Re: [Vo]:Superfluidity in the Hot Cat
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 08:39:31PM -0400, Axil Axil wrote: Why does this post disturb you? Because scammers don't need free press. I'd rather read about details of reproducible anomalous heat experiments.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Of course it is erratic. The only question is: Is it erratic because of random error or because the required conditions are not created every time. We now know that certain critical conditions are required, which are not created except by guided luck. So what? This problem is typical of all new discoveries before they are mastered. *All* new discoveries? It was not the case for fission reactors, the photoelectric effect, blackbody radiation, atomic spectroscopy, Rutherford scattering, electron diffraction, superconductivity, and so on. Low probability of success is characteristic of some developments like cloning or transistors, but in the latter case, a working transistor could be shown to work by anyone. And within a few years of the first demonstration of amplification, transistors were used in commercial products. If there were a working hunk of Pd that you could send to anyone, that would be another story, but as admitted by McKubre and demonstrated most recently by the MFMP, interlab reproducibility is still a bitch.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: If this is such indisputable proof, why is it that intelligent people don't buy it? Do they hate the thought of clean and abundant energy? We know that's not the case from the events of 1989. ***because intelligent people don't like having their careers dragged through the mud. Doesn't answer the question. It just establishes the failure of the evidence. The reason for the derision is because intelligent people don't buy your indisputable proof. If intelligent people bought it, the skeptics would be the ones whose careers would be dragged through the mud.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: You need positive credible evidence to convince people that cold fusion is real. And there isn't any. It's a little painful to watch this thread, Joshua. This may come as a surprise, but I'm not trying to make it painless for true believers. Also, no one's holding a gun to your head. Here you assert that positive, credible evidence has not been provided, after people have provided positive, credible evidence The statement about positive credible evidence is a summary, not an argument. I've written a lot of words to support that summary. Mainstream does not believe the evidence for cold fusion. Therefore, it is not credible. It's really an observation, but like I said, it's not meant to stand on its own as a compelling reason to reject it. The evidence for cold fusion is a dog's breakfast of inconsistent claims of excess heat and various products of nuclear reaction. After 24 years, there is still not an experiment that anyone skilled in the art can do, and get quantitatively predictable positive results, whether it's excess heat, tritium, or helium (or an unequivocally positive result). That's why the number of refereed positive claims has dwindled to one or two papers a year, and why the claims become ever more lame. Many of the papers in the last decade are about the SPAWAR's CR-39 results, which have been challenged, and which SPAWAR itself has shut down.The few claims of excess power are in the range of a watt or so, when PF claimed 10 W in 198, and 140 in 1993. All the internet excitement results from larger but unpublished claims, and from people looking for investment, and using methods of calorimetry shown to be fallible more than a decade ago. It's not pretty. -- not all of it, but some, it seems to me; sufficient evidence, at any rate, to build a prima facie case that we should all go do some more reading. I've done a lot of reading, and like most people who are not emotionally invested in cold fusion's success, I have become more skeptical as a result. Later on will then no doubt go on to assert once more that positive, credible evidence has not been provided. If you mean as a result of more reading, then yes. Because I'm pretty familiar with the body of evidence. But if later on some better evidence, as described several times, came along, I'd be thrilled to change my mind. I believe the chance of that happening is vanishingly small.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: any real-life scientist claiming that you can work on cold fusion without ruining your career is... LYING. That's a reflection of what mainstream science thinks of cold fusion. It doesn't answer the question of why, if the proof is so obvious, mainstream science holds that view, including when they are enlisted to study the best evidence. A graduate student in science would probably ruin their career by studying astrology or creationism too. It says something about the fields.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Plate tectonics were accepted when the evidence became overwhelming, particularly the fossil and seismologic evidence. Yes, it took a a long time, because geology yields its secrets greedily, but it had nothing to do with attrition. The same is true for cold fusion. All except for the part about it being accepted; oh and about the overwhelming evidence; oh and the part about the scale of the experiment making progress necessarily slow. Otherwise, same thing.