Unsubscribe
Physics Today 1/25/05 - Feder
Physics Today appears to have come down heavy, and somewhat inaccurately, on the DOE report. Claims of cold fusion are no more convincing today than they were 15 years ago. That's the conclusion of the Department of Energy's fresh look at advances in extracting energy from low-energy nuclear reactions. A report released on 1 December 2004 echoes DOE's 1989 study that followed the headline-making claims of cold fusion by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann. Those who have followed this are aware that this is not accurate. First, eighteen anonymous DOE reviewers split approximately evenly on whether or not there is excess power observed in the cold fusion phenomena. That is a great change since the 1989 ERAB report.] Second, not all 2004 cold fusion data was reported to the DOE. Third, FWIW, these are not low-energy nuclear reactions, but involve many MeV per nucleon. Link and other comments at COLD FUSION TIMES web site = The COLD FUSION TIMES - the Uncensored cold fusion web site http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
Re: Concord Monitor: Mallove murder unsolved
Hi All - A woman was killed by crossfire across the way from me early last year. A few weeks later I heard gunshots and ran out the door to see if I might help, but the victim was a young man on the sidewalk, his brains blasted out. His vacant eyes stared up into the light pre-dawn rain when they rolled him onto the stretcher. A man at my subway stop, also just around the corner, had his face blasted inward. And a homeless man was sliced and stabbed to death quietly off to the side of our plaza. Hey, my rent is cheap at least. But the point is, not one of these cases has been solved. It's sad but true that families will often have no resolution. My family was lucky, when my 23-year old uncle was murdered days before Christmas and two weeks before his wife gave birth to their first child. His killers were picked up at another murder scene just hours later. But I can also say that two decades later the police were still probing around my former step father for a murder they believed he commited in 1974 (no, we didn't know about this when my mother married him). The fact is that outdoor scenes make life difficult; that much more chaos and complexity. And robberies gone bad, because of their impersonal nature, are terribly difficult unless the killer boasts or confesses. The fact is, however, that Eugene Mallove was not a large threat to the world order. He might have been correct, but he was not alone in his beliefs nor even the primary scientific mind behind Cold Fusion. I know of no other advocates who have been silence with fear as a result of his murder either. Cold Fusion has lost a passionate and articulate advocate. The talented circle of people involved with this movement will need to continue without him. But spinning vague conspiracy theories are more likely to hurt his family then bring them justice. Erik Baard
Re: Physics Today 1/25/05 - Feder
Mitchell Swartz wrote: Physics Today appears to have come down heavy, and somewhat inaccurately, on the DOE report. Claims of cold fusion are no more convincing today than they were 15 years ago. That's the conclusion of the Department of Energy's fresh look at advances in extracting energy from low-energy nuclear reactions. A report released on 1 December 2004 echoes DOE's 1989 study that followed the headline-making claims of cold fusion by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann. Those who have followed this are aware that this is not accurate. First, eighteen anonymous DOE reviewers split approximately evenly on whether or not there is excess power observed in the cold fusion phenomena. That is a great change since the 1989 ERAB report.] That is true, and it is important, but the DoE paid no attention to that split in its own official Report of the Review of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. In other words, Physics Today accurately describes the DoE position: claims . . . are no more convincing today than they were 15 years ago. Looking at it another way, the 1989 ERAB report was actually more open to research than people realize. The latest report is no better or more open-minded than ERAB was. The critics claim both reports support their point of view, that cold fusion has no merit whatever, but that is not the case. However, that has been the de facto policy of the DoE since 1989, and it has not changed. I do not detect any moderation in the establishment at the DoE, the APS, or any U.S. university. Well-informed people have told me things are changing behind the scenes. I would not know about that, but I have not seen any official statements reflecting this. Well-informed people have also told me that LENR-CANR.org has played a small role in this hidden glacial change. I have seen some evidence for that. For example, anonymous reviewer #7 wrote about the Iwamura experiments, and cited documents that were not provided to the DoE as far as I know. It seems likely that #7 read them on LENR-CANR.org. I disagreed with #7's conclusions, but anyway I am pleased that he or she looked at the web site. Second, not all 2004 cold fusion