Re: [Vo]:Miles' "new recipe" for codeposition

This leads to a question: What is better? a) 6 times~ 10% heat excess b) 2 times 500% heat excess, 4 times...no heat excess Taking in account that 10% is a scientific curiosity, 500% is of technological interest. By the way, what are the performances of Melvin Miles' system? Thank you for any op

Re: [Vo]:Miles' "new recipe" for codeposition

At 08:03 PM 3/23/2010, Horace Heffner wrote: In the ACS press conference video Miles states he has a new recipe for codeposition that produced excess heat 6 out of 6 times. Is there a copy of his paper available yet, or any other information? My general impression has been that codeposition is

Re: [Vo]:Request for "fusion" definition

- Original Message > From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Tue, March 23, 2010 6:52:41 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Request for "fusion" definition > > At 05:23 PM 3/23/2010, Harry Veeder wrote: > How do you make > babies? > > In a canoe or in

[Vo]:Miles' "new recipe" for codeposition

In the ACS press conference video Miles states he has a new recipe for codeposition that produced excess heat 6 out of 6 times. Is there a copy of his paper available yet, or any other information? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Here's the video!

At 03:36 PM 3/23/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote: Presenters are M. Miles, G. Miley, V. Vysotskii, P. Hagelstein, M. McKubre and J. Marwan. Jed seems to have left something out. I found it here: http://www.scientificblogging.com/florilegium/blog/cold_fusion_press_conference_video_acs_2010

Re: [Vo]:Request for "fusion" definition

On Mar 23, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 03:46 PM 3/23/2010, Horace Heffner wrote: The term in question I think is "nuclear fusion". There are many definitions which do not mention the Coulomb barrier. However, it appears plasma fusion is often assumed. And the reason is

Re: [Vo]:Krivit's screed has been noticed

At 05:36 PM 3/23/2010, Terry Blanton wrote: On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > Notice how Krivit's presentation is being read. The negativity is being > picked up, the positive aspects, Krivit's assertions that LENR is real, are > not being seen. Maybe it's the Oilie

Re: [Vo]:Request for "fusion" definition

At 05:23 PM 3/23/2010, you wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: And the reason is obvious. Almost all known fusion is plasma, thermonuclear fusion. A.k.a. the brute force method. In the ACS press briefing, Peter Hagelstein called this kind of fusion "vacuum reactions" which I think is a good t

Re: [Vo]:Fusion confusion

On Mar 23, 2010, at 1:38 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: Better to argue about why it happens than if it happens. And how! My oversight. 8^) Once again a bad choice of words on my part. Ultimately no one can answer why. T (int

Re: [Vo]:Rossi

On Mar 23, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I do not know of any worthwhile secrets in this field in any case. - Jed Well of course not. They're secret! 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:ACS press release for the upcoming cold fusion session: Krivit's folly.

On 03/23/2010 02:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > At 01:27 PM 3/23/2010, Steven Krivit wrote: ... > >> If that's the way you want Vortex to be, not a problem. Journalists >> are used to people coming unglued when we report hard-hitting facts >> that ruffle people's feathers. > > Or when they

Re: [Vo]:Request for "fusion" definition

At 05:23 PM 3/23/2010, Harry Veeder wrote: How do you make babies? In a canoe or in a bed? "Intercourse." A method whereby a man and a woman remove their clothes and come together in a bed to make babies. Therefore if it happens in a canoe, it ain't intercourse. Those people in the canoe,

Re: [Vo]:Krivit's screed has been noticed

This Nature blog is pretty good. It is better than anything else I recall seeing from Nature in the last 21 years. RIP Maddox. As Abd noted this is marred by Steve Krivit making a spectacle of himself. But not by much. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Request for "fusion" definition

Useful comments, Jed, The intent of my original query was to ask if there exists any kind of a perceived battle or struggle going on (subtle or not-so-subtle) pertaining to whether the use of the term, nuclear "fusion", must imply a mechanism of overcoming the Coulomb barrier by some brute force p

Re: [Vo]:Fusion confusion

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: >  Better to argue about why it happens than if it happens. And how! T (intended double entendre)

Re: [Vo]:Krivit's screed has been noticed

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > Notice how Krivit's presentation is being read. The negativity is being > picked up, the positive aspects, Krivit's assertions that LENR is real, are > not being seen. Maybe it's the Oilies? T

Re: [Vo]:Request for "fusion" definition

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: And the reason is obvious. Almost all known fusion is plasma, thermonuclear fusion. A.k.a. the brute force method. In the ACS press briefing, Peter Hagelstein called this kind of fusion "vacuum reactions" which I think is a good term. Regarding words and the defi