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: plate tectonics evidence where overwhelming much before they were accepted. there was explanation for the moving mechanisme decades before. Maybe much before they were universally accepted. Support grew with the evidence, as might be expected. Cold fusion has stagnated at essential rejection for 24 years.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: In Storms' book I think there are 180 positive excess heat studies. Each one typically reflects several excess heat events. A few were based on dozens of events. Fleischmann and Pons had the best success rate, running 64 cells at a time several times. Every one of them worked. On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: Until they didn't. ***Then you acknowledge those 64 cells did work. Pursuing this finding is not pathological science. You like semantic games I see. Sure they worked, where by work I mean they appeared to give off excess heat, to a careless researcher.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Going by peer-reviewed literature, it's almost stopped now. ***I see you're changing your stance. Earlier you said it had stopped. Always be careful of context, semantics, and qualifiers. In the context of giving credit for debunking, I said the field was already dead, and the credit had been given. So, yes, in the perception of the mainstream, the field is dead. But, going by the peer-reviewed literature, there is manifestly still some activity, but it has almost stopped. Happy? What's left now are only the mentally feeble and the scammers. ***Dr. Arrata is a mental giant compared to you. At least I know how to spell his name. He has considerable stature, yes. I don't know how much of that is justified, but it is certainly not due to his work in cold fusion. Anyway, compared the Gell-Mann, Weinberg, Glashow, Lederman, Hawking, Seaborg, he doesn't stack up so well.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I'm glad to hear that NI donated a PCMCIA card. Did they go out on a limb and say (as with Cold Fusion) There is an unknown physical event? Nope. It's self evident that there are images of an unknown physical entity. I trust physicists who are skeptical. I don't trust physicists who are pathologically skeptical, … where the difference depends on whether they agree with your preferred truth or not. who refuse to look at the data in the same way that Galileo's detractors refused to look through the telescope. Skeptics have looked at the evidence in 2 formal DOE panels, and every time they're asked to review papers or grant proposals. We know they'd love for it to be true from the events of 1989, and if it were, it would provide an opportunity for fame and glory, and it is the business of scientists to be aware of credible work in their field of interest. You do know that Galileo's detractors were religious, not scientific, and that the modern physics revolution was embraced as quickly as it could be developed. You don't seem to be very familiar with the body of evidence from the 90s. You just want cold fusion to be true, and you see some scientists saying it is. I think that's pretty characteristic of many of the unwashed groupies. Like the LENRproof web site that contains no proof at all. Instead it argues: look at all the people who think it's true, so it must be, and isn't that swell. And yes, I do think it's because of their greed, self-interest, hubris and various other things. Which remains implausible to me because cold fusion is in virtually everyone's interest, and because of the explosion of interest and activity in 1989. Greed ought to work the other way, as is evident from Storms' statement: …many of us were lured into believing that the Pons-Fleischmann effect would solve the world's energy problems and make us all rich.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: You're right. Polywater is different from cold fusion in that it was debunked to everyone's satisfaction. That may or may not happen in cold fusion, but it hasn't happened yet. ***Then by your own reasoning, LENR is not pathological science. Again with the semantics. I don't really care what word you use. To me, both polywater and cold fusion are almost certainly bogus phenomena, they followed similar publication trajectories (if on somewhat different time scales), made essentially no progress after the alleged discovery, and kept a following long after the mainstream had largely dismissed them. They're not identical. Cold fusion got far more attention and love at the start, but polywater got more legitimacy for a longer period (with publications in Science and Nature etc). Since the polywater debunking has been mostly accepted, it can be used as an example of how a large number of legitimate scientists can all make similar blunders, or interpret erratic data in a similarly bogus way. It makes the bogosity of cold fusion much more plausible. In my vocabulary, both are examples of pathological science. Your mileage may vary. (By the way, if you look at another thread here, you'll see that even polywater has not been completely dismissed by everyone. It's the nature of pathological science…)
Re: [Vo]:Was polywater all just a mistake?
Amazin' stuff, water: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/strange.html
Re: [Vo]:Was polywater all just a mistake?
