[Vo]:Godes patent application - apparent confusion over anode vs. cathode

[Jeff Berkowitz]

I'm looking at the Godes/Brillouin patent application:
http://www.google.com/patents/US20110122984?hl=en

In figure 3C, the circuit diagram of the drive circuitry, there are
effectively three "outputs" at right: the two connection points labeled
J1-1 and J1-2, and the bulb-shaped object that is dual-labeled "Cathode"
and "F04" at right center. Then in paragraph 0045 of the text, we read:
"The center tap on the secondary of transformer T8 attached to the cathode
[...] of the loading current source."

But in Figure 9, we see three connections from the controller to the beaker
on the left (the fourth line to the left beaker is a sensor). Two of the
controller connections run to the object labeled "Cathode" in the beaker,
one to the "Anode". It's tempting to assume the paired connections to the
"Cathode" correspond to J1-1 and J1-2 in figure 3C, so the other connection
to "Anode" in Figure 9 must be the bulb shaped object which is
unfortunately labeled "Cathode" in 3C.

Thinking about this, I think that Figure 9 is correct. Figure 3C and
paragraph 0045 are in error; the bulb-shaped object in 3C should be labeled
"Anode". Here's why:

1) Looking back at the circuit diagram 3C, it makes sense for the "reactant
loading pulse" to run to the anode. In other words, instead of an ordinary
continuous DC electrolytic cell, Godes is pulsing the current to the anode.
By controlling pulse width and frequency, he can control the rate of the
electrolysis reaction.

2) J1-1 and J1-2, on the other hand, run to the ends of the taps on the
transformer. I believe the drive circuitry at lower left, combined with the
caps C2 and C5, form a differentiator: the circuit generates short,
powerful spikes across the primary of T8 as the big power FETs at lower
left switch on and off. These spikes (the "Q pulses") couple across the
isolation transformer T8 and  look like AC to the core since the are
referenced to the sort of "virtual ground" formed by the center tap of T8.

Thoughts?

Jeff

[Vo]:Free Energy for All Mankind (Almost)

[Terry Blanton]

H,L & S

http://i.imgur.com/X7d8m.png

:-)

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 05:06 PM 9/26/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:

See, almost immediately, after the announcement, a huge number of 
groups started to attempt replication.



People often say this, but I do not see much evidence for it. As far 
as I know, during the first year roughly 150 to 200 groups attempted 
to replicate. After a year roughly 100 succeeded. That's not a huge number.


That is not the whole story. I have come across many stories of 
people who attempted replication, in one way or another, and who 
never published. I'm trying to remember where I read that a major 
fraction of the discretionary research budget of the U.S. was devoted 
to investigating the effect, for a short time. It really was a huge 
flap, I remember.


I may have mentioned before that we put $10,000 into palladium metal, 
a Credit Suisse metal account, as quickly as we could, when I heard 
about the work. I wasn't quite quick enough or I might have made a 
little money, but I think we did break even.


I knew it was a long shot, that's one reason we didn't buy futures. 
The metal wasn't going to collapse as it happened, if we had held 
on to that palladium for substantially longer, we'd have cleaned up. 
It was selling for about $130 per ounce when we bought. It went to 
over $1000 per ounce at the peak. That was all from catalytic converter demand.


It was much more diffcult to replicate than expected. And the effect 
was famously cantankerous, so cantankerous that I still consider it 
quite possible that PdD will never be reliable, usuable for 
commercial applications. Maybe it will. It's quite likely that we'll 
need to understand it first.


NiH is enticing. But we don't know what the ash is, and, similarly, 
the reality is still questionable. That is, there is plenty of room 
for skepticism on NiH.


We know from PdD not to declare NiH impossible. But it's obviously 
different. So what is it?


Again, *we don't know.*

Maybe it's space aliens. I'm kinda liking that explanation. I can 
move it around and explain anything with it. Are they *friendly* 
space aliens? I'd like to think so. 

Re: [Vo]:Anomalous heat beyond chemistry proves that cold fusion is nuclear

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 05:53 PM 9/26/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


Fleischmann and I disagree, for reasons I believe Lomax is familiar with.


Please don't recruit Fleischmann to your own personal cause.


It is more the other way around.


I'm not disagreeing with Fleischmann, he's acknowledged his error 
in the original announcement.


Incorrect. He and many others say that that the heat alone is proof 
this is a nuclear reaction, probably fusion. You may disagree, but 
that is what they say. The error in his original announcement was 
about the neutrons, as we all know. In other words, it turned out to 
be almost completely a-neutronic fusion.


Evidence, I agree. Proof, no. Important difference. It's the 
difference between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence. "It 
couldn't be anything else" is always circumstantial evidence.


I do agree that the accumulated evidence on heat, considered all 
together, became very strong. But it wasn't proof until heat/helium was found.



1. Heat beyond the limits of chemistry in a cell with no chemical 
transformations can only be explained as a nuclear effect. No 
other heat effect is known to science. Perhaps it is shrinking 
hydrogen or some other exotic new thing, but I doubt it.


Anomaly means an unknown effect. An unknown effect must be due to 
space aliens. No, Zero Point Energy. No, hydrinos. No, systematic 
experimental error. No, damn it! nuclear reactions.