Re: [Vo]:Request for "fusion" definition

How do you make babies? In a canoe or in a bed? Harry __ Connect with friends from any web browser - no download required. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA at http://ca.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessenge

Re: [Vo]:Request for "fusion" definition

Fusion mechanism >From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The fusion mechanism is the mechanism by which cell fusion takes place. Cell fusion is the formation of a hybrid cell from two different cells of different species.[1][2] Cells from the same organism may fuse together as well. This is oft

Re: [Vo]:Iron-nitrogen compound forms strongest magnet known

In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:17:42 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] >Iron-nitrogen compound forms strongest magnet known > >March 22, 2010 by Lin Edwards >Fe16N2. Image credit: Kikkawa >Laboratory > >(PhysOrg.com) -- A group of scientists from the >University of >Minnesot

Re: [Vo]:Request for "fusion" definition

At 03:46 PM 3/23/2010, Horace Heffner wrote: The term in question I think is "nuclear fusion". There are many definitions which do not mention the Coulomb barrier. However, it appears plasma fusion is often assumed. And the reason is obvious. Almost all known fusion is plasma, thermonuclear f

Re: [Vo]:Request for "fusion" definition

fusion means to make two things one. It is a much older term than anything we use it to mean. One could say that pouring water into a pan and adding sugar, you have made a fusion of water and sugar. "Nuclear" fusion is something different. You are being way to general, it seems to be. On Tue, Ma

Re: [Vo]:Rossi

Dear Cousin Jed, You are right in principle, we have many elements of *know wha*t and *know how *re the cells. We know the critical parameters but we cannot always achieve them. We definitely have no *know why* because we do not have first class theories that predict, we also do not have second cl

Re: [Vo]:Here's the video!

I recommend everyone see the video. I doubt the content will be a revelation to anyone here but there were some interesting comments by Vysotskii and others. I love Vysotskii's reason for doing the biologic cold fusion research: "because it's interesting." The only news to me is that Melvin

Re: [Vo]:Request for "fusion" definition

>From Alexander: > okay, this isnt a definition of Fusion youre looking for, > but a theory of how fusion works? I'm not looking for a specific theory of how fusion works. My original question was more in tune with what might be considered a sociological query: What does the term "fusion" define

Re: [Vo]:Fusion confusion

It strikes me as a good thing to have debate of public interest regarding the causes of cold fusion and heavy element low energy nuclear reactions. Better to argue about why it happens than if it happens. However, it is also clearly useful to assume the integrity of the scientists involve

[Vo]:Krivit's screed has been noticed

http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2010/03/acs_cold_fusion_calorimeter.html Still skeptical, but you can tell she's beginning to think, Katherine Sanderson notes this: The discussion about excess heat in these reactions could be one of semantics, says Michael McKubre, of SRI International in M

Re: [Vo]:Rossi

Michel Jullian wrote: It is less independent than using a fresh cathode and > your own cell. Which, since you don't really know what makes the original cell work, is even harder than moving the original cell. We know what makes the cells work. With bulk Pd the control parameters are well kno

Re: [Vo]:Request for "fusion" definition

On Mar 23, 2010, at 9:56 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: A question for the Vort Collective: Does the use of the term "Fusion" HAVE to imply there must exist a mechanism or process that directly overcomes the Coulomb barrier - by brute force? The term in question I think is "nuclear

Re: [Vo]:Here's the video!

Presenters are M. Miles, G. Miley, V. Vysotskii, P. Hagelstein, M. McKubre and J. Marwan. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Request for "fusion" definition

okay, this isnt a definition of Fusion youre looking for , but a theory of how fusion works? Two different things my friend. On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:44 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: > From Alexander: > >> I was under the impression that nuclear fusion means any process that >> fuse

Re: [Vo]:Request for "fusion" definition

At 01:56 PM 3/23/2010, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: A question for the Vort Collective: Does the use of the term "Fusion" HAVE to imply there must exist a mechanism or process that directly overcomes the Coulomb barrier - by brute force? Absolutely not. Muon-catalyzed fusion does it th

Re: [Vo]:ACS press release for the upcoming cold fusion session: Krivit's folly.

