[Vo]:Reasons to be optimistic we will win the political battle
Despite my recent messages, I do not wish to give the impression I am pessimistic. I would not be working all these years promoting cold fusion if I thought there was little chance of success. However, you cannot win a political battle unless: you are prepared to win, and determined to win; you think carefully about strategy and tactics; and you move quickly to change your approach when circumstances change or a new opportunity arises. Moving quickly means -- I do not think that cold fusion cells can be manufactured by people at home. I assume they will be high-tech devices. However if it turns out I'm wrong, I would be delighted and I would hope that people take advantage of that to launch a cottage industry cold fusion revolution. It might be similar to what is happening now with cheap replicator devices. In other words my strategy would be to depend upon midsize and large corporations to manufacture the devices because I assume for technical reasons that is the only practical way to do it, but I would love to be proved wrong. I made a list of reasons why I expect a long brutal political battle. If it turns out the opposition rolls over and placed dead, no one would be more delighted than me! I'm not hoping for a battle; I am preparing for one. There is a big difference. I listed some of the advantages the opposition is likely to have. Mainly money and political power. Here are some important advantages on our side. Some have now, and some we may soon have, which will grow grow stronger, while the opposition grows weaker. We have history on our side: Greed works in our favor too. Corporations, venture capitalists and many others will be determined to make money with cold fusion. They will defy large corporations. Microsoft clobbered IBM in the 1980s, even though it started off much smaller. Institutional inertia is on our side. IBM did not begin to respond to Microsoft and the personal computer revolution until it was almost too late and the company was on the verge of bankruptcy. As I said, a low profile works to our advantage. I do get sick of the low-profile approach, though. We are terribly weak now. When I talk to Mizuno or Prelas now, I am appalled at how easily their work was suppressed by a few nitwits. Stopping cold fusion in the 1990s was like taking candy from a baby. Robert Park makes a few phone calls and boom! -- six months of planning and funding requests go into the trashcan. A publisher abruptly cancels a book; a session at ACS is cancelled. This has happened over and over again, far more often than people realize. Both sides are trying to cover up the extent of it because the opponents don't want people to know how often they have interfered in academic freedom, and cold fusion researchers hope that Lucy will not snatch away the football next time. Researchers have been like mice fleeing from a wolf. Their only hope has been to hide. That is how things have been but it does not mean we will always be so weak. The funding at U. Missouri will not be cancelled, despite frantic efforts by opponents. We will have powerful allies too, especially the Pentagon. They do not want to see the Chinese army supplied with cold fusion powered equipment while we are stuck with fossil fuel. As I pointed out in my book, this would be similar to the Opium Wars or the battle between the ironclad Merrimack and U.S. Navy wooden ships. In these cases you had a 20-year gap in technology. This is something the Pentagon understands. If the Confederacy had been able to deploy a fleet of 50 ironclad ships more maneuverable than the Merrimack, they would have broken the Union blockade and won the Civil War. The cost would have been trivial compared to fighting the battle of Gettysburg and the siege of Richmond. Fortunately, the Confederacy was not capable of making such a fleet. They were not capable of making breech loaded repeating rifles, precision long-range artillery or Gatling guns. The Union did build fleets of ironclad steamships, and these other things, and much else. It was just beginning to deploy Gatling guns when the war ended. If the war had gone on another few months, Gatling guns firing 200 rounds a minute would have massacred soldiers the way they did in 1914. We may soon have powerful corporate allies as well. I expect that fossil fuel companies will deploy every political weapon they can muster to destroy cold fusion, but they may not realize cold fusion is real and they may not respond until it is too late. If money and power is already flowing into the research, and if large corporations such as General Electric are determined to apply cold fusion, Exxon Mobile will not be able to stop them. Grassroots support. I think this is the most critical thing of all. See the quote in the introduction to my book: on public opinion, and on it alone, finally rests the issue. People have no idea how powerful the force of public opinion can be. As I've often said, when ordinary Americans realize
[Vo]:Amusing analysis of CF/LENR in the world