The first chapters of the Franks book describe some of the mysteries of water, and things like water structure. There is no doubt that liquid water molecules have structure. Franks says: Physicists claim a much better understanding of esoteric substances like liquid helium or liquid nitrogen than they have of liquid water. (p. 6). - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
2013/5/9 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com don't cite semiconductors. or please re-read the history of the conductance anomalies or Germanium. One of the many reason that make me accept the LENr papers is Germanium histpry (and please, read the real history, not the wiki-revisionist history) Germanium is exactly in the theory of Thomas kuhn. it was accepted only when the theory was ready, not when it was proven.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
please read. what have stagnated is your knowledge. illiteracy is a serious disease. ok i'm joking, you are clearly literate, just delusioned and selectively blind like what roland benabou describe http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%207p%20paper.pdf you are not alone, it is a common pathology http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Patterns%20of%20Denial%204l%20fin.pdf 2013/5/9 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: plate tectonics evidence where overwhelming much before they were accepted. there was explanation for the moving mechanisme decades before. Maybe much before they were universally accepted. Support grew with the evidence, as might be expected. Cold fusion has stagnated at essential rejection for 24 years.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
It is well-known that people engaged in wishful thinking often see patterns where there are none. This is why a gambler believes in a lucky talisman. It is less often noted that people in extreme denial sometimes look at a clear pattern and fail to see it. Any reasonable person looking at McKubre Fig. 1 can see that high loading is a control factor for excess heat, and that the results are not erratic or random: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf Cude not only fails to see this pattern, he mixes up two numbers: 1. The number of tests that fail to achieve high loading and therefore do not meet necessary conditions. These never produce heat, which is good evidence that high loading is necessary. 2. The number of tests that achieve high loading and produce high heat. Nearly all of them do. This is irrefutable evidence that high loading is necessary, but not quite sufficient. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
polywater artifact were proven... LENr is proven, tritium, he4, many factor are studied. don' use manipulation techniques, it is shameful of someone working in scientific domain. I work in corp and I know the techniques. LENr in hydrides is LENR in hydrides. it is proven, yen not understood. polywater is something else. papp is something else. I have my opinion, probably similar to yours... and maybe we are wrong... fact will say later... but that have no link with hydrides LENR. LENR in hydride is neither endangered by bad theories that shock me, using uncommon QM or hard to swallow hypothesis... It is experuimental anomalies, proven far below 50sigma, with many kind of anomalies proven, correlation with real-world factors and not with possible artifact source... Many realities have been discovered or supported by crazy people, like Kepler (an astrologist illuminated), Newton (an integrist), Colombus (a man that did not re-read ancien greek who knwos teh size of earth)... This is probably a rule according to Nassim Nicholas taleb, and this explain why I invented nothing, because I'm conservative and rational. I accepted LENr because there is no escape beside going to the the psychiatric hospital and living in a delusion. LENR is a reality, and it is as evident as Duncan, Dominguez, Celani, Gerisher (ex-sckeptics) have seen it. 2013/5/9 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: You're right. Polywater is different from cold fusion in that it was debunked to everyone's satisfaction. That may or may not happen in cold fusion, but it hasn't happened yet. ***Then by your own reasoning, LENR is not pathological science. Again with the semantics. I don't really care what word you use. To me, both polywater and cold fusion are almost certainly bogus phenomena, they followed similar publication trajectories (if on somewhat different time scales), made essentially no progress after the alleged discovery, and kept a following long after the mainstream had largely dismissed them. They're not identical. Cold fusion got far more attention and love at the start, but polywater got more legitimacy for a longer period (with publications in Science and Nature etc). Since the polywater debunking has been mostly accepted, it can be used as an example of how a large number of legitimate scientists can all make similar blunders, or interpret erratic data in a similarly bogus way. It makes the bogosity of cold fusion much more plausible. In my vocabulary, both are examples of pathological science. Your mileage may vary. (By the way, if you look at another thread here, you'll see that even polywater has not been completely dismissed by everyone. It's the nature of pathological science…)
RE: [Vo]:Was polywater all just a mistake?
