) spoke of five nuclear warheads. That number was later updated to six weapons missing from Minot, apparently based on anonymous tips provided to Military Times by people at Minot. Conclusion: Six nuclear weapons left from Minot AFB in North Dakota but after a night *unguarded* on the tarmac in La, only five nuclear weapons were discovered there at Barksdale. Even Cajuns, who pride themselves on giving a laniappe ... probably do not have a name for this kind of math error. Methinks the Administration's (mysterious) hatred for New Orleans has not been appeased thus far. A nuke would finish the job, so that the entire area is not worth rebuilding. For whatever strange reason. Maybe Dick caught the pox there (like his mentor) in a misbegotten youth, or whatever, since this goes beyond logical. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_medical_health Not to mention, a perfect excuse to wage nuclear war against Iran. Jones
[Vo]:Re: Radiation Produced By Glow Discharge In Deuterium
Keith Nagel wrote: Hey Ed, You write: It is impossible to make a null run once deuterium has been introduced into the system. Unless heroic efforts are made, some deuterium remains as a background, as detected by the RGA. I rather suspect it would be. OTOH, many of the past LENR papers have suggested that even small amounts of H2 contamination ruins the effect. Of course, those experiments were done in the aqueous state. For the moment I'll neglect the prior work and just consider this experiment on it's own merits. The effect is stopped by H in a F-P cell only because the H concentrates in the Pd and, as a inert material, dilutes the active D. This does not happen here because the cathode is not palladium. Also, I think the heat in a F-P cell is caused by He formation, which implies that the effect is a steep function of D concentration. We are not producing helium. In fact, when we ran pure H2O + H2, the data fit the data using D2O + D2 if the amount of D in the gas was measured using the RGA. We could also run pure oxygen and get the same agreement, but at a much different D/O ratio. A null condition results when the voltage is reduced below the critical value. Hmmm... That suggests to me that the effect has nothing at all to do with the D or H. Then why is the effect sensitive to the D/O ratio? We show that the O isotope has no effect, which shows that the oxygen nucleus is not involved. What else would you propose plays a role? I realize the immense labor and cost of building another unit, but Jed seems to have indicated on Vo. that you have done just that. Why didn't you do a null with H2 first on that unit, then switched to D2? This seems to me a critical issue, and I'm sure it will come up from others. A blank is only useful if no other evidence is available to show that the effect is not caused by a feature of the apparatus. I defy someone to suggest a plausible way a feature of the apparatus could produce the complex behavior we have seen. In any case, we or someone will eventually run with pure H2. Meanwhile we are using our time to find out what is making the radiation. Here's another (lesser) concern. GM tubes are notorious for being squirrelly around high voltage discharge devices. While I accept the fact that your shielding experiments are good evidence that RF is not interfering with the GM tube, have you confirmed the GM tube results with film? Using film is a real problem. The film has to be protected from light produced by the discharge. It is hard to find a light barrier that will pass the radiation and still allow it to retain enough energy to expose the film. We wanted to use film with a pinhole camera to see where the radiation was produced, but this problem has shot down this idea. That would seem like a very easy experiment; although you may feel it is guilding the lilly it might be worth the small trouble to quell possible skepticism on that account, given the magnitude and importance of the results. I think skepticism can be quelled by having a lot of internally consistent data that shows the nature of the radiation. We have a limited about of money and time. We don't want to waste it answering questions proposed by skeptics. We believe the effect is real and we want to understand how and why it occurs. Such information will answer skeptics better than any other. The rate of this reaction is huge, much greater than neutron stripping would produce. In addition, although the total voltage is near 600 V, the ions are subjected to a much lower effective voltage because the voltage drop in the discharge is very uneven. We are still working to understand where this radiation comes from and its exact energy. Yes; it was just a gut reaction based on the form of the experiment and the discharge regime you're working in. I think your observation about the H2 mentioned above pretty well shows that stripping is not of interest here. Also, we detect no neutrons. The amazing discovery is the role of oxygen as a helper atom. Ironically, people in the past worked to remove oxygen from their system. Yet it would be unavoidable in the aqueous state. That is rather ironic. Not exactly. The F-P cathode contains no oxygen initially because of the high deuterium activity. Only after it has reacted with lithium and formed an alloy is oxygen able to be dissolve in the cathode. I think this is the reason for the frequent long delay in getting results from F-P. One more observation. You mention the supply is running constant current, yes? Why the need for the 300 ohm resistor in series? Does the supply have a lot of capacity that wants to discharge and break into an arc? The discharge is unstable without the resistor. The current apparently wants to fluctuate and the power supply tries to prevent this. If you are interested, I have some material from an HV supply manufacturer whose supply is designed