That's silly. Fleischmann did not believe it could be space aliens 
or ZPE. He said that that most likely explanation was fusion. You 
seem to be disputing that is what he thought, and that is what he said.


He was right, but it was touch and go for quite a while. He was wrong 
about the reaction being in the bulk, and that was quite damaging, as 
Pons and Fleischmann predicted that helium would be found in the 
bulk. When it wasn't, it looked bad.


No, he thought it was fusion. The error was in announcing that it 
might be fusion when the *specific evidence* for fusion was lacking, 
specifically the ash. They knew quite well that they had not 
identified the ash. Fleischmann, as I recall, specifically regretting 
calling the effect "nuclear."


It is not that he was wrong. He was right. It's that it was 
premature, and with a discovery of this magnitude, "premature" was 
quite damaging, because it was *visibly* premature. Fleischmann was 
confident of his calorimetry, others would not be so, no matter what. 
The neutron error was devastating, it created (unfairly, but that's 
the way the world is) an impression of incompetence.


Understand that I think they fully deserve the Nobel Prize for what 
they discovered. They did not discover cold fusion by accident. They 
were looking for a possible anomaly. What astonished them was how 
large it was. They knew it was likely that the predictions of 
"approximate quantum mechanics" for fusion rates in PdD were 
inaccurate, but they did not expect such a large error. They thought 
it would probably be below detection. But they looked anyway, and 
that's why they deserve the prize.


And mistakes were made.

Look, you don't have to agree, but you should acknowledge this is a 
normal, logical, valid argument. Since we only know for sure that 
one other heat-generating phenomenon exists -- fusion -- that is the 
best candidate. Space aliens probably do not exist. ZPE seems 
problematic, as does shrinking hydrogen and the other candidates.


Hydrinos, if I didn't know about heat/helium, would look pretty 
likely to me as a possible explanation. ZPE isn't impossible. Space 
aliens -- what, probably don't exist? What in the world makes you 
think that? What's quite unlikely would be that they would be 
visiting us. It's a big universe, there is no particular basis for 
thinking we are totally unique in it. But  it's *big.* Travel 
from the closest life location is very likely ridiculous.


But maybe there are things we don't know. And, in fact, there are 
almost *certainly* lots of things we don't know.


The point is that argument by elimination is weak, and, in fact, the 
"fusion" that was known was (1) probably impossible and (2) very much 
unlike cold fusion. So concluding that, if there is anomalous heat, 
it must be "fusion" was a huge red herring.


There was anomalous heat. Now what? The question would be to identify 
the source, not imagine it from elimination. Obviously, one of the 
places to look would be for possible ash. And helium was a great 
candidate. As you know, there was a lot of search for tritium as 
well, and tritium was found, but at levels way too low to explain the 
heat if tritium was a major product. There shouldn't have been any 
tritium, really, at the levels reported, but that work was never 
strongly confirmed, there were, instead, a pile of anecdotal reports, 
tantalizing.


I don't think the skeptics were stupid. There were plenty of reasons 
to be and to remain skeptical. However, heat/helium. I really don't 

Re: [Vo]:Martian Pyramid

[LORENHEYER]

Yes, microorganisms have been building not only pyramids for countless 
billions of years, but many other various shaped structures as well. Pt... 
highly advanced  civilizations are building pyramids thruout the planets 
and/or their moons in our star system, because, they're trying to make everyone 
on earth think the egyptians have long since made tremendous progress with 
their technology you know, the kind that levitates giant stones via a 
secret antigravity device.  
   Pyramids are really just 
natural odd or rare rock formations odd or rare that become exposed over 
time as the wind blows away the surrounding dirt or dust.   

<< Tiny pyramid discovered on Mars...
 
 
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/storm_watch_stories3&stormfile=Curiosity_discovers_martian_pyrmaid_21_09_2012
 
 therefore Martians are tiny.
 
 Harry >>

Re: [Vo]:Martian Pyramid

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 07:02 PM 9/26/2012, Harry Veeder wrote:

Tiny pyramid discovered on Mars...

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/storm_watch_stories3&stormfile=Curiosity_discovers_martian_pyrmaid_21_09_2012

therefore Martians are tiny.


Pseudoskeptic!

It's obvious from the photo that the pyramid is an active focus for 
interdimensional energy that sweeps the immediate vicinity clear of 
the pebbles that are otherwise all over the ground there.


There is no other possible explanation. This is a true interstellar 
artifact, not Martian, it's from an advanced technology far ahead of 
anything that this solar system could have produced in the short time 
since Mars was formed. 

Re: [Vo]:Free Energy for All Mankind (Almost)

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 10:23 AM 9/26/2012, lorenhe...@aol.com wrote:

Initially, upon reading the statement below of Quenco's "Quantum Energy
Converter",  I can't help but think how promising this technology is.


No kidding?

Hey, I have a technology, I'll announce it soon, that will transform 
human society. People will be empowered, free, fully self-expressed, 
with peace of mind. Cheap. Amazingly reliable.


Promising?

Hey, I actually have this. (People familiar with it will recognize it 
from what I wrote. It's not new.)


