Eric Walker wrote:
So they thought that the helium might have remained in the electrode. Is
> this hunch correct?
>
As it says, they never got a chance to check. No one knows if this is
correct or not. But this is a lot more than a hunch coming from Miles. He
is an
Eric Walker wrote:
None that I am aware of. There are several other experiments in Italy. They
>> gave the same answer, subject to differences in technique as I said.
>>
>
> Can you provide links to these experiments, so that I'm looking at the
> ones you are referring to,
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Jed Rothwell
wrote:
As it says, they never got a chance to check. No one knows if this is
> correct or not. But this is a lot more than a hunch coming from Miles. He
> is an expert in electrochemistry and metallurgy.
>
It is not more than
Eric Walker wrote:
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMcorrelatio.pdf
>>
>> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf
>>
>
>
> What do you make of the three experiments in the first paper by Miles et
> al. in which there was significant excess heat seen in the
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I think you mean the second paper. The first one is only 16 pages long.
>
> Do you mean Table 5 on p. 35 of the second paper?
>
Yes -- the second paper, not the first paper.
On p. 34, Miles speculates that the helium
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
It produces ~23.8 MeV per D+D reaction, as closely as anyone has been able
> to measure it. Admittedly that is not very close. See p. 8:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinnewphysica.pdf
>
This is an inference
Initiation of nuclear fission reactions under laser irradiation of Au
nanoparticles in the presence of Thorium aqua ions
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.4268.pdf
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Jed
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Eric Walker wrote:
>
> This is an inference that has been made, using a lot of assumptions,
>> including an assumption that it's a stable ratio.
>>
>
> You can see it is stable, in Fig. 6, and in
Eric Walker wrote:
> Pd-D produces helium in the same ratio as plasma fusion reactors do, so
>> obviously it is a d-d reaction.
>>
>
> This is incorrect on two accounts. First, PdD does not produce helium in
> the same ratio as plasma fusion reactors.
>
It produces
Eric Walker wrote:
This is an inference that has been made, using a lot of assumptions,
> including an assumption that it's a stable ratio.
>
You can see it is stable, in Fig. 6, and in various other studies.
> Let's do admit that it's not very close.
>
Way closer
"An early experiment consisted of a huge tank of perchloroethylene buried
deep in the earth (the solar neutrino telescope). The neutrinos detected
were only about a third of those expected from the best models of the Sun's
interior. Since we have accurate measurements of the amount of energy
It has become apparent to me now, that the sun is powered by a cold fusion
reaction based on metalized hydrogen. This compound is one of the special
compounds that support LENR. The structure of this material makes it
indestructible via monopole magnetism and forms the basis for the internal
heat
Peter Gluck wrote:
> a question- in your opinion, what are the similaries betwee the PdD wet
> and the NiH dry a la Rossi-warm and hot systems and what justifies taking
> them together scientifically Are they connected more by what we know or
> about what we do not know
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Pd-D produces helium in the same ratio as plasma fusion reactors do, so
> obviously it is a d-d reaction.
>
This is incorrect on two accounts. First, PdD does not produce helium in
the same ratio as plasma fusion
Dear Jed, I will answer with an Ego Out editorial (not today)
Cold Fusion must become an energy source as all the other, even more
reliable- the longer term task is to function without any energy taken from
outside- but now the performance is given by the energy balance- the!MW
plant has proced
Eric Walker wrote:
>
> You can see it is stable, in Fig. 6, and in various other studies.
>>
>
> Please take a closer look, and please cite the other studies that give
> solid support to the conclusion that it's a stable ratio.
>
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMcorrelatio.pdf
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf
>
Thank you for the papers. I'm pretty interested in this question, so I'll
read through all three.
Tritium
Peter Gluck wrote:
Cold Fusion must become an energy source as all the other, even more
> reliable- the longer term task is to function without any energy taken from
> outside- . . .
>
Cold fusion has often been observed in heat after death, with no input
energy. I am
I meant to say:
In the 21st century, the public and the regulators will never allow a
nuclear reactor to be used *without 100% certainty that it is completely
understood and fully in control*.
They may not allow it under any circumstances.
- Jed
may I cite these ideas thanks?!
a question- in your opinion, what are the similaries betwee the PdD wet and
the NiH dry a la Rossi-warm and hot systems and what justifies taking them
together scientifically Are they connected more by what we know or about
what we do not know about them?
peter
On
Alain Sepeda wrote:
> A satisfied client who sign the receipt is probably Rossi's answer.
>
That would be a compelling answer!
> The definition will be business, as scientifically there are better
> evidence than a 1MW boiler, since long, and nobody was satisfied.
>
A satisfied client who sign the receipt is probably Rossi's answer.
The definition will be business, as scientifically there are better
evidence than a 1MW boiler, since long, and nobody was satisfied.
2016-01-11 22:08 GMT+01:00 Peter Gluck :
> Diplomatic answer, however
Peter Gluck wrote:
Diplomatic answer, however in the best case
> there will be a high average daily COP . . .
>
In my opinion, the concept of a COP has no meaning in cold fusion. Cold
fusion does not in any sense convert input power to output power. It does
not move heat
Dear Jed,
What is the definition of a "clearly positive result"?
What can make the results "negative"?
Who or what decides?
Thanks,
Peter
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:26 PM, Jed Rothwell
wrote:
> I wrote:
>
>
>> This is a meeting scheduled for June 2016. It is being
Peter Gluck wrote:
> What is the definition of a "clearly positive result"?
> What can make the results "negative"?
>
I think a common sense definition will suffice.
> Who or what decides?
>
I will decide for me.
- Jed
I wrote:
> This is a meeting scheduled for June 2016. It is being organized by Mats
> Lewan. It is contingent on a positive report from Rossi this month or next.
>
Okay, the announcement says March. I gather the results may be available
before that.
I have no idea what these results will be,
Diplomatic answer, however in the best case
there will be a high average daily COP and
open problems - control, maintenance, continuity
bureaucratic etc.Such a technology needs many teams
Say COP 6 an absolute minimum? What's the gossip?
Peter
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Jed Rothwell
See:
http://new-symposium.org/
This is a meeting scheduled for June 2016. It is being organized by Mats
Lewan. It is contingent on a positive report from Rossi this month or next.
The announcement says:
In February 2015, Rossi and IH started a one-year commercial test of the
technology on a
28 matches
Mail list logo