Re: [Vo]:Important new Storms paper uploaded
Jones Beene wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: This is landmark research. Modified branching ratios as well as Coulomb barrier defeating at intermediate energies are both clearly demonstrated in what appears to be a highly repeatable protocol. The monoenergetic 0.8±0.1 MeV electrons are a surprise and should give theorists quite a stir. If this can't break down the barriers to research nothing will short of a new product in the aisles of your local super store. Bravo! Storms, E. and B. Scanlan. Radiation Produced By Glow Discharge In Deuterium. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEradiationp.pdf Yes, Bravo! indeed. However, let me add one item for consideration, which is bound to be a small irritant for those who do not give the redundant-ground-state theory of R Mills much credence. That is the presence of oxygen, which in these conditions would be a superb catalyst for hydrino formation. Dr. Storms says: When oxygen containing gas, such as O2, D2O, or H2O is added to the D2, a different kind of emission is produced. This radiation is completely stopped by an absorber having 1.74 mg/cm2 added to the absorption produced by the GM counter window of 2.0 mg/cm2 for a total of ~3.74. The radiation could be protons with an energy of at least 0.7 MeV but less than about 1.2 MeV or alphas with an energy of at least 2.9 MeV but less than 4.7 MeV. The low value of this range is required for the particle to pass through the window of the GM tube and a particle having the upper value is stopped by the sum of the window and absorber. END of quote. Therefore, in an effort to cover all the bases, we might add that the radiation could be in the form of hydrinos or hydino-hydrides with an energy intermediate to the proton or alpha. That alternative is falsifiable -- by biasing the window somehow with a negative charge, which would repel hydrinos or hydino-hydrides but attract alphas or protons. This idea has occurred to us as well. However, I see three problems. First of all, I can not imagine how the hydrino can accumulate this much energy unless it results from a nuclear reaction. How is such energy communicated to a nuclei while allowing it to retain the Mills electron? Second, would a hydrino of lower energy be detected by a GM counter even if it is able to pass through the counter window? Finally, if the energy we measure is close to that of a proposed hydrino, the voltage required to stop it is unsustainable in the gas of the apparatus. Ed Jones
Re: [Vo]:Important new Storms paper uploaded
Horace Heffner wrote: On Nov 9, 2007, at 6:28 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: See: Storms, E. and B. Scanlan. Radiation Produced By Glow Discharge In Deuterium. in 8th International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen / Deuterium Loaded Metals. 2007. Sicily, Italy. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEradiationp.pdf Apparently, a variety of nuclear reactions can be initiated on or in a solid provided the right conditions, i.e. NAE, are present. The question is, what is the universal condition that is required and what is the underlying mechanism? So far, none of the proposed theories being applied to CF have answered this question. Each theory can only be applied to a small subset of conditions being shown to produce the reactions. I would hope that clever people who are trying to explain CF would stop wasting their time and start looking at all aspects of the real world. I throw out this challenge in the hope that someone will make the effort. Thanks, Horace, for describing this very interesting work. Kamada was obviously not initiating the reaction we are seeing, but the mechanism is probably the same. The question is, which of the many conditions that are being applied is actually important and is essential to making the nuclear reactions occur? Ed Some speculation follows. This experiment is vaguely reminiscent of the early Kamada et al experiments, which showed a dependency on flux, i.e. current density, and which were also highly reproducible. It is unfortunate the implantation and electron beam energies Kamada used were not substantially reduced so as to see the effect of shallow implantation. It is of interest the clear but not noted involvement of oxygen in the Kamada experiments due to the fact an oxide layer exists on the surface of aluminum. Kamada gives a key electron flux as 1x10^19 electrons/(cm^2*s) for generating excess heat, which I calculate to be a bout 1.6 A/cm^2. Interestingly, he obtained similar results with H vs D for nuclear events, but excess heat only for D. His control for the nuclear events experiment was therefore electron bombardment of a non-loaded aluminum target. The control for the excess heat experiment was H loading vs D loading. The interesting thing about the Kamada experiments is the separation of the effects of loading vs electron flux. Though the energy