Amoco (Oil Company) replication of cold fusion experiment in 1994.
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1994/1994Lautzenhiser-Amoco-Cold-Fusion-Short.pdf
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1994/1994Lautzenhiser-Amoco-Cold-Fusion-Long.pdf
quote from Amoco document
This report will discuss briefly some of the early calorimetric
experiments on cold fusion and in more detail, a single experiment
just concluded.A closed cell electrolytic experiment has been
conducted using a palladium cathode and platinum anode with accurate
(+/-0.001
A cleaner copy is here:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhiscoldfusion.pdf
See also:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhisconstanthe.pdf
- Jed
In ecatnews.com http://ecatnews.com/?p=1727, Paul Story commented:
[The idea that we have two fraudulant entities outbidding each
other in an open exchange of illusionary pricing – shouting at
each other from opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean – is too
bizarre to be given space except in
Paul Story wrote:
[The idea that we have two fraudulant entities outbidding each
other in an open exchange of illusionary pricing – shouting at
each other from opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean – is too
bizarre to be given space except in recognising it as a small
possibility.]
Add to
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 7:18 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Add to that a scenario in which Defkalion has set up a large, expensive
fake laboratory staffed by genuine experts being paid to pretend they are
doing research. The whole notion is so implausible I can't imagine why
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 2:13 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
My particular part in this effort was that I was to prototype a
mass-marketable version of the PLATO network, which I did circa 1980. I
won't go into the details of that network except to say that the
contribution it
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
What *is* likely is that Defkalion believed that they were going to
receive a working core module from Rossi in June 2011. It is also likely
that they prepared equipment and labs based on what they thought this core
would be like according to
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
The people who have been there can estimate that by looking. They know
what laboratory equipment costs.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could hear from these people directly and see
photos of what they saw (within the
Mary Yugo wrote:
Wouldn't it be nice if we could hear from these people directly and
see photos of what they saw (within the needed limits to protect trade
secrets)?
I am trying to arrange that. It might help if you and others would stop
making outrageous, baseless, ignorant attacks against
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
I am trying to arrange that. It might help if you and others would stop
making outrageous, baseless, ignorant attacks against them. Generally
speaking, people are not inclined to share information when you accuse them
Mary Yugo wrote:
I don't recall accusing anyone of anything. I raise possibilities
which should be very easy to knock down.
You do accuse people. You make endlessly repeated ignorant, snide
comments about subjects you know nothing about. You could easily learn
about these things, but you
I wrote:
A cleaner copy is here:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhiscoldfusion.pdf
The authors went over this. They may have made a few corrections. I seem to
recall there was a problem with a figure, which we fixed.
This is easier to read, and quote from.
Note the Discussion, which
-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com
There are secondary nuclear reactions but most of the energy gain is from
accelerated protons.
Robin: This implies close proximity between proton and target nucleus.
Yes. That is essentially the gist of combining Miley/Holmlid with
-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com
As I pointed out on this list a few weeks back (though it may not have
been noticed in the deluge), this doesn't work because close is much
smaller than atomic dimensions, which means that there is no (Lawandy)
surface to speak of.
You are
Pardon if this is old news on Vortex, but I was surprised to find this
2003 USPTO patent application --
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2003/0112916.html
Cold nuclear fusion under non-equilibrium conditions
United States Patent Application 20030112916 Kind Code: A1
Inventors:
Keeney,
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
Titanic step forward? Better is gigantic management strategy blunder!
To use mild euphemisms- this plan is naive, childish, primitive savage
capitalistic thinking and self-destructive strategy.
To use dumping on an endless, insatiable market- you cannot
Perhaps it would be necessary to define better
|experienced business man Obviously you learn from bitter failures (as
Petroldragon) but the experience of successful campaigns is irrreplaceable
see e.g. Jobs' career -succces breeds succes.
To frighten Defkalion? How exactly? They are really
From Jed:
I wrote:
A cleaner copy is here:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhiscoldfusion.pdf
Yes, adding page numbering would be useful.
When was the original report published? I don't see a date displayed on the
PDF copy.
Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
I continue to update The Rossi Ni + p Byproduct Riddle:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NiProtonRiddle.pdf
The most recent addition is the following section:
THE MYSTERY OF 2 H, 4 H AND 6 H TRANSMUTATIONS
One of the mysteries of deuterium cold fusion transmutation is why 1,
2, 4, or 6
OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
When was the original report published? I don't see a date displayed on the
PDF copy.
It was circulated around 1994. They brought a copy to ICCF-4 (1994). I
well remember what happened when showed it to John Huizenga. He turned
green and fled. It
What a surprise to me!