I have a friend, very smart guy, who I've been working on over time with occasional CF/LENR tidbits and arguments. Lately he wrote this, and gave me permission to send it along. - - - So, let's identify all the groups involved here, from the seekers to the suckers. :-) We have the seekers, people like Jeff who think this just might be real, more likely than not that LENR can be used for some good, but are aware of all the hucksters out there. We have the hopefuls, like me, that hope it can be found but don't have a whole lot of faith, will be tickled to death (by a large neutron beam) if it is found to be possible. We have the sloppy scientists who want it to be true but are so sloppy in their work they can't tell, but claim they have actually done it and are open about how. Some want investors, some don't. Some scientists can't reproduce the results, other sloppy scientists can sort of on occasion tend to kinda verify the results. We have the hucksters (used to sell water powered cars) who claim to be able to do it, but always leave out some details so no one can actually try to reproduce their results. They want investors! They almost exclusively have something they are putting energy into and claim to be getting more out (says the math). We have the naysayer scientists who just know it isn't possible, and dismiss anything without such inspection, just as I wouldn't spend too much time looking over a new perpetual motion machine. Can't be done, don't waste anyone's time. We may have the evil forces of the current energy cartel that want us to buy their gasoline and coal, the same guys that bought and buried the 150 MPG carburetor. They want no discussion And last, we may have the good scientists that really have found how to do this, and are fighting their way through all the bad press the sloppies and the hucksters create. Can't speak in public forums because they have been tarred with the same brush used on the hucksters. I think that's it? Who do you think shuts down discussions -- the naysayers or the evil forces? Do you think they even go so far as to spawn hucksters to help discredit the whole field? - - - Jeff
RE: [Vo]:Reasons to be optimistic we will win the political battle
It may be to our advantage that Rossi and others are thought to be fools or frauds. Let the PTB find out otherwise amidst surprize and their own ruin. I have often wondered how a free energy technology could be introduced at large if an 'accident' or sudden 'heart attack' or murder by a lone gunman-unrelated-to-any-conspiracy awaits the inventor or his family - even if he gets past the other obstacles.
Re: [Vo]:Reasons to be optimistic we will win the political battle
Jed, I agree (almost) completely with all you said here; very well put. However, while I agree the main 'CF' industry will be by mid- and large corps, I do still believe that there will be a rather large, worldwide, 'underground' micro-lenr industry. Not quite cottage, but local full service lenr dealers and installers. Some of these may carry 'off brand' or locally made small scale, lenr devices special built for local or idiiosyncratic uses. Some of these might very well be the current replicators/players who lose out in the upcoming market wars. Many opportunities here 0:) On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Despite my recent messages, I do not wish to give the impression I am pessimistic. I would not be working all these years promoting cold fusion if I thought there was little chance of success. However, you cannot win a political battle unless: you are prepared to win, and determined to win; you think carefully about strategy and tactics; and you move quickly to change your approach when circumstances change or a new opportunity arises. Moving quickly means -- I do not think that cold fusion cells can be manufactured by people at home. I assume they will be high-tech devices. However if it turns out I'm wrong, I would be delighted and I would hope that people take advantage of that to launch a cottage industry cold fusion revolution. It might be similar to what is happening now with cheap replicator devices. In other words my strategy would be to depend upon midsize and large corporations to manufacture the devices because I assume for technical reasons that is the only practical way to do it, but I would love to be proved wrong. I made a list of reasons why I expect a long brutal political battle. If it turns out the opposition rolls over and placed dead, no one would be more delighted than me! I'm not hoping for a battle; I am preparing for one. There is a big difference. I listed some of the advantages the opposition is likely to have. Mainly money and political power. Here are some important advantages on our side. Some have now, and some we may soon have, which will grow grow stronger, while the opposition grows weaker. We have history on our side: Greed works in our favor too. Corporations, venture capitalists and many others will be determined to make money with cold fusion. They will defy large corporations. Microsoft clobbered IBM in the 1980s, even though it started off much smaller. Institutional inertia is on our side. IBM did not begin to respond to Microsoft and the personal computer revolution until it was almost too late and the company was on the verge of bankruptcy. As I said, a low profile works to our advantage. I do get sick of the low-profile approach, though. We are terribly weak now. When I talk to Mizuno or Prelas now, I am appalled at how easily their work was suppressed by a few nitwits. Stopping cold fusion in the 1990s was like taking candy from a baby. Robert Park makes a few phone calls and boom! -- six months of planning and funding requests go into the trashcan. A publisher abruptly cancels a book; a session at ACS is cancelled. This has happened over and over again, far more often than people realize. Both sides are trying to cover up the extent of it because the opponents don't want people to know how often they have interfered in academic freedom, and cold fusion researchers hope that Lucy will not snatch away the football next time. Researchers have been like mice fleeing from a