So what if I said I have a pill that will cure every disease, by 
activating the body's own repair systems. How "promising" is this?


It certainly is, eh?

But ... I don't have that. I made it up.

There is no Quantum Energy Technology. Not that we know of. What we 
know is that someone, anonymous, and deliberately so, claims that 
there is. Without actually describing it beyond it is a "thin film" 
which converts heat to electricity, using something that amounts to 
Maxwell's Demon.


Perhaps some people don't know what Maxwell's Demon is. It's a 
theoretical construct, a thought-experiment, created by Maxwell to 
illustrate a point. Suppose we have a teeny door, and able to open 
and close the door is a demon. The door and demon are sitting between 
two regions, filled with a gas, say. The demon watches for slow 
molecules, and when the demon sees on, opens the door so the molecule 
will go through, closing it immediately. Fast molecule just bounces.


The result, repeated over massive numbers of molecules, is that one 
side gets hot and the other gets cold. There could be variations on 
the idea that work -- in thought -- with electrons, so that a voltage 
builds up on one side and is lowered on the other, creating a voltage 
difference and thus a power source.


As I understand this, there is no known process that serves to 
actually separate molecules like this, without affecting the 
molecular velocities, and to do that takes energy. The use of 
Maxwell's Demon probably violates the Uncertainty Principle.


They aren't kidding that this would be revolutionary physics. 
Astonishing, tremendous, world-shaking revolutionary physics. So why 
am I not emailing them, getting a ticket, and flying out to California?


Because it is so utterly fantastic and unlikey, and there is zero 
credibility behind it. An anonymous domain registration and an 
anonymous web page.


Okay, is there any prior evidence regarding this. And there is. I 
searched for "Quenco" and found:


http://www.magnetosynergie.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=871

This led back to the quenco web page, but also to:

http://www.overunity.com/12207/quentron-com/#.UGOX_lK9qmw

Previously we had expected to make a public announcement in early 
May 2012, however we have revised our plans and now have scheduled 
to make available a full press release on June 11 (2012), to the 
extent that we can, without harming IP rights, we will also publish 
certificates, lab reports and video of operating devices.



Bad sign. Promised by May 2012, not done, revised to June 11, still not done.

Another bad sign: allergic to "sceptics."

However, Philip Hardcastle has been posting to OU.com since 2008, 
http://www.overunity.com/5002/hardcastlesolomon-thermionic-generator/msg107817/#msg107817


Now, that first thread is quite interesting. It begins with prior 
work of Mr. Hardcastle. The web site mentioned is gone. The internet 
archive has many captures, but they are all blank. It looks like the 
site may have contained images that were not captured. Or they were 
removed. That can be done.


The technology described looks completely different from the recent 
thin film claim. So what happened to the old technology? This is 
someone who has, previously, claimed a Maxwell's Demon. Reading 
between the lines, he had no experimental device. Too expensive to 
build. It was totally theoretical.


Okay, found Hardcastle on PESwiki. 
http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:Rotating_Thermionic_Generator 
Hardcastle requested that the page be removed. It's readable in 
history. 
http://peswiki.com/index.php?title=PowerPedia:Rotating_Thermionic_Generator&oldid=78066


Okay, Hardcastle claimed to have an invention that would convert heat 
to electricity, serving as a refrigerator as well. I.e., conservation 
of energy. But what happened to it? This wasn't "thin film," it was a 
mechanical device, in part, spraying electrons onto a rotating disk. 
Enthusiastic promotion, zero result. Hardcastle disappeared from 
OU.com for many months, people were worried about him, then he came 
back and explained. It was PESwiki's fault, or that's a snarky way to say it.


http://www.overunity.com/5002/hardcastlesolomon-thermionic-generator/msg159592/#msg159592

But hope springs eternal. Hardcastle then had a new "invention." 
Curled Ballistic Thermionics. Rotating disc again.


http://www.overunity.com/6904/curled-ballisitic-thermionics/msg160354/#msg160354

Hardcastle appeals to t

[Vo]:Martian Pyramid

[Harry Veeder]

Tiny pyramid discovered on Mars...

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/storm_watch_stories3&stormfile=Curiosity_discovers_martian_pyrmaid_21_09_2012

therefore Martians are tiny.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Anomalous heat beyond chemistry proves that cold fusion is nuclear

[Jed Rothwell]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

Fleischmann and I disagree, for reasons I believe Lomax is familiar 
with.


Please don't recruit Fleischmann to your own personal cause.


It is more the other way around.


I'm not disagreeing with Fleischmann, he's acknowledged his error in 
the original announcement.


Incorrect. He and many others say that that the heat alone is proof this 
is a nuclear reaction, probably fusion. You may disagree, but that is 
what they say. The error in his original announcement was about the 
neutrons, as we all know. In other words, it turned out to be almost 
completely a-neutronic fusion.


1. Heat beyond the limits of chemistry in a cell with no chemical 
transformations can only be explained as a nuclear effect. No other 
heat effect is known to science. Perhaps it is shrinking hydrogen or 
some other exotic new thing, but I doubt it.


Anomaly means an unknown effect. An unknown effect must be due to 
space aliens. No, Zero Point Energy. No, hydrinos. No, systematic 
experimental error. No, damn it! nuclear reactions.