levels differ considerably, it is difficult to not speculate that the Kamada energy levels were not critical, that the critical electron kinetic energy might be well below 1000V, and that the excess electron energy simply, by electron-electron collision, resulted in a lower energy and higher flux at depth, and would be unnecessary for a shallow depth target. This then leads to the prospect of use of high current reverse polarity (cathode momentarily becomes anode) pulses to generate excess heat in the continually and superficially loaded oxygen containing cathode. Such an approach might avoid the need for special surface deformations which change the local flux. Kamada observed metal melting in selected spots in about 10 seconds of electron flux. Use of fast high current density pulses of 10 A/cm^2 or more, an order of magnitude larger at the surface, interlaced with H/D loading at opposite polarity, might make such excess heat processes more uniform and less destructive on average. A summary of the referenced Kamada experiments follows. The 1992 (Kamada) results showed 1.3 MeV or greater 4He (about 80 percent) and 0.4 MeV or greater P (about 20 percent) tracks using Al loaded with *either* H or D. The electron beam energy used was 200 and 400 keV. H3+ or D3+ ions were implanted with an energy of 90 keV into Al films. The implantation was done at a fluence of 10^17 (H+ or D+)/cm^2 using a Cockcroft Walton type accelerator. The Al foil used would pass 200 keV electrons. It was bombarded in a HITACHI HU-500 with a beam current of 300 to 400 nA with a beam size of roughly 4x10^-5 cm^2, or (4-6)x10^16 e/cm^2/s flux electron beam. The area the beam passedthrough was roughly 2x10^-3 cm^2. Total bombarding time was 40 m. The Al target was a 5 mm dia. disk 1 mm thick, but chemically thinned. The particle detectors were 10 mm x 15 mm x 1 mm CR-39 polymer plastic detectors supplied by Tokuyama Soda Co. Ltd. Great care was taken to avoid radon gas exposure. Detectors were set horizontally on either side of the beam 20 mm above the target and two were set vertically one above the other 20 mm to the side of the target but starting at the elevation of the target and going upward (beam source upward from target). The detectors were etched with 6N KOH at 70 deg. C for 2 h. at a rate of 2.7 um/h. Energies and species were determined by comparison of traces by optical microscope with traces of known origin. Traces on the backsides of the detectors were found to be at background level. Background was determined by runing the experiment with
Re: [Vo]:NEW IPCC report was: Economic models
Jones Beene wrote: --- Nick Palmer wrote: Whether you turn coal into syngas or methanol or whatever, you are still desequestrating fossil carbon. That is OK so long as it is net carbon neutral. If you turn biomass into syngas then that solution is carbon neutral. If you turn syngas from coal into electricity for grid power, and then channel the exhaust into algae ponds for biofuel, then that solution is carbon neutral Actually, using CO2 from burning coal to make biofuel is not carbon neutral unless the resulting biomass is never burned. Ed Yes, of course, we all would prefer an alternative to carbon for transportation fuel, but you are missing the point as to *practical* solutions which can be implemented now. It is far better to be carbon neutral and free of OPEC oil than any other possible *practical* alternative. If you think this is a good idea then you don't understand the situation. I would counter that if you think it is a bad idea, then you not only do not understand the situation, but are playing into the hands of the Big-oil-OPEC hegemony who would love to see impractical idealistic solutions go nowhere. Jones
Re: [Vo]:NEW IPCC report was: Economic models
Jones Beene wrote: --- Edmund Storms wrote: Actually, using CO2 from burning coal to make biofuel is not carbon neutral unless the resulting biomass is never burned. Well it does substitute for OPEC oil, if that is the bottom line - but if you want to get extremely precise, then you must admit that if biofuel, made from CO2-fed algae in round one, is then burned in the second round in the same kind of situation where the exhaust is also recycled to make more biofuel, ad infinitum, then long-term neutrality could attach. Yes, but you proposed burning coal to provide the CO2. If the CO2 is simply taken out of the air with no additional coal burned, then you have the situation you correctly noted as your first scenario. One could envision a smalled capacity grid-plant situated on a flooded desert, out there in the wilds of New Mexico, where the CO2 is looped over-and-over with algae, for carbon neutrality, or close to it, over time Yes, this would work. - but - returning to the issue of practical solutions, even if we get only one generation of neutrality - then that is superior to the present state of affairs, no? I look upon the process initially as a learning experience. The first effort will be too inefficient to remove CO2 from the air. Consequently, the higher concentration of CO2 from burning coal would be used. Initially, the process would not be carbon neutral. Hopefully, the process would get sufficiently efficient to take the CO2 directly from the air. However, I doubt this will be more efficient than burning coal to make electricity and growing biofuel from the CO2 to make fuel for cars. This, I agree, would reduce CO2 because less oil would be burned. Instead, we would burn coal, but with the added energy provided by the sun. In the real world, I doubt growing algae can compete with sugar as a source of fuel. Meanwhile, the politicians will push corn in order to gain the votes, until people realize they are being screwed by higher food costs. By then LENR will be operating. We need to eliminate carbon as a longer term goal ABSOLUTELY true, no argument there, but we also need practical stopgap measure that can buy time (perhaps time for your LENR breakthrough ;-) ... So far, nature is cooperating. You never can tell when she will stop. Ed ...and at the same time eliminate the sword of OPEC hanging over our collective necks. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Re: Quasi-Stable Negative Muons or Heavy Positronium-Electronium?
The cold fusion process does not produce gamma for several reasons. Immediate release of gamma does not occur because such a reaction is not effective in conserving the momentum of the reaction. Instead, if a reaction is to occur at all, two charged particle must be emitted. Of course, some of the energy and momentum can go directly into the lattice, but the amount can not be very large as shown by studies of this process independent of CF. Gamma radiation is not emitted as a delayed release of energy because none is stored in the products. The reaction at low energy apparently goes to the lowest energy state immediately. In other words, the conditions in which such reactions occur make a big difference to how energy is released. Anyway this is my humble explanation. Ed thomas malloy wrote: Frederick Sparber wrote: Isn't it strange that Ed Storms' paper reports no gammas either, yet the radiation implies particle energies in the MeV range? Note the effect of oxygen and hydrocarbons in the Storms experiment where one would expect the quasi-stable entity to be found. (Argon in the O2 ?) A deuteron or proton impacting a heavier (higher Z) atom Strange indeed, I've always speculated that the energy, which is normally expressed as a gamma, goes else where. Perhaps the good doctor will talk to us about this. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:Taubes attacks cold fusion; dog bites man
Taubes can't seem to get anything right. He did a bad job on CF and now he can't even understand the issues about health. When are people going to ignore this idiot? Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: The latest from Taubes: http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/70314/ Note my response at the bottom of the page. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: OT: Poetic N Justice
As usual, the debate about which race is smarter misses the important issue. The so called smarts of humans is made of different features. Some people are smart at music, others are good at math, some are poor spellers but can write well. In other words, we each have many ways we are smart and dumb at the same time. Each race was genetically created under different conditions. These conditions generated the obvious characteristics, but they also caused the race, on average, to be smart in different ways from the other races. As a result, each race had the kind of talent needed to survive in its own birthing environment. When a person moves from this environment into a different one, the smarts that were useful may no longer apply. As a result, the person may not look as smart to other people in the new environment. Fortunately, we all can learn and can make up for some of this basic deficiency. The situation says nothing about which race is superior. It means only that all races were superior in the environment that created them. We, as individuals, only have to make the best of this situation when our environment changes. We can see the consequence of this effect in the US at the present time, when a significant number of people support obviously bad policy for really dumb reasons. It would be interesting to know where and why these genes were created. Ed Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Jones Beene wrote: Jeff Fink wrote: I read somewhere a long time ago that the offspring of interracial unions are, in general, bigger healthier and smarter than pure breds. Does any one know the source of that, or if it has been proven. It's called Heterosis or more simply hybrid vigor ... if it were not true in the plant world, most of us would be starving today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vigor There are observers who will come close to repeating Watson's logical error with the premise that the world dominance of the USA is based on intellectual vigor; Let's not forget that the entire human race has a microscopic fraction of the genetic diversity found in almost every other species (cheetahs being one notable exception). The races may look very different to *us*, as humans (with our powerful evolved-in ability to distinguish between individual humans), but from the point of view of the genome we're all very similar. It's not at all clear that there's enough genetic diversity in humanity to produce any kind of interesting hybrid vigor effect, regardless of what representatives are chosen. There are also very few purebred humans, on any continent, and certainly not anywhere on mainland Europe, where there's been trade with the four corners of the earth for centuries out of mind.