Steven Krivit wrote: I see by the subject header that some messages on Vortex have been directed at me personally again. I had thought people on Vortex were more mature than this. Oh come off it. The only person who has insulted you is you. You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to pr

Re: [Vo]:Rossi

Michel Jullian wrote: If I was the inventor, I would take my cold fusion cell, *as a black box to preserve my secrets*, to whatever authority accepts to test it I do not think there is any chance that would work. I have never seen a cold fusion experiment that did require disassembling the ce

[Vo]:Iron-nitrogen compound forms strongest magnet known

Iron-nitrogen compound forms strongest magnet known March 22, 2010 by Lin Edwards Fe16N2. Image credit: Kikkawa Laboratory (PhysOrg.com) -- A group of scientists from the University of Minnesota say that Fe16N2 crystals are more magnetic than the most magnetic material previously known, a

[Vo]:Here's the video!

Here is the video of the cold fusion press conference at the APS: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/5620243 If that doesn't work there is a link here: http://www.

Re: [Vo]:ACS press release for the upcoming cold fusion session: Krivit's folly.

At 01:27 PM 3/23/2010, Steven Krivit wrote: Dear Vorts, I see by the subject header that some messages on Vortex have been directed at me personally again. I had thought people on Vortex were more mature than this. You did? Where did you get that idea? I had thought people on Vortex had l

Re: [Vo]:Rossi

Dear Peter, If I was the inventor, I would take my cold fusion cell, *as a black box to preserve my secrets*, to whatever authority accepts to test it (Earthtech is willing, if NIST is willing let it be NIST, good idea), to get the excess heat certified. Why, you ask? To make it considerably easi

[Vo]:video of ACS press conference

Video of ACS press conference session for "cold fusion" http://tinyurl.com/ycg2eug http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/5620243#utm_campaigne=synclickback&source=http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/03/miley-20100322.html#more&medium=5620243 Harry

Re: [Vo]:Fusion confusion

At 11:05 AM 3/23/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote: Nick Palmer wrote: Perhaps Steve is defining the W-L theoretical reaction (and any other method that does not involve brute force smashing of the Coulomb barrier) as not fusion to differentiate it/them from the popular perceptions of mainstream scien

Re: [Vo]:Request for "fusion" definition

>From Alexander: > I was under the impression that nuclear fusion means any process that > fuses the nuclei of two or more atoms. ... That may indeed be the impression that many hold. It is, in fact, the impression I hold as well. Nevertheless, I'm also under the impression that many may NOT ad

[Vo]:Consolidated comments on the validity of WL theory

Quoting from the Windom and Larsen (WL) article at: http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0509269v1 "Low energy nuclear reactions in the neighborhood of metallic hydride surfaces may be induced by ultra-low momentum neutrons. Heavy electrons are absorbed by protons or deuterons producing ultra low

Re: [Vo]:Request for "fusion" definition

I was under the impression that nuclear fusion means any process that fuses the nuclei of two or more atoms. On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:56 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: > A question for the Vort Collective: > > Does the use of the term "Fusion" HAVE to imply there must exist a > mechan

[Vo]:Request for "fusion" definition

A question for the Vort Collective: Does the use of the term "Fusion" HAVE to imply there must exist a mechanism or process that directly overcomes the Coulomb barrier - by brute force? Could "fusion" also be used to explain a mechanism or process, a process that is not yet understood and as such

Re: [Vo]:Rossi

2010/3/23 Jed Rothwell : > Michel Jullian wrote: > >> You missed my point about Scott/Earthtech, which is not that they have a >> more sensitive calorimeter (which for kW level power is irrelevant I agree), >> but that they can perform an _independent_ measurement of the device. > as a > practica

Re: [Vo]:Rossi

Dear Michel, I am, modesty apart, quite good in empathy. I can put myself in the place of the inventor. Why, for God's sake should he take his device to Earthtech's lab and make measurments to demonstrate that they get excess heat? Is Earthtech legally such a great authority in calorimetry recogni

[Vo]:Cold Fusion is Cool

http://www.physorg.com/news188377829.html 'Cold fusion' moves closer to mainstream acceptance A potential new energy source so controversial that people once regarded it as junk science is moving closer to acceptance by the mainstream scientific community. That's the conclusion of the organizer o

Re: [Vo]:Rossi

2010/3/23 Peter Gluck : > Dear Michel, > Yes it is based on trust, I could not visit these labs- but I will try to, > this summer. > But this trust is based on knowing the history of the system and its father. > I have not missed any point re Scott Little. I don't believe he or anybody > else will

Re: [Vo]:ACS press release for the upcoming cold fusion session: Krivit's folly.