That's silly. Fleischmann did not believe it could be space aliens or 
ZPE. He said that that most likely explanation was fusion. You seem to 
be disputing that is what he thought, and that is what he said.


Look, you don't have to agree, but you should acknowledge this is a 
normal, logical, valid argument. Since we only know for sure that one 
other heat-generating phenomenon exists -- fusion -- that is the best 
candidate. Space aliens probably do not exist. ZPE seems problematic, as 
does shrinking hydrogen and the other candidates.


You apparently think that other candidates are viable, or that we do not 
even have enough evidence to rule in fusion. Fair enough. You have a 
right to that opinion. But do not denigrate Fleischmann or I, and do not 
make fun our views by citing space aliens and the like.


And don't tell me that is not what he thought. He told me that himself 
on many occasions. I resent being told I am "recruiting" him.




*We don't know.*


Yeah, yeah, okay. But we sure as heck can make an educated guess.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Anomalous heat beyond chemistry proves that cold fusion is nuclear

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 09:50 AM 9/26/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
<a...@lomaxdesign.com> keeps saying thing 
like this, which I find a little tiresome:


Okay, an anomaly. Very important point: anomaly does not equal cold 
fusion. It means something unexplained.


If the level of heat is high, it may indicate a nuclear effect. I 
don't think that is the case here. The heat is simply unexplained.



Fleischmann and I disagree, for reasons I believe Lomax is familiar with.


Please don't recruit Fleischmann to your own personal cause. I'm not 
disagreeing with Fleischmann, he's acknowledged his error in the 
original announcement.


After I wrote the commentary below, I came to see clearly how my 
expression confused Jed. I was not saying that the effect was not 
nuclear. I was saying that the heat was not "high." That's based on 
an assumption that this is the Arata effect, which generally shows 
low heat. If the heat were high, calorimetry could strongly indicate 
nuclear from the sheer level of it. This would be *circumstantial 
evidence.* If low, though, that's not so strong. There might still be 
some chemistry going on. And there is chemistry involved in these 
experiments, that's what kept Kidwell from just jumping for "nuclear."


This point, taken from legitimate skepticism, should be noted: a heat 
effect is not clearly nuclear unless there is clearly nuclear 
evidence for it. Examples of nuclear evidence would be transmuted 
elements or radiation, correlated with the effect.



 They are:

1. Heat beyond the limits of chemistry in a cell with no chemical 
transformations can only be explained as a nuclear effect. No other 
heat effect is known to science. Perhaps it is shrinking hydrogen or 
some other exotic new thing, but I doubt it.


Anomaly means an unknown effect. An unknown effect must be due to 
space aliens. No, Zero Point Energy. No, hydrinos. No, systematic 
experimental error. No, damn it! nuclear reactions.


2. We assume that Kidwell observed the same phenomenon as other 
people have seen with hydrides. It is unreasonable to assume there 
are many different, unrelated, heretofore undiscovered anomalous 
heat generating phenomena in hydrides. (McKubre's conservation of miracles.)


Conservation of miracles is not a scientific law, it is a heuristic, 
sometimes useful. I assume the same thing, though, about Kidwell's work.



3. In other experiments, the heat has been correlated with helium. 
Again, it is reasonable to assume that it correlates in this 
experiment as well, even thought that has not been measured.


Since this was a deuterium experiment, like Arata, I indeed assume 
that heat will be correlated with helium. Therefore, if there is some 
doubt about the effect being nuclear, it becomes highly advisable to 
test for helium. If there is correlated helium, the effect is 
nuclear. If not, it is very likely, in this case, something else. 
*But I don't expect that outcome. Helium is very likely to be 
correlated with the heat, that is my very point.*


Jed, you completely missed the point.

You do not need to start from scratch and prove every single aspect 
of cold fusion in every single experiment. The helium means this is fusion.


Yes. That's not totally conclusive, for helium can be produced by 
fission or nuclear decay. But with a PdD experiment, as Kidwell was, 
and if the heat/helium ratio can be nailed to within experimental 
error of 23.8 MeV, the evidence becomes extremely strong that the 
reaction is some kind of deuterium fusion. That is all the more 
reason to make the measurements, because every experiment that 
confirms heat/helium nails another nail in the pseudoskeptical 
criticism that this has not been confirmed widely enough. It serves, 
then, two purposes, confirming the calorimetry and generally 
confirming (or disconfirming, we need to remember that this is at 
least theoretically possible) the heat/helium ratio, our strongest 
clue that the reaction is, indeed, deuterium fusion and not some 
other nuclear reaction.


 Whatever else it may be, it is also fusion. The WL theory is 
pretty much the same as fusion as far as I can see. Those who 
disagree are quibbling, like people who say that Shakespeare did 
not write his plays; it was another man of the same name.


I'll be specific about the "quibble." Widom and Larsen attempt to 
explain helium through a series of reactions that essentially take 
deuterium, convert it to neutrons, which can then enter nuclei and 
form transmuted products, with this ending up as helium. (There are 
tons of problems with this theory, but I won't go there now). I've 
made the point that this is, indeed, fusion, as to what it 
accomplishes. The *result* is fusion. The mechanism is different. And 
that's why I say "deuterium fusion through an unknown mechanism."