Re: [Vo]:The Susslick controversey
The work of Taleyarkhan has no relationship to cold fusion or LENR. He is trying to cause hot fusion in a collapsing bubble and claiming success using neutron detection. LENR occurs in a solid and does not emit neutrons Ed. thomas malloy wrote: Steven Krivit investigated the Taleyarkhan controversy and posted a link to are article he wrote. IMHO this is classic scientific controversy about the LENR issue. I noted with interest that there was no isotopic assay done on the acetone, which IMHO might have given us some insight into the matter. I was wondering if any of you Vortexians, in particular Ed Storms and Jed Rothwell, have any other comments on Professor Susslick had to say? --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:This may be a blessing in disguise
Jed Rothwell wrote: Ed Storms wrote me a not saying we should not re-hash stale debates in the Knol article, and we should not try to make the skeptics case for them, because that's like trying to make the case for the Flat Earth Society. I agree, but that is not quite what I had in mind. My response to Ed -- I was thinking of the history section in an encyclopedia article. I will leave the physics part to you -- or use your old text. An encyclopedia should cover not only the science, but also the history and social effects of a phenomenon, in different sections of course. Not all mashed together the way they are in Wikipedia! For example, an article about evolution will be mainly devoted to modern evolutionary theory, but to be comprehensive it should also a section about the development of the theory, how it has changed since Darwin with the discoveries of Mendel and then DNA, and so on. It might also discuss, or link to, articles about Darwinian social theory and capitalism, and creationism as the social backlash to evolutionary theory. It is not directly relevant of course, but someone who wants an overview may be looking for it. People looking up cold fusion may want to know what all the fuss is, and why it is so controversial. We should tell them. If we write anything about the history of the field, I think we should mention the NHE program, and say that it failed. . . . I think talking about the NHE program is worthwhile, but I'm not sure it is accurate to say it failed. Granted, it did not establish that the phenomenon could rise to a commercial level at that time. However, it did educate the Japanese workers about the issues. This education has allowed the Japanese to move ahead much faster than some of the other countries. Note that the Japanese have a cold fusion society that meets regularly. As a result, the phenomenon is being understood in Japan faster than in any other country, thanks to the foresight of creating the NHE laboratory. I agree history is important, but I suggest it be written as history and not as a debate that the reader has to resolve. Using your example, the history of evolution does not need to include intelligent design, which would be equivalent to including the skeptical arguments in a discussion of cold fusion. Also it wouldn't hurt to say that many experiments did fail in the early days, and some still do, but for the most part we know why. I do not think that fact ever reached the Wiki article before it was trashed. It is okay to talk about technical difficulties. It is not a weakness. Storms himself has spotlighted more bad cold fusion calorimetry than all the skeptics combined, in this paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEcalorimetr.pdf That's what I meant by making the skeptical case. A good example, but this was written while many of the claims were being debated. Now the time for debate has passed. We all know that some of the work was both wrong or seriously in error. Such work is no longer relevant any more than the maps used by Columbus are relevant to modern navigation. Now we should use the good data and show what it means and where work needs to be done to advance understanding in the future. Ed - Jed