wolf. Their only hope has been to hide. That is how things have been but it does not mean we will always be so weak. The funding at U. Missouri will not be cancelled, despite frantic efforts by opponents. We will have powerful allies too, especially the Pentagon. They do not want to see the Chinese army supplied with cold fusion powered equipment while we are stuck with fossil fuel. As I pointed out in my book, this would be similar to the Opium Wars or the battle between the ironclad Merrimack and U.S. Navy wooden ships. In these cases you had a 20-year gap in technology. This is something the Pentagon understands. If the Confederacy had been able to deploy a fleet of 50 ironclad ships more maneuverable than the Merrimack, they would have broken the Union blockade and won the Civil War. The cost would have been trivial compared to fighting the battle of Gettysburg and the siege of Richmond. Fortunately, the Confederacy was not capable of making such a fleet. They were not capable of making breech loaded repeating rifles, precision long-range artillery or Gatling guns. The Union did build fleets of ironclad steamships, and these other things, and much else. It was just beginning to deploy Gatling guns when the war ended. If the war had gone on another few months, Gatling guns firing 200 rounds a minute would have massacred soldiers the way they did in 1914. We may soon have
Re: [Vo]:Reasons to be optimistic we will win the political battle
ken deboer barlaz...@gmail.com wrote: Not quite cottage, but local full service lenr dealers and installers. Some of these may carry 'off brand' or locally made small scale, lenr devices special built for local or idiiosyncratic uses. That would resemble the place I bought my latest computer: http://www.ttcomputer.com/ They assemble custom-built computers with a lot more oomph than most off-the-shelf ones sold by Dell or HP. Oomph because I hate to wait, and also so that voice input goes smoothly. I got an i7 CPU when they first came out. The high tech manufacturing was done by Intel, and these people only assembled the parts. They do not do much but it is a valuable add-on service for me, and I am willing to pay a small premium for it. It could turn out that actual cells can be made by small companies. I can't rule that out. But at this point I predict they will be more like batteries, computer CPU chips, hard disks, and other devices that require precision, cleanliness and robotic assembly. I do not expect they will be as capital intense or demanding as computer CPU fabs. According to Wikipedia, Intel has 8 fabs. Intel does not have much competition. Including the competition I suppose there are ~20 general purpose CPU fabs in the whole world. I expect there will be hundreds of factories that manufacture cold fusion devices of various sizes, for various purposes. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Amusing analysis of CF/LENR in the world
Pretty good summary of the 'players' in this game. Given the cleverness (aka, deviousness) of the human animal, and the very high stakes that LENR involves, I think anything you can imagine happening has or will play out. -Mark Iverson From: Jeff Berkowitz [mailto:pdx...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 8:21 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Amusing analysis of CF/LENR in the world I have a friend, very smart guy, who I've been working on over time with occasional CF/LENR tidbits and arguments. Lately he wrote this, and gave me permission to send it along. - - - So, let's identify all the groups involved here, from the seekers to the suckers. :-) We have the seekers, people like Jeff who think this just might be real, more likely than not that LENR can be used for some good, but are aware of all the hucksters out there. We have the hopefuls, like me, that hope it can be found but don't have a whole lot of faith, will be tickled to death (by a large neutron beam) if it is found to be possible. We have the sloppy scientists who want it to be true but are so sloppy in their work they can't tell, but claim they have actually done it and are open about how. Some want investors, some don't. Some scientists can't reproduce the results, other sloppy scientists can sort of on occasion tend to kinda verify the results. We have the hucksters (used to sell water powered cars) who claim to be able to do it, but always leave out some details so no one can actually try to reproduce their results. They want investors! They almost exclusively have something they are putting energy into and claim to be getting more out (says the math). We have the naysayer scientists who just know it isn't possible, and dismiss anything without such inspection, just as I wouldn't spend too much time looking over a new perpetual motion machine. Can't be done, don't waste anyone's time. We may have the evil forces of the current energy cartel that want us to buy their gasoline and coal, the same guys that bought and buried the 150 MPG carburetor. They want no discussion And last, we may have the good scientists that really have found how to do this, and are fighting their way through all the bad press the sloppies and the hucksters create. Can't speak in public forums because they have been tarred with the same brush used on the hucksters. I think that's it? Who do you think shuts down discussions -- the naysayers or the evil forces? Do you think they even go so far as to spawn hucksters to help discredit the whole field? - - - Jeff
[Vo]:curve matching