You will notice that those who denounce the "fusion" in cold fusion, 
but who support LENR, consistently interpret "fusion" as meaning 

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites

[Jed Rothwell]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:


> See, almost immediately, after the announcement, a huge number of groups
> started to attempt replication.


People often say this, but I do not see much evidence for it. As far as I
know, during the first year roughly 150 to 200 groups attempted to
replicate. After a year roughly 100 succeeded. That's not a huge number.

See:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGgroupsrepo.pdf

There may have been others but they never published, so they are lost to
history. If people did not even publish, I do not take them seriously.


I'm not looking up Lewis' paper at this point. What I know is that Lewis
> tried to replicate, not knowing what to do. He failed to replicate, that's
> obvious.


Incorrect. He probably succeeded. He did not realize that. His analysis was
wrong. See my paper and the papers by Noninski and Miles linked to it.

As I said, my paper is here:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf

I added the date to it per Haiko's suggestion. Thanks.

- Jed

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 09:48 PM 9/25/2012, Eric Walker wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Abd ul-Rahman 
Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:


None of what has been written recently in this 
thread addresses calorimetry or any evidence of 
nuclear reactions, I want to make that clear. 
That something gets hot sometimes and sometimes 
not isn't even close to such evidence.



Appreciated.


thanks.

The thought was that if you could find a way to 
demonstrate LENR above the error threshold of a 
mercury thermometer, there could be some 
mischievous fun to be had in presenting the toy 
experiment to Lewis, who, it seems to me, made 
the fairly straightforward job of measuring 
the flux of heat in a cell into something 
inordinately complex.  Which is not to say 
there are no subtleties in calorimetry; only 
that it should have been clear that one of the 
best electrochemists in his day would be able to 
work out the power emitted from a P&F cell above 
the error threshold, strongly suggesting that 
there was something going on besides 
experimental artifact. Â Instead, Lewis chose to 
attack the 1989 paper on methodological grounds.


It should have been clear, but we should also 
understand that Lewis was not standing alone. He 
voiced, at that famous APS conference, what many 
were thinking. That's why his speech was wildly popular among physicists.


They weren't thinking about Pons and Fleischman 
as expert electrochemists. They were thinking of 
them as incompetent physicists. P & F were not 
physicists at all, though they certainly knew 
enough physics to know that what they had found 
was supposed to be impossible. What they had set 
out to do was test the physics, with an 
electrochemistry experiment. Apparently 
physicists did not like their theories being tested by outsiders.


Humanly, it's not surprising.

Pons and Fleischmann had made some mistakes, but 
those were rather easily found and corrected, it 
didn't take long. Lewis et al, on the other hand, 
had *institutionalized* some serious errors, and 
that did damage that still continues in popular 
opinion among many scientists, who never gave the 
matter the attention it truly deserved.


That's shifting, as was inevitable, given that 
*not everone* gave up. Anyone who seriously 
followed the field would have realized that 
something was awry by late 1989, as confirmation 
of the resports of XP from PdD started to come 
in. But it's also understandable why this might be dismissed.


See, almost immediately, after the announcement, 
a huge number of groups started to attempt 
replication. It is *not* that the finding was 
ignored, as some of us make out to be the case. 
It was far from ignored. But the exact details of 
what Pons and Fleishcmann had done were not easy 
to come by. If it is possible to make "some 
mistake" with calorimetry -- and it is, we see 
experts debunk results from calorimetry all the 
time, including experts like Dr. Storms -- then 
some percentage of replication efforts would 
include errors. And if there is reporting bias, 
and there is, there might be an appearance of confirmation purely by chance.


Now, a careful analysis would show something 
different, but most scientists, not intimately 
involved with some subfield, aren't going to take 
the time to do that careful analysis. I'm just 
saying that the general reaction was understandable.


However, some scientists should have known 
better. Anyone who wrote a book about the field, 
like Park, should have been far more careful. 
Huizenga wasn't careful, he laced every page with 
notes that what was being claimed was impossible, 
and the argument was always the same: what was 
being reported wasn't like hot fusion. He just 
made the leap to "therefore it wasn't fusion." A 
lot of people did that, it wasn't just him. To 
his credit, he noticed and commented on Miles, 
the heat/helium findings, which were still at a 
level of conference paper. He knew the significance.


All the other skeptics, as far as I know, 
studiously ignored those findings, except for 
Jones, who attemped to refute the work on totally 
spurious grounds. Jones' comments were enough to 
allow many to think that the results were 
questionable. The power of correlation was 
ignored, and we've seen that ignorance even 
recently, with Shanahan, who asks, if the 
calorimetry is garbage, how can heat/helium mean 
anything? Must be some mistake.


Precisely! How could a correlation appear in 
garbage results? That's the whole point! Shanahan 
did not actually show that the calorimetry was 
garbage, only that, he claims, a certain possible 
error had not been ruled out


Shanahan is the last gasp of the pseudoskeptics. 
That position is, I'll keep repeating, dead in 
the journals. Dead as a doornail. But many 
physicists, totally ignorant of what has been 
published since the mid-1990s (and largely, as 
well, of what was actually published before 
then), still believe that i

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites

[James Bowery]

My question is not about Lewis.  It is about the apparent rejection of
basic scientific protocol by those who admitted Lewis's critique for
publication in supposedly "scientific" journals.