data was reported to the DOE. Ah, but fortunately at least some of the anonymous reviewers went out and found the data by themselves, at LENR-CANR.org and elsewhere. I do not suppose we should not congratulate them for this show of initiative. They are professional scientists, after all; it is their job to think independently and find things out for themselves. They do not deserve brownie points for taking a trip to library or spending an hour on Google. Anyway, the lesson for CF researchers is clear: if you want people to find out about your research, you must publish it on the Internet. Any web site that costs nothing and requires no registration will do, just so long as Google finds and indexes the paper. There is no advantage to publishing on LENR-CANR.org or any other web page. In fact, readers hardly notice where a paper is uploaded nowadays. - Jed
Unsubscribe
unsubscribe
Re: BioDiesel:was vehicles
--- RC Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He predicted the coming generations would be so accustomed to change that change would become a habit. I can see some good coming from this, and also quite a bit of bad. There is enough crap being floated around by my generation today. Of course a lot of it is more of the same. Gee, just thinking the phrase more of the same brings back memories of the Bush/Kerry debateswill the mental damage ever heal? I noticed when I tried to replace an electronic a/c thermostat and couldn't find the standard electro mechanical Honeywell round baby that has been standard for years. And which lasts much longer than that electronic wonder as well. :) Kyle Mc. mentioned older autos. Looking over the new stuff with the computers, I wonder if the Cubans could convert a new fuel injected computerized model back to the carb with distributor, points and coil. You can do this with some engines, others no. If it has a port for a distributor you can make it work with points or HEI. As far as fuel injection to carburetor goes, you can readily convert TBI (throttle body injection) back into carbureted with a minumum of hassle. If it is multi-port, you will almost certainly need a new intake manifold. But anything is possible with a good mind and set of tools. Mostly, this applies to Chevy small/big blocks...easy and cheap to work on. If a carburetor starts to act up, you clean it or get a rebuild kit. If a fuel injector or the computer that drives it (or any of the myriad sensors which control it) gets crunchy, you'd better have some serious cash on hand. Especially if its foreign. Distributor points are cheap as dirt, and cap/rotors as well. Ignition module for my HEI dist ran about $30. Ignition coil about $20. Got DIS? Distributorless Ignition System, that is. Module costs a few hundred, if its not built into the coil pack. Coil pack costs a few hundred. On Volvo's each of the three coils costs a couple hundred (!). And if the module and coil pack is all one unit...you see where this is going. Hmmm. Maybe I better not scrap my old 1948 chev 1/2 ton pickup w/ 6 cylinders. That would definitely be a keeper, IMHO. Interesting thought I have regarding technology. We may be in approaching a technilogical future shock where segments of the industrial base cannot accelerate to the speed required to keep pace with change in the level of technology of the other segments. What will need to give ? Well, this has also got to take into account the cost of whatever new has come along where it concerns the consumer. If someone comes up with a technology that makes a nonpolluting, super-fuel efficient car available with cutting edge technology but it costs $500,000 a unit, obviously not many people are going to even be able to buy it. --Kyle __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Concord Monitor: Mallove murder unsolved
At 02:30 PM 1/25/2005, Erik Baard wrote: Hi All - A woman was killed by crossfire across the way from me early last year. A few weeks later I heard gunshots and ran out the door to see if I might help, but the victim was a young man on the sidewalk, his brains blasted out. His vacant eyes stared up into the light pre-dawn rain when they rolled him onto the stretcher. A man at my subway stop, also just around the corner, had his face blasted inward. And a homeless man was sliced and stabbed to death quietly off to the side of our plaza. Hey, my rent is cheap at least. But the point is, not one of these cases has been solved. It's sad but true that families will often have no resolution. My family was lucky, when my 23-year old uncle was murdered days before Christmas and two weeks before his wife gave birth to their first child. His killers were picked up at another murder scene just hours later. But I can also say that two decades later the police were still probing around my former step father for a murder they believed he commited in 1974 (no, we didn't know about this when my mother married him). The fact is that outdoor scenes make life difficult; that much more chaos and complexity. And robberies gone bad, because of their impersonal nature, are terribly difficult unless the killer boasts or confesses. The fact is, however, that Eugene Mallove was not a large threat to the world order. He might have