http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/109-fast-paced-progress Interesting technique seen in the second chart - curve matching using http://zunzun.com/ Any comments on this? I suppose one rationale is that if the constantan curve shows no initial anomaly - but it matches the formula up to a trigger point, and then diverges -then that adds credence. Or else if they will be looking a similar shape with a different steepness. Not sure what this curve matching adds. On the last page new data is supposedly coming in - live ! but I cannot get the page to load http://www.quantumheat.org/data/calibrations/Master_Spreadsheet11-9.xls anyone have an updated url ? Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Reasons to be optimistic we will win the political battle
Jed, I like your analogy with CPU's industry (and more generally with IC industry). In this particular industry, there are 3 main fields: Basic research Conception Manufacturing For the 2 fields that are conception and manufacturing, there is currently nothing occurring for LENR (except a small start from Rossi). Without a proof of concept, it's too early to invest there. Once it will be demonstrated that a LENR device can be scaled up and controlled, private investments will flow from everywhere. The LENR issue isn't currently here. But for the Basic Research, we can try to compare the IC industry with LENR and correlated investment needed: Nowadays the IC technology is mature but still evolves slowly in parallel with nano researches. The research in the IC technology has allowed the nano technology to become available to the laboratory and now in our daily life. The investment actually done in basic researches in IC technology compared to the business in this field is quite low. The IC technology business doesn't need to invest into basic research as it is mature. The nano technology is the daughter of the IC technology. The nano is now the place to be. That's where the money is spent for researching. IC technology has slowly started. It started with the American space program Apollo. The money came from the US government. It was war against the Russian. Without the communist threat, the IC technology might have come later. A pioneer in IC tech was Intel, and it's still the leader in conception and manufacturing of IC devices. They came with the 4004 in early 70's and so on up to i7. I would like to know what the Intel's budget for Basic researches was in 60s and early 70s. On the contrary, LENR is an unknown area, a terra incognita. LENR requires a lot of investment, a huge endorsement by the Scientifics. Nothing is especially new here, as everyone in vortex known. Anyway, this will not be carried by private money unless something reliable might be proven. So the government, (and so the public money) should take over. But it doesn't. So who will do it? To win the political battle, a workable LENR device is required. The device must be scaled up easily and controllable. The Rossi device (Hot or cold Cat) is not controllable. Otherwise Rossi will not speak about COP. Speak about COP for a LENR device means that the device is not controllable. I'm pretty sure that soon or later a reactor will burn out (or worse, explode) in the hand of an eCat customer. The Celani device is not controllable. But on the contrary of Rossi, this device is replicable and might interest others in the field as it is done currently by the MFMP team. Defkalion and Brillouin are black boxes for me. They have maybe something controllable, but is it scaled up easily? Arnaud _ From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: vendredi 9 novembre 2012 20:11 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Reasons to be optimistic we will win the political battle ken deboer barlaz...@gmail.com wrote: Not quite cottage, but local full service lenr dealers and installers. Some of these may carry 'off brand' or locally made small scale, lenr devices special built for local or idiiosyncratic uses. That would resemble the place I bought my latest computer: http://www.ttcomputer.com/ They assemble custom-built computers with a lot more oomph than most off-the-shelf ones sold by Dell or HP. Oomph because I hate to wait, and also so that voice input goes smoothly. I got an i7 CPU when they first came out. The high tech manufacturing was done by Intel, and these people only assembled the parts. They do not do much but it is a valuable add-on service for me, and I am willing to pay a small premium for it. It could turn out that actual cells can be made by small companies. I can't rule that out. But at this point I predict they will be more like batteries, computer CPU chips, hard disks, and other devices that require precision, cleanliness and robotic assembly. I do not expect they will be as capital intense or demanding as computer CPU fabs. According to Wikipedia, Intel has 8 fabs. Intel does not have much competition. Including the competition I suppose there are ~20 general purpose CPU fabs in the whole world. I expect there will be hundreds of factories that manufacture cold fusion devices of various sizes, for various purposes. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Amusing analysis of CF/LENR in the world
Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: We have the naysayer scientists who just know it isn't possible, and dismiss anything without such inspection, just as I wouldn't spend too much time looking over a new perpetual motion machine. Can't be done, don't waste anyone's time. They cause little harm. We may have the evil forces of the current energy cartel . . . I do not think they have played any role. They do not know that cold fusion exists. I think that's it? Who do you think shuts down discussions -- the naysayers or the evil forces? I know exactly who, when, where and how this research has been derailed. Ask any researcher! They tell you the same kind of thing, time after time. There are examples in books and in the LENR-CANR archives, such as Melvin Miles describing how they assigned him to the stockroom, or the time they hauled Taleyarkhan before the U.S. Congress and demanded his tax returns and personal correspondence. Here, let me list the ways: Intimidation, harassment, sabotaging equipment, publishing false data. Threatening to deport researchers. Destroying peoples' reputations by publishing in the mass media assertions that they are criminals, frauds and lunatics. Destroying the reputations of professors and graduate students at TAMU and elsewhere with false accusations of fraud. Threat of firing people, actually firing people, cutting funding, telling researchers that if they publish results or attend meetings they will be summarily fired. Canceling meetings, canceling publications at the last minute, interfering in normal funding. Ridicule, character assassination, and misinformation and nonsense in the mass media, Wikipedia and elsewhere. Outright lies such as: Cold fusion was never replicated; no peer-reviewed papers were ever published; the effect is very small; there have been proven fraudulent experiments (other than MIT's). Perversion of the peer review system described by Schwinger: The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors’ rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science. And so on, and so forth. This is hardly unique to cold fusion. Such things are quite common in academic science. This is not history. All of these activities continue unabated up to the present moment. The people doing this include, for example, Ouellette and the editors at *Scientific American*, the people I described in the document The DOE lies again, Richard Garwin, Robert Park and many others. I often cite Park because he openly brags about his role in suppressing cold fusion and destroying people's lives and careers. Most of the others prefer to keep a low profile. Yes, some of these people are evil. But mainly they are very, *very*stupid. They are like Donald Trump and the other birthers. Believe me, I have met them. You can't hide stupidity, and as Schiller said, the gods themselves contend in vain against it. The one positive thing I can say is that most of them are sincere. They honestly believe that cold fusion is criminal fraud and lunacy, and it was never been replicated or published, etc. blah, blah. I suppose if I believed that I might be in favor of suppressing it. However I hope that I would have enough sense to check the peer-reviewed literature first before publishing such extreme accusations in the *Washington Post* or the *Scientific American*. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:curve matching
In the absence of Ockham's Razor, curve fitting is prone to overfitting. There is only one robust way of dealing with this problem: Kolmogorov Complexity Even when you break your data up into a test set and a data set so that you have a way of testing to see if your fit is an overfit, once you have run your test set against your model any attempt to adjust your model is now subject to the criticism that you are now taking your test set into account as part of the data set you are fitting. In practice, this criticism needn't be a show-stopper but it is ultimately problematic. On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/109-fast-paced-progress Interesting technique seen in the second chart - curve matching using http://zunzun.com/ Any comments on this? I suppose one rationale is that if the constantan curve shows no initial anomaly - but it matches the formula up to a trigger point, and then diverges -then that adds credence. Or else if they will be looking a similar shape with a different steepness. Not sure what this curve matching adds. On the last page new data is supposedly coming in - live ! but I cannot get the page to load http://www.quantumheat.org/data/calibrations/Master_Spreadsheet11-9.xls anyone have an updated url ? Jones
Re: [Vo]:curve matching
BTW: I have talked to the author of zunzun about using Kolmogorov Complexity. It is doable but non-trivial. On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 3:39 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: In the absence of Ockham's Razor, curve fitting is prone to overfitting. There is only one robust way of dealing with this problem: Kolmogorov Complexity Even when you break your data up into a test set and a data set so that you have a way of testing to see if your fit is an overfit, once you have run your test set against your model any attempt to adjust your model is now subject to the criticism that you are now taking your test set into account as part of the data set you are fitting. In practice, this criticism needn't be a show-stopper but it is ultimately problematic. On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/109-fast-paced-progress Interesting technique seen in the second chart - curve matching using http://zunzun.com/ Any comments on this? I suppose one rationale is that if the constantan curve shows no initial anomaly - but it matches the formula up to a trigger point, and then diverges -then that adds credence. Or else if they will be looking a similar shape with a different steepness. Not sure what this curve matching adds. On the last page new data is supposedly coming in - live ! but I cannot get the page to load http://www.quantumheat.org/data/calibrations/Master_Spreadsheet11-9.xls anyone have an updated url ? Jones