It is not an arcane bit of scientific philosophy that full disclosure of
experimental method is required by scientific protocol.  At the point that
P&F held their press conference, and even subsequent to the early working
paper, the P&F phenomenon had not been admitted to the domain of science.
 The P&F phenomenon did not enter the domain of scientific discourse until
a year later.  It was proper for Nature to reject the papers debunking
Lewis's critique because Lewis's critique was not legitimately published in
the first place.  The proper response by the editors of Nature should have
been to issue an erratum withdrawing Lewis's critique from publication.

Of course, when Oriani's experimental results, with full disclosure of
their methods, was approved by Natures peer reviewers, the rejection by
Nature was outrageously unscientific -- albeit not criminal.  Criminality,
however, is properly imputed to those with public trust and authority who
allows these shenanigans to influence public policy.

At the time Lewis's those who took Lewis seriously.

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:07 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Unfortunately, his reputation most likely carried the day.  When someone
> of authority and assumed great knowledge states that cold fusion is a
> measurement error and they can prove it, many people who are watching on
> the sidelines will not want to waste their time.
>
>  I just wish that these so called experts would realize that they have
> limited capabilities, especially in  this particular case, and keep their
> mouths shut.  If Lewis did this knowing that P&F actually had discovered a
> working effect to protect hot fusion research, then he should have been
> drummed out of science.  In my opinion there is no place for such idiocy.
>
>  If he actually thought that the work of P&F was defective, then he can
> be forgiven.  I would expect an apology to be issued by a dedicated
> scientist if he realizes that his work has harmed the world.
>
>  Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: James Bowery 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Wed, Sep 26, 2012 11:56 am
> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs
> 5 cents : Chuck Sites
>
>  On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Chuck Sites  wrote:
>
>> I remember that hit piece in Science from Lewis very well.   It was
>> disturbing and really put the whole of Cold Fusion into doubt.  Nathan
>> Lewis, published a really good analysis on calorimetry  of electrolysis and
>> the physics thermal systems, but he never replicated the P&F effect, for
>> example the "Heat after death" effect Jed Rothwell talks about.  At the
>> time, it put into doubt whether the P&F effect was even real.   After the
>> Lewis article, CF was kind of dead in the main-stream of science.   As it
>> would happen, I was designing my own calorimeter that I never used.   Lewis
>> just blew it for me.
>>
>
> How could Lewis's critique be taken seriously when he didn't even have the
> calorimeter design actually used by P&F?
>

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites

[Jed Rothwell]

James Bowery  wrote:

How could Lewis's critique be taken seriously when he didn't even have the
> calorimeter design actually used by P&F?
>

Here is a paper I wrote about Lewis this August.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Anomalous heat beyond chemistry proves that cold fusion is nuclear

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  keeps saying thing like this,
> which I find a little tiresome . . .
>

I meant only that he should acknowledge Fleischmann's point of view, not
that he should agree.

- Jed

RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Anomalous heat beyond chemistry proves that cold fusion is nuclear

[Roarty, Francis X]

I think COE presently  depends on isotropy above the Planck scale and that the 
same HUP responsible for gas motion can be exploited by lattices that aggregate 
and segregate the isotropy at the nano scale to provide inexhaustible energy 
from natures' wheel works.  I contend that reports of modified decay rates and 
lack of nuclear ash point more to a relativistic solution than fusion and I 
think it is the sudden breaches in isotropy as opposed to the slow square law 
changes of a gravity well that also breach COE .. or at least the rule about 
HUP being too random and too small to contribute.
Fran


From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 10:51 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Anomalous heat beyond chemistry proves that cold fusion 
is nuclear

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com>> keeps 
saying thing like this, which I find a little tiresome:

Okay, an anomaly. Very important point: anomaly does not equal cold fusion. It 
means something unexplained.

If the level of heat is high, it may indicate a nuclear effect. I don't think 
that is the case here. The heat is simply unexplained.

Fleischmann and I disagree, for reasons I believe Lomax is familiar with. They 
are:

1. Heat beyond the limits of chemistry in a cell with no chemical 
transformations can only be explained as a nuclear effect. No other heat effect 
is known to science. Perhaps it is shrinking hydrogen or some other exotic new 
thing, but I doubt it.

2. We assume that Kidwell observed the same phenomenon as other people have 
seen with hydrides. It is unreasonable to assume there are many different, 
unrelated, heretofore undiscovered anomalous heat generating phenomena in 
hydrides. (McKubre's conservation of miracles.)

3. In other experiments, the heat has been correlated with helium. Again, it is 
reasonable to assume that it correlates in this experiment as well, even 
thought that has not been measured. You do not need to start from scratch and 
prove every single aspect of cold fusion in every single experiment. The helium 
means this is fusion. Whatever else it may be, it is also fusion. The WL theory 
is pretty much the same as fusion as far as I can see. Those who disagree are 
quibbling, like people who say that Shakespeare did not write his plays; it was 
another man of the same name.