If cold fusion patents are suddenly allowed, I can not imagine this
kind of patent holding up in general upon challenging in court in
infringement proceedings. The application was made in 2000. Most
everything was invented, published or publicly discussed in
On 12/27/2011 07:13 PM, James Bowery wrote:
A young Nebraska farmer's son went to war against Germany and came back
with code-breaking skills, as well as good DoD contacts. His name was
William Norris. He started Control Data Corporation with a young engineer
named Seymour Cray and, with 34
That was messed up! They sent me Fig. R5 but I forgot to add it. I added it
in now, plus I added page numbers. You may need to reload the file to see
them:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhiscoldfusion.pdf
- Jed
On 12/27/2011 05:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Jones Beenejone...@pacbell.net wrote:
A contrarian opinion: DoE will never relent nor alter its stance against
LENR ... at least not so long as there is a DoD.
* I assume you mean as long as there is a DoE. I agree.
No, I mean DoD - DoD
Say, if CF breaks as conventional, and this patent is issued, maybe
this is intended to provide an excuse for the patent office to reject
all subsequent cold fusion patent application claims based on
infringement of prior art, until this patent is successfully challenged.
On Dec 28, 2011,
I wrote:
I talked to one of the researchers and some people who assisted. The
old company did not suppress this
I meant the oil company not the old company. I wasn't even using
dictation. I got that wrong the old fashioned way.
This file was originally dated March 19, 1990.
I have an
Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote:
Cold fusion does not appear to be a chain reaction, so I do not see how it
could be used in a weapon.
By not being the direct cause of a chain reaction?
Yup. I think only a chain reaction would be fast enough to evolve into a
major explosion before the
On 11-12-28 05:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
There is no doubt you can make a small explosion with cold fusion.
People have already done that, by accident. Mizuno nearly killed
himself doing that. See:
http://lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm#PhotosAccidents
Thanks for the link, Jed!
I recalled
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:17:21 -0900:
Hi,
[snip]
It is notable that the
radioactive isotopes of these elements tend to have nonzero nuclear
magnetic moments.
...notable perhaps, but hardly surprising. Pair forming results in stability,
hence nuclei with
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:10:20 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com
There are secondary nuclear reactions but most of the energy gain is from
accelerated protons.
Robin: This implies close proximity between proton and target
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:10:20 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com
As I pointed out on this list a few weeks back (though it may not have
been noticed in the deluge), this doesn't work because close is much
smaller than atomic
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
Mary Yugo wrote:
I don't recall accusing anyone of anything. I raise possibilities which
should be very easy to knock down.
You do accuse people.
Cite it or don't say it. Who did I accuse and of what and where
-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com
As I pointed out on this list a few weeks back (though it may not have
been noticed in the deluge), this doesn't work because close is much
smaller than atomic dimensions, which means that there is no (Lawandy)
surface to speak of.
You are
-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com
You were talking about protons. I can think of only two examples where the
binding energy of a proton is negative.
1. Protium.
2. Helium.
Bingo. But do not miss the forest for the trees. The bottom line is that we
are only interested in the
On 11-12-28 08:40 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo wrote:
I don't recall accusing anyone of anything. I raise
possibilities which should be very easy to knock down.
On 11-12-28 03:09 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I wrote:
A cleaner copy is here:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhiscoldfusion.pdf
The authors went over this. They may have made a few corrections. I
seem to recall there was a problem with a figure, which we fixed.
The title of
Christmas comet, named Lovejoy no less:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2398066,00.asp
http://www.space.com/14045-spectacular-christmas-comet-amazes-skywatchers-ch
ile.html
This kind of thing had staggering importance a few thousand years ago ...
g
attachment: winmail.dat
On 11-12-28 04:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I talked to one of the researchers and some people who assisted. The
oil company did not suppress this result. The researchers could not
reproduce it. After years of trying they finally gave up. However,
they stand by the original result.
Jed, do
This was abandoned in 2004 after a non-final rejection by USPTO 1/21/2004.
Click Public PAIR link on http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/status/
Choose Application Number and insert 09/514,202
Choose Image File Wrapper tab when this application opens, then the
correspondence and actions can be
This patent application seems like one Fleischmann and Pons would have
written as well. Sad that Jones and F-P didn't cooperate and avoid a lot
of wasted time.
Horace Heffner wrote:
Say, if CF breaks as conventional, and this patent is issued, maybe
this is intended to provide an excuse for
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote:
**
On 11-12-28 08:40 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
Unless I'm greatly mistaken, you've accused a number of people of failing
to exist.
The only allegation of non existence I've ever made is the non-existence of
a proper and
Wow. Yes, indeed, this should be read. Whatever the intent of the
nonsensically broad claims, it did not work out very well! The PTO
examiner, John Richardson, did a great job on the rejection. He
cites Pons, Miley, etc.
Unfortunately, I could only download a page at a time. The
43 matches
Mail list logo