been correct, but he was not alone in his beliefs nor even the primary scientific mind behind Cold Fusion. I know of no other advocates who have been silence with fear as a result of his murder either. Cold Fusion has lost a passionate and articulate advocate. The talented circle of people involved with this movement will need to continue without him. But spinning vague conspiracy theories are more likely to hurt his family then bring them justice. Erik Baard Erik: Friends of the late Dr. Eugene Mallove are quite disappointed that DNA evidence has not been returned to the local detectives from the Connecticut state laboratory (see excerpt below). Neither this delay, nor the lack of accountability, are probably conspiracies, but ALL victims of homicides, and their families, deserve better -- including a faster turn-around than almost a year delay. No one expects a 15-minute DNA identification turn around, like on TV with Lilly Rush or the CSI series, but the tardive and inadequate response of three seasons does not herald an efficiency of which any competent community should be satisfied. Dr. Mitchell Swartz === 1. Anyone with information about Mallove's death please call the Norwich Police Department at (860) 886-5561. The anonymous tip line can be reached at (860) 886-5561, ext. 500. 2. More on this story: 8 months after his death, no leads in Mallove case http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050124/REPOSITORY/501240347/1031Concord Monitor - AnnMarie Timmins Soon after Eugene Mallove of Pembroke was found murdered in Connecticut, outside his childhood home, the local police said they had talked to a couple of suspects and expected to have fingerprint and DNA evidence within a month. That was eight months ago, and the police said last week that they are no closer to solving the case. Some of that DNA evidence - the best hope of tying someone to the scene - still hasn't come back from Connecticut's state lab. The police haven't recovered any of the items taken from Mallove, a watch, cell phone and credit cards, said Lt. Timothy Menard of the Norwich, Conn., police. And despite pleas to the public for help, no one has called. 3. Link to the story, with \other comments at COLD FUSION TIMES web site = The COLD FUSION TIMES - the Uncensored cold fusion web site http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
Re: Physics Today 1/25/05 - Feder
At 03:28 PM 1/25/2005, Jed Rothwell wrote: Mitchell Swartz wrote: Physics Today appears to have come down heavy, and somewhat inaccurately, on the DOE report. Claims of cold fusion are no more convincing today than they were 15 years ago. That's the conclusion of the Department of Energy's fresh look at advances in extracting energy from low-energy nuclear reactions. A report released on 1 December 2004 echoes DOE's 1989 study that followed the headline-making claims of cold fusion by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann. Those who have followed this are aware that this is not accurate. First, eighteen anonymous DOE reviewers split approximately evenly on whether or not there is excess power observed in the cold fusion phenomena. That is a great change since the 1989 ERAB report.] That is true, and it is important, but the DoE paid no attention to that split in its own official Report of the Review of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. In other words, Physics Today accurately describes the DoE position: claims . . . are no more convincing today than they were 15 years ago. Second, not all 2004 cold fusion data was reported to the DOE. Ah, but fortunately at least some of the anonymous reviewers went out and found the data by themselves, at LENR-CANR.org and elsewhere. I do not suppose we should not congratulate them for this show of initiative. They are professional scientists, after all; it is their job to think independently and find things out for themselves. They do not deserve brownie points for taking a trip to library or spending an hour on Google. Anyway, the lesson for CF researchers is clear: if you want people to find out about your research, you must publish it on the Internet. Any web site that costs nothing and requires no registration will do, just so long as Google finds and indexes the paper. There is no advantage to publishing on LENR-CANR.org or any other web page. In fact, readers hardly notice where a paper is uploaded nowadays. - Jed LOL. This is in error and quite funny. First, actually, the DOE reviewers were reasonably disappointed by the lack of controls and the lack of time-integration in the presenters data and information. Second, some of the very papers which contain controls and time-integration are not present at the censored (and misnamed) LENR-CANR.org site. Third, therefore the putative fantasy posted is not supported. BTW, FWIW,Cold fusion is not LENR because the excited states of the nickel and palladium are several MeV (about 2 and 20 MeV) about the ground states ergo, HIGH ENERGY. Cold fusion is not CANR because the reactions require a coherent crystalline lattice and not chemistry. Dr. Mitchell Swartz = COLD FUSION TIMES - the Uncensored cold fusion web site http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