Re: [Vo]:curve matching
Curve fitting can be quite useful in estimating values between points provided the fit is adequate. I generally make an effort to use the lowest power polynomial fit and monitor the error. If the fitting curve does not closely approach your data points then you might be in big trouble relying upon it. I suspect that the guys at quantumheat.org are not going to use any readings that are obtained after hydrogen is introduced to the active wire to affect the curve fit. That would be a bit silly. They are now attempting to obtain the reference curve to compare the hydrogen influenced reading against. They need to be careful in this endeavor if their results are to be accepted. Dave -Original Message- From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 9, 2012 4:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:curve matching In the absence of Ockham's Razor, curve fitting is prone to overfitting. There is only one robust way of dealing with this problem: Kolmogorov Complexity Even when you break your data up into a test set and a data set so that you have a way of testing to see if your fit is an overfit, once you have run your test set against your model any attempt to adjust your model is now subject to the criticism that you are now taking your test set into account as part of the data set you are fitting. In practice, this criticism needn't be a show-stopper but it is ultimately problematic. On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/109-fast-paced-progress Interesting technique seen in the second chart - curve matching using http://zunzun.com/ Any comments on this? I suppose one rationale is that if the constantan curve shows no initial anomaly - but it matches the formula up to a trigger point, and then diverges -then that adds credence. Or else if they will be looking a similar shape with a different steepness. Not sure what this curve matching adds. On the last page new data is supposedly coming in - live ! but I cannot get the page to load http://www.quantumheat.org/data/calibrations/Master_Spreadsheet11-9.xls anyone have an updated url ? Jones
[Vo]:Transmutations
I have lost track of all of the claims of LENR and transmutations.. Are there known reproducible LENR experiments that shows real evidence of a nuclear transmutation? Trying to detect radiation above background, excess heat, etc. is clearly difficult.. But turning an element in LENR fuel into new element(s) would demand attention. Piantelli shows the nuclear process in his patent as does Rossi.. but any real evidence? After two years of following LENR, do we really have no hard evidence that fusion or fision is happening? Is it because XRD or Mass Spectrum is too expensive, or because of impurities in most fuels? I know George Egely has said he has done XRD on samples before and after in his carbon in a microwave plasma fusion... but no replication, as far as I know... - Brad
[Vo]:The new normal
Curious observation - funny in a sardonic way, but not completely humorous - and it can be called the new normal. To cut to the chase, the new normal is 1COP2 but non-nuclear (supra-chemical). To be explained. What do Ni-H experiments with potassium (or another spillover catalyst like constantan), from all of these researchers have in common: 1) Thermacore 2) Mills 3) Niedra 4) Noninski 5) Haldeman (MIT) 6) Focardi 7) Celani 8) Piantelli 9) Ahern 10) Kitamura 11) Takahashi 12) And approximately 2 dozen others Answer: gain, but LOW gain - and remarkably consistent long -term low-gain. In other words, the new normal. To wit: NASA paper worth a re-read, despite its age: lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NiedraJMreplicatio.pdf Essentially - what we suspect with pretty good certainty is that K2CO3 and nickel work for reliable gain in an electrolytic or gas-phase system, but it is always 1COP2. There are documented systems running for over a year at this level. Recent results with zeolites are turning up something similar. Everything anomalous in energy needs to be compared with chemical energy to see if there is a mundane explanation. But the subject is more complex than it may seem if one is basing expectations on the heat of combustion. We went through many versions of this with the original Rossi experiment 22 months ago. It is easier to eliminate chemical contributions when a reactor is sealed, since we have a maximum volume or reactants which cannot change. However, reality is seldom that simple. In the case of a sealed reactor, we have what is similar to a battery, in that only electrical energy goes in, but heat -instead of electricity- comes out, and there could be relativistic effects from reversible redox reactions - turning chemistry into supra-chemistry. No one could ever completely eliminate the suprachemisty possibility from Rossi's original percolator since it was clearly gainful, but not even close to what he was claiming due to the dry steam fiasco. Bottom line: it is looking like the new normal for chemistry is what was formerly 1COP2 and is not nuclear and not chemical - thus it can be called suprachemical. But no one is sure what how far you can go with rock solid COP of 1.5 ... in terms of a commercial item... Essentially that is Gibbs' point, no? Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:The new normal
Exactly. [mg] On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: But no one is sure what how far you can go with rock solid COP of 1.5 ... in terms of a commercial item... Essentially that is Gibbs' point, no?