Dear Vorts, I see by the subject header that some messages on Vortex have been directed at me personally again. I had thought people on Vortex were more mature than this. I had thought people on Vortex had less tolerance for personal attacks. I had thought that personal attacks were unaccept

Re: [Vo]:Fusion confusion

On Mar 23, 2010, at 7:45 AM, Jones Beene wrote: [snip a bunch of stuff with which I agree] I wrote: "Windom and Larsen estimate slow neutrons to be absorbed in less than a nanometer, 10^-9 meter, about 10 angstroms. That is about 10 hydrogen atoms, or 3 Pd atoms in width. If neutrons can ma

[Vo]:It wasn't Krivit relaying questions at the ACS

It turns out the ACS session was broadcast in real time on the web. I wish I had known! Also, Krivit just told me that he wasn't the one relaying questions from Larsen. That was someone else. Anyway, it is a darn good idea to have people participate via the web. I wish the ICCF conferences woul

Re: [Vo]:Rossi

Michel Jullian wrote: >> Which parties? > > Please ask me again in 3 months. I thought you didn't want to know any CF information that you could not divulgate ;-) Seriously, that is my rule. I am bending it slightly. That's Arthur Clarke's rule, also expressed by Steve Early of the FDR admi

[Vo]:Krivit should learn to speak academese

I think this is partly a matter of form. Marwan may have judged these slides inappropriate because they use the wrong style of speech. I would have tossed them out for that reason. It is a matter of saying things in a certain way. In a formal presentation at a chemistry conference, you can say

RE: [Vo]:Fusion confusion

Nick, Please look at Horace's prior comments on this in the archive. They are right on. By claiming a beta decay and an "ultra-low momentum neutron" - W-L do NOT avoid the problem of "fusion" (including NA and transmutation). They merely make it a secondary step and avoid talking about it. Plus

Re: [Vo]:Rossi

Dear Michel, Yes it is based on trust, I could not visit these labs- but I will try to, this summer. But this trust is based on knowing the history of the system and its father. I have not missed any point re Scott Little. I don't believe he or anybody else will be able to reproduce the working s

Re: [Vo]:Rossi

2010/3/23 Jed Rothwell : > Michel Jullian wrote: > >> > You need not worry about that sort of thing. >> > I have been in contact with >> > both parties, >> > and they have already taken apart the cells. >> >> Which parties? > > Please ask me again in 3 months. I thought you didn't want to know any

Re: [Vo]:Rossi

Michel Jullian wrote: You missed my point about Scott/Earthtech, which is not that they have a more sensitive calorimeter (which for kW level power is irrelevant I agree), but that they can perform an _independent_ measurement of the device. As a practical matter, given the difficulties of d

Re: [Vo]:Fusion confusion

Nick Palmer wrote: Perhaps Steve is defining the W-L theoretical reaction (and any other method that does not involve brute force smashing of the Coulomb barrier) as not fusion to differentiate it/them from the popular perceptions of mainstream science that Cold Fusion cannot happen because o

Re: [Vo]:Rossi

Dear Peter, Let me see if I understand, you believe the Rossi Focardi claims because you believe Piantelli when he _says_ he too has 100% reproducible intense excess heat with Ni-H. It's all based on trust, right? You missed my point about Scott/Earthtech, which is not that they have a more sensi

Re: [Vo]:ACS press release for the upcoming cold fusion session: Krivit's folly.

I wrote: The slides shown in the video are here: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/RealityOfLENRMythologyColdFusion.shtml I meant HERE: http://ne

Re: [Vo]:Rossi

Michel Jullian wrote: > You need not worry about that sort of thing. > I have been in contact with > both parties, > and they have already taken apart the cells. Which parties? Please ask me again in 3 months. 6 or 7 kg would be the weight of a complete 1kW device, and the US is not the on

Re: [Vo]:Rossi

Dear Michel, I believe the claims because I know the history of the system invented by Piantelli, I admire Piantelli and trust him. And he says the system is 100% reproducible and the heat release is intense. And you have to take great care with scale-up. I have no idea how Focardi who was a colla

Re: [Vo]:Fusion confusion

ABD Perhaps Steve is defining the W-L theoretical reaction (and any other method that does not involve brute force smashing of the Coulomb barrier) as not fusion to differentiate it/them from the popular perceptions of mainstream science that Cold Fusion cannot happen because of the Coulomb ba

Re: [Vo]:Rossi

2010/3/21 Peter Gluck : > Merci beaucoup, Michel... > My interest is in technology and this resurrection or rejuvenation of the > Piantelli system > is the first really interesting event after many years. It is a great > mystery what has happened between 1994 and 2008, it is crucial to know when >

Re: [Vo]:Rossi

2010/3/21 Jed Rothwell : > Michel Jullian wrote: > >> >> Such an evaluation is not foolproof, as even if the experimental setup is >> made fully open to the experts and they find nothing wrong with it (heating >> resistor current as advertised etc), there is no way to be sure there isn't >> a munda