These are not laws of physics. They are reasonable assumptions. We assume the 
unity of nature. We assume that a phenomenon seen in one experiment is probably 
the same one seen in similar experiments under similar conditions. That is true 
even when we cannot explain the phenomenon. We assume that conventional 
explanations are more likely than radically new hypotheses.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A Hurricane Prediction Based Upon Dark Matter

[LORENHEYER]

All NOAA can do is name names it really is typical.  So anyway, how 
would you feel if they named a hurricane after you Stewart, and it turned out 
to be devastating for millions of people so, I wouldn't want a 
million-strong mob looking to lynch or stomp me into the ground.
   

   So anyway, I think 
if you are in the business of predicting things, then you should be more 
thorough about it, or least try to be. To me, it's quite understandable that 
every  place, nation, or country on this earth will at some time likely undergo 
or suffer some type of environmentally destructive event, whether it's a 
hurricane, tornado, tsunami, volcano, fire, flood, quake, etc..

 Of course there really 
is only one solution to outdoing natures destructive tendencies or wrath, 
and that is to get the One & Only Means of Technology capable of doing it, on 
the drawing board.  Now of course I realize it means that no human beings 
perse' will be required to operate this altogether highly advanced 
technology, but that just makes it all the better (no offense intended to any 
humans 
out there. and, I know you're out there, because I have proof).  Just 
think no more earthly problems! 

<< NOAA named it Nadine not me. They are predicting it will turn North 
anyway.
  I am not sure if that is the low pressure system I am looking for or not.
  Weathermen make wrong predictions all of the time.  If I am wrong I guess
 I might still qualify as one but I will not quit my day job for now.
 
 I like your humor though
 
 
 
 On Tuesday, September 25, 2012, wrote:
 
 > Okay Stew... You've predicted the destination of Nadine, but why didn't 
you
 > mention  why you named it "Nadine"?  So now, if I were to sound it out, 
it
 > sounds very similar the word N-e-e-d-i-n-g? so, what is it that is
 > relative importance you're currently in need of ?... is it wind-energy, a
 > large
 > amount of water for drinking, fishing, etc, etc., or maybe a big spin-off
 > tornado or vortex that sucks you in & sends you to another place? (tee
 > hee).
 >
 >
 > << Theories are useless unless they help us predict.
 >
 >  I have gone out on a limb to predict the destination of tropical storm
 >  Nadine that has been swirling in the gulf the past couple of weeks.  I
 >  believe I am correct unless another dark matter particle interacts at 
some
 >  point along her path and wins out.
 >
 >  http://wp.me/p26aeb-6D
 >
 >  Please pray for me and those in her path or prepare to throw large 
amounts
 >  of egg at my face.
 >
 >  Stewart >> >>

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites

[David Roberson]

Unfortunately, his reputation most likely carried the day.  When someone of 
authority and assumed great knowledge states that cold fusion is a measurement 
error and they can prove it, many people who are watching on the sidelines will 
not want to waste their time.


I just wish that these so called experts would realize that they have limited 
capabilities, especially in  this particular case, and keep their mouths shut.  
If Lewis did this knowing that P&F actually had discovered a working effect to 
protect hot fusion research, then he should have been drummed out of science.  
In my opinion there is no place for such idiocy.


If he actually thought that the work of P&F was defective, then he can be 
forgiven.  I would expect an apology to be issued by a dedicated scientist if 
he realizes that his work has harmed the world.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: James Bowery 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Sep 26, 2012 11:56 am
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 
cents : Chuck Sites


On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Chuck Sites  wrote:

I remember that hit piece in Science from Lewis very well.   It was disturbing 
and really put the whole of Cold Fusion into doubt.  Nathan Lewis, published a 
really good analysis on calorimetry  of electrolysis and the physics thermal 
systems, but he never replicated the P&F effect, for example the "Heat after 
death" effect Jed Rothwell talks about.  At the time, it put into doubt whether 
the P&F effect was even real.   After the Lewis article, CF was kind of dead in 
the main-stream of science.   As it would happen, I was designing my own 
calorimeter that I never used.   Lewis just blew it for me.  


How could Lewis's critique be taken seriously when he didn't even have the 
calorimeter design actually used by P&F?


 

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Good Alloy for Celani type reaction costs 5 cents : Chuck Sites

[James Bowery]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Chuck Sites  wrote:

> I remember that hit piece in Science from Lewis very well.   It was
> disturbing and really put the whole of Cold Fusion into doubt.  Nathan
> Lewis, published a really good analysis on calorimetry  of electrolysis and
> the physics thermal systems, but he never replicated the P&F effect, for
> example the "Heat after death" effect Jed Rothwell talks about.  At the
> time, it put into doubt whether the P&F effect was even real.   After the
> Lewis article, CF was kind of dead in the main-stream of science.   As it
> would happen, I was designing my own calorimeter that I never used.   Lewis
> just blew it for me.
>

How could Lewis's critique be taken seriously when he didn't even have the
calorimeter design actually used by P&F?

Re: [Vo]:Free Energy for All Mankind (Almost)

[LORENHEYER]

Initially, upon reading the statement below of Quenco's "Quantum Energy 
Converter",  I can't help but think how promising this technology is. The 
applications are endless,  such as turning your fireplace, woodstove, furnace, 
or 
campfire into a generator, and for that matter anywhere heat is generated.  