Re: [Vo]:Transmutations
Heh. It's 23 years for some of the old timers on this alias (not me). I'm particularly fond of this older transmutation paper: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Castellanonucleartra.pdf There are various reasons to criticize the paper (only EDX was used for analysis, other complaints) but I like it because it is simple, direct, limited in scope, and because they describe pretty good technique with respect to controlling contaminants. Other very interesting transmutation results are Iwamura's: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYobservatioa.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYlowenergyn.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYobservatioc.pdf etc. I'm unsure what to think about the carbon arc stuff. It takes tremendous procedural care to eliminate contaminants. A complete experiment would involve procuring ultra pure carbon from a chemical supply house, doing an assay of a fraction (control sample) with at least three analytical techniques (e.g. EDX, XRD, mass spec), performing the experiment under near-clean-room conditions using materials that are distinct from anticipated transmutation products, capturing the detritus in similarly distinct materials, and running the same three analytical techniques on the detritus, preferably with the same three instruments. It's a big undertaking. Jeff On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Brad Lowe ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: I have lost track of all of the claims of LENR and transmutations.. Are there known reproducible LENR experiments that shows real evidence of a nuclear transmutation? Trying to detect radiation above background, excess heat, etc. is clearly difficult.. But turning an element in LENR fuel into new element(s) would demand attention. Piantelli shows the nuclear process in his patent as does Rossi.. but any real evidence? After two years of following LENR, do we really have no hard evidence that fusion or fision is happening? Is it because XRD or Mass Spectrum is too expensive, or because of impurities in most fuels? I know George Egely has said he has done XRD on samples before and after in his carbon in a microwave plasma fusion... but no replication, as far as I know... - Brad
Re: [Vo]:The new normal
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Curious observation I find it interesting that you did not include the Patterson Cell. Any reason?
Re: [Vo]:The new normal
Oh, I guess it is because of the lithium sulfate. I read too fast. On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 9:35 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Curious observation I find it interesting that you did not include the Patterson Cell. Any reason?
Re: [Vo]:The new normal
Jones you are disregarding DGT's latest results as well as those of Rossi with your low COP claim. Rossi insists that he can obtain a COP of 6 and DGT was recently tested in a simple system to deliver a 3 if I recall. I realize that we have not been given verifiable independent data to confirm their performance, but there has been a lot of leakage to various people suggesting at least these levels of performance. If you make the assumption that the active material temperature is the driving force behind the excess heat, then all one needs do is obtain better insulation of the core. This extra insulation will surely force the temperature to increase at a given level of internal heat generation which will eventually lead to thermal run away when enough insulation is applied. Once the internal temperature of the core reaches a critical level, there is no need to supply extra input power so the COP by definition reaches infinity. You can argue that the device is basically out of control if it reaches thermal run away so that is why Rossi always applies drive power at a duty cycle to prevent reaching the critical temperature. DGT appears to use a form of fuel limiting with their ionization technique which is different than Rossi, but seems to be effective for control. So, the 1COP2 limit is not enforced by any design rule and can be exceeded. Stability is somewhat dependent upon low COP unless excellent technique is employed to control the internal device temperature or fuel supply. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 9, 2012 8:34 pm Subject: [Vo]:The new normal Curious observation - funny in a sardonic way, but not completely humorous - and it can be called the new normal. To cut to the chase, the new normal is 1COP2 but non-nuclear (supra-chemical). To be explained. What do Ni-H experiments with potassium (or another spillover catalyst like constantan), from all of these researchers have in common: 1) Thermacore 2) Mills 3) Niedra 4) Noninski 5) Haldeman (MIT) 6) Focardi 7) Celani 8) Piantelli 9) Ahern 10) Kitamura 11) Takahashi 12) And approximately 2 dozen others Answer: gain, but LOW gain - and remarkably consistent long -term low-gain. In other words, the new normal. To wit: NASA paper worth a re-read, despite its age: lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NiedraJMreplicatio.pdf Essentially - what we suspect with pretty good certainty is that K2CO3 and nickel work for reliable gain in an electrolytic or gas-phase system, but it is always 1COP2. There are documented systems running for over a year at this level. Recent results with zeolites are turning up something similar. Everything anomalous in energy needs to be compared with chemical energy to see if there is a mundane explanation. But the subject is more complex than it may seem if one is basing expectations on the heat of combustion. We went through many versions of this with the original Rossi experiment 22 months ago. It is easier to eliminate chemical contributions when a reactor is sealed, since we have a maximum volume or reactants which cannot change. However, reality is seldom that simple. In the case of a sealed reactor, we have what is similar to a battery, in that only electrical energy goes in, but heat -instead of electricity- comes out, and there could be relativistic effects from reversible redox reactions - turning chemistry into supra-chemistry. No one could ever completely eliminate the suprachemisty possibility from Rossi's original percolator since it was clearly gainful, but not even close to what he was claiming due to the dry steam fiasco. Bottom line: it is looking like the new normal for chemistry is what was formerly 1COP2 and is not nuclear and not chemical - thus it can be called suprachemical. But no one is sure what how far you can go with rock solid COP of 1.5 ... in terms of a commercial item... Essentially that is Gibbs' point, no? Jones
Re: [Vo]:The new normal
If the COP were in fact limited to 1.5 at low temperature operation then it would be a valid concern that few applications would arise out of LENR devices. The evidence does not suggest that low COP operation is the only available option. I expect that proof of my assumption will soon become available. Dave -Original Message- From: Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 9, 2012 8:47 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The new normal Exactly. [mg] On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: But no one is sure what how far you can go with rock solid COP of 1.5 ... in terms of a commercial item... Essentially that is Gibbs' point, no?
RE: [Vo]:The new normal
Yes - I was specifically excluding Pd-deuterium, high gain, and nuclear ... as opposed to hydrogen, low gain and nickel. Thus Patterson, Storms, Swartz and many other who report much better COP primarily with Pd and deuterium were not overlooked. Swartz did do nickel experiments but generally - this list was not intended to be complete - merely to make a point. -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Oh, I guess it is because of the lithium sulfate. I read too fast. Jones Beene wrote: Curious observation I find it interesting that you did not include the Patterson Cell. Any reason?
[Vo]:Taylor Wilson
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/taylor-wilson/309132/
RE: [Vo]:The new normal
Dave, I did not make the main point of that post clear. There certainly could be a higher gain regime - or not. But the claims of Rossi are essentially meaningless. The major point to me in the big picture - and it is way beyond coincidence. is that many good and believable reports with Ni-H-K have come in, over the years, going back to Thermacore, with COP below 2 but more than 1. I am putting these in a separate category than others which may be far better in COP but often are at lower power levels, or are less convincing... so there is also a value judgment in there. And, in general these Ni-H-K experiments seem to be the highest wattage, most robust, longest running, and most carefully done reports. Yet the gain is low. Why that should be - is worth investigating. Jones From: David Roberson If the COP were in fact limited to 1.5 at low temperature operation then it would be a valid concern that few applications would arise out of LENR devices. The evidence does not suggest that low COP operation is the only available option. I expect that proof of my assumption will soon become available. Dave -Original Message- From: Mark Gibbs Exactly. [mg] Jones Beene wrote: But no one is sure what how far you can go with rock solid COP of 1.5 ... in terms of a commercial item... Essentially that is Gibbs' point, no?
Re: [Vo]:Taylor Wilson
Where is he? and why isn't he contributing to the Vortex collective? On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/taylor-wilson/309132/