Even when I 
go for a jog (which I need to do regularly) I could wear clothing made of 
this material and wear a rechargeable battery pack and recharge it, for later 
use in my toy car,,, which, I hope Science will soon find a way to reduce 
my present huge sized body down to an equal size to fit into, and/or back 
again to jog and recharge the battery pack... just think of the savings in fuel 
costs.  
 BTW, I have a few 
problems with Quenco's solution to the worlds problems... They  say  [ 1.] The 
use of quenco will create millions of new jobs (I say instead of creating new 
jobs, just replace the bad ones). They say [ 2.]  Potentially help feed 
billions of people (I say, if you feed billions, you'll get billions more). 
They say [3]. And reduce the damage being done to our World (I say it's 
possible, but not if you sell so much of this product that the entire world is 
covered in it). 
 

In a message dated 9/26/12 8:38:51 AM EST, hohlr...@gmail.com 
writes:

<< They're coming out of the woodwork:
 
 http://www.quentron.com/index.html
 
 
 
 Quenco (Quantum Energy Convertor)
 POWER FOR EVERYONE
 
 We urgently need power that is cheap and clean
 
 Power that is limitless, reliable, and also mobile
 
 Quenco is the only 24/7 complete solution
 
 Quenco, is a thin film heat to power technology
 
 A genuine breakthrough in physics
 
 Ambient heat is converted into electrical power
 
 Solid state and needs no fuel or maintenance
 
 Imagine
 
 50 kW Power for electric vehicles - $10,000
 (Cheaper than batteries, and unlimited range)
 
 10 kW Home power systems - $5,000
 (off grid, no bills and a payback of just 2 years)
 and
 All the energy comes from the heat in ambient air
 (it works even if the air temp is -40)
 
 Also imagine
 
 Phones and Computers that never need charging
 Ultra-Computers with stacked CPUs that recycle heat
 Bionics, Tractors, Grow lights, Hydroponics, Air-con
 
 All royalties (est $200B/p.a) to go to NFP Foundations.
 
 The use of quenco will be create millions of new jobs
 
 Potentially help feed billions of people
 
 And reduce the damage being done to our World
 
 QUENCO
 Power for Everyone
 
  >>

[Vo]:Anomalous heat beyond chemistry proves that cold fusion is nuclear

[Jed Rothwell]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  keeps saying thing like this,
which I find a little tiresome:


> Okay, an anomaly. Very important point: anomaly does not equal cold
> fusion. It means something unexplained.
>
> If the level of heat is high, it may indicate a nuclear effect. I don't
> think that is the case here. The heat is simply unexplained.
>

Fleischmann and I disagree, for reasons I believe Lomax is familiar with.
They are:

1. Heat beyond the limits of chemistry in a cell with no chemical
transformations can only be explained as a nuclear effect. No other heat
effect is known to science. Perhaps it is shrinking hydrogen or some other
exotic new thing, but I doubt it.

2. We assume that Kidwell observed the same phenomenon as other people have
seen with hydrides. It is unreasonable to assume there are many different,
unrelated, heretofore undiscovered anomalous heat generating phenomena in
hydrides. (McKubre's conservation of miracles.)

3. In other experiments, the heat has been correlated with helium. Again,
it is reasonable to assume that it correlates in this experiment as well,
even thought that has not been measured. You do not need to start from
scratch and prove every single aspect of cold fusion in every single
experiment. The helium means this is fusion. Whatever else it may be, it is
also fusion. The WL theory is pretty much the same as fusion as far as I
can see. Those who disagree are quibbling, like people who say that
Shakespeare did not write his plays; it was another man of the same name.

These are not laws of physics. They are reasonable assumptions. We assume
the unity of nature. We assume that a phenomenon seen in one experiment is
probably the same one seen in similar experiments under similar conditions.
That is true even when we cannot explain the phenomenon. We assume that
conventional explanations are more likely than radically new hypotheses.

- Jed

[Vo]:Free Energy for All Mankind (Almost)

[Terry Blanton]

They're coming out of the woodwork:

http://www.quentron.com/index.html



Quenco (Quantum Energy Convertor)
POWER FOR EVERYONE

We urgently need power that is cheap and clean

Power that is limitless, reliable, and also mobile

Quenco is the only 24/7 complete solution

Quenco, is a thin film heat to power technology

A genuine breakthrough in physics

Ambient heat is converted into electrical power

Solid state and needs no fuel or maintenance

Imagine

50 kW Power for electric vehicles - $10,000
(Cheaper than batteries, and unlimited range)

10 kW Home power systems - $5,000
(off grid, no bills and a payback of just 2 years)
and
All the energy comes from the heat in ambient air
(it works even if the air temp is -40)

Also imagine

Phones and Computers that never need charging
Ultra-Computers with stacked CPUs that recycle heat
Bionics, Tractors, Grow lights, Hydroponics, Air-con

All royalties (est $200B/p.a) to go to NFP Foundations.

The use of quenco will be create millions of new jobs

Potentially help feed billions of people

And reduce the damage being done to our World

QUENCO
Power for Everyone