From: MarkI-ZeroPoint Polywater may come back to embarrass the so called 'competent' scientific community... Enter capitalism, where embarrassment means laughing all the way to the bank: http://www.polywater.com/ OK- one can argue that the successful products of this company are not really polywater in the original sense of polymerized water, which is true to one extent, but only semantically... since instead of a water with a few percent silicates picked up from glass tubing to form a polymer, this commercial product is using a mix a few percent water-soluble polymers dissolved in mostly water. Did you catch the slight distinction there? ... didn't think so, and semantics is a bitch when you want it to be... especially where the visible similarities outweigh the hidden differences; ergo it is not entirely the case that polywater was a total bust, or even pathological. It would have been another case of Goodyear's fortunate accident, had it happened under a capitalist regime. It is closer to missed opportunity than pathological science. And since this modern commercial form of the eponymous liquid is about 90% similar to the original Russian formula - even if those backward commies did not understand what it was at first, since it was not written into the Five Year Plan - shouldn't they be given some credit? After all, a product which is mostly water having picked up silicates to form long chains -that could have been commercialize earlier - to the extent it could be made inexpensively. Their culture did not care about finding anything that could be produced inexpensively, since it was all about more jobs, over there - not higher productivity. IOW - had this episode in history not been politicized as commies vs. capitalists, the story could be reading a bit differently today. History is written by the victors, which is the West today - but this unfinished story could be written differently tomorrow. Given that we are in a Democracy, it may not be long before the 47% becomes the 51% - and it cannot be guaranteed that a 180 degree reversal will not happen in the USA in the next chapter of this story? Yikes. Anyway, today silicone plastic and rubber is an important polymer based on silicates - more precisely called polymerized siloxanes. However, Dow-Corning had this product on the market before the Russian fiasco - but their process was extremely cumbersome and very expensive. Silicone rubber, now commonplace, did not become a multi-billion industry until a far cheaper way to make it came along - to some extent buoyed up by implants, so to speak. Speaking of busts, one can argue that had the Ruskies been a little more capitalistic and PR oriented, in the way this new breakthrough was presented to the world - they could have patented it and taken over the low end of the silicone rubber market by being able to make a version of it cheaply by passing water through glass tubing. That is probably a good subplot for an alternate universe story... as is the good old USA going commie, sometime in the near future. The only thing pathological in this polywater story is its interpretation, after the fact and that chapter is not yet complete. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: It is experuimental anomalies, proven far below 50sigma, with many kind of anomalies proven, correlation with real-world factors and not with possible artifact source... The role of correlation and real-world control factors is often overlooked, even by supporters. This is critically important. Cold fusion heat with the Pd-D system is correlated with several control factors, including: * Heat appears with D but not H. * Heat only appears with high loading. Here is the critical thing about these control parameters: they cannot affect temperature measurements. They cannot cause an artifact that looks like excess heat. There may be minor differences between the thermal properties of heavy water and light water, but they are not enough to explain excess heat measured with an isoperibolic calorimeter. Even if you insist could be a factor, it would be crazy to suggest the difference between heavy and light water might explain heat measured outside the cell walls with a flow or Seebeck calorimeter. There is no way cathode loading can affect the performance of any kind of calorimeter. (Alain: You should use an English spell check program. I depend on one!) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On May 9, 2013, at 8:12 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: It is well-known that people engaged in wishful thinking often see patterns where there are none. This is why a gambler believes in a lucky talisman. It is less often noted that people in extreme denial sometimes look at a clear pattern and fail to see it. Any reasonable person looking at McKubre Fig. 1 can see that high loading is a control factor for excess heat, and that the results are not erratic or random: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf Cude not only fails to see this pattern, he mixes up two numbers: 1. The number of tests that fail to achieve high loading and therefore do not meet necessary conditions. These never produce heat, which is good evidence that high loading is necessary. And this behavior is exactly what would be expected. Deuterium is a reactant. Therefore, its concentration will determine the reaction rate. When the concentration is too low, the rate of power production drops below that which can be detected by the calorimeter, hence appears to be zero. Consequently, Mckubre observed exactly the behavior that must occur regardless of the explanation. Furthermore, everyone who made composition measurements while measuring heat, including myself, found the same relationship. As people keep pointing out, this and other correlations that cannot result from error support the FACT that cold fusion is a phenomenon of nature. If Cude wanted to make a contribution, he could ask questions that would reveal facts that he and others might not know rather than giving a counter argument to every support for CF. This discussion is exactly like one about the earth being flat or the Moon landing being a fake. Reality does exist. Cude is either playing games with us for fun, as he claims, or he is insane. In either case, this is a waste of time. Ed Storms 2. The number of tests that achieve high loading and produce high heat. Nearly all of them do. This is irrefutable evidence that high loading is necessary, but not quite sufficient. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On May 9, 2013, at 8:47 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: It is experuimental anomalies, proven far below 50sigma, with many kind of anomalies proven, correlation with real-world factors and not with possible artifact source... The role of correlation and real-world control factors is often overlooked, even by supporters. This is critically important. Cold fusion heat with the Pd-D system is correlated with several control factors, including: * Heat appears with D but not H. This is not true. Heat has been measured when H is used. * Heat only appears with high loading. This is only true during electrolysis. Although loading is important, high loading is not required when other methods are used, presumably because a larger concentration of NAE is present. Here is the critical thing about these control parameters: they cannot affect temperature measurements. They cannot cause an artifact that looks like excess heat. True There may be minor differences between the thermal properties of heavy water and light water, but they are not enough to explain excess heat measured with an isoperibolic calorimeter. Even if you insist could be a factor, it would be crazy to suggest the difference between heavy and light water might explain heat measured outside the cell walls with a flow or Seebeck calorimeter. A calorimeter is not affected by the source of energy. A calorimeter simply detects and measures heat energy from any source. To think otherwise would be like claiming that the length of a pipe would be determined by its material rather than by the ruler used for the measurement. Ed Srorms There is no way cathode loading can affect the performance of any kind of calorimeter. (Alain: You should use an English spell check program. I depend on one!) - Jed
[Vo]:Wacky Water- New Scientist
Greetings Vortex-L One of the best articles on bizarre water properties was publish by the New Scientist. Sadit is now for pay but: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15420874.600-wacky-water.html Respectfuly, Ron Kita, Chiralex
RE: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
From: Joshua Cude Kevin, You just drove a stake through the heart of one of the silliest arguments on record. Cude: Tritium is detected at levels below what is necessary to explain excess heat Who cares? TRITIUM IS DETECTED ! Get it? This essentially proves the LENR phenomenon is real. Cude: I missed the obligatory tritium is claimed to be detected, and no even if it's detected, there could be contamination, accidental or deliberate. That is an absurd cop-out. There are dozens of papers by four top PhDs at the top tritium facility in the World, LANL. Yet Cude wants to suggest that the hundreds of experiments at LANL where tritium is detected are all nothing but measure error - and furthermore that the management of the facility was deceived and continued to fund the researchers for many years. Preposterous! Get a life, Cude - you are so far off-base in your strained attempt to salvage a bogus stance, that you risk pushing yourself into some kind of mental illness. If this is such indisputable proof, why is it that intelligent people don't buy it? Do they hate the thought of clean and abundant energy? We know that's not the case from the events of 1989. Once again you're trying to conflate tritium with heat. Forget 1989, take a deep breath and focus only on the tritium findings at Los Alamos. We will not let you get away with that kind of arrogant appeal to measurement error in this circumstance. These papers are about producing tritium using LENR, and that does not necessarily involve excess heat. You are clearly in denial of the tritium results, for the simple reason that it crushes the very foundation of your skepticism. What you really hate is that fact that tritium (with or without heat) absolutely proves the reality of LENR - since tritium is so unique and non-natural - it is the gold standard. You cannot tolerate the reality of LENR, even without heat - so instead of moving on to the issue of whether heat can be made in a commercially useful way, you have to resort to this kind of silly denial - by suggesting that all of this work at Los Alamos was nothing but measurement error. You should be ashamed of yourself for this kind of transparent intellectual dishonesty. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
[Vo]:The natural magic of a non-Newtonian fluid
It acts like a solid when punched... Cornstarch Water - Explained by Physicists http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGfynrsdaV0 and will fracture and shatter when it is hit with enough force. SHOOTING Non-Newtonian Fluid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THJpMeAaKzE What does this have to do with fusion? Imagine two non-Newtonian drops colliding. It is easier for them to merge if they collide slowly rather than quickly. Also if the surface of the drops is undulating then the ease with which they merge will also depend on the relative velocity of the contacting surfaces. Harry
Re: [Vo]:The natural magic of a non-Newtonian fluid
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: It acts like a solid when punched... Cornstarch Water - Explained by Physicists http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGfynrsdaV0 and will fracture and shatter when it is hit with enough force. SHOOTING Non-Newtonian Fluid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THJpMeAaKzE What does this have to do with fusion? Imagine two non-Newtonian drops colliding. It is easier for them to merge if they collide slowly rather than quickly. Also if the surface of the drops is undulating then the ease with which they merge will also depend on the relative velocity of the contacting surfaces. Harry which is a function of the frequency of the undulations. Harry
[Vo]:You have received a YouTube video!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3yGjve4mlUsns=em Sent from my iPad
[Vo]:'Nocebo Effect' - Expectation Of Negative Effects Can Increase Likelihood Of Experiencing Symptoms
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/260185.php
Re: [Vo]:'Nocebo Effect' - Expectation Of Negative Effects Can Increase Likelihood Of Experiencing Symptoms
I wonder who funded this test. If no testing was done with real wifi signals, it only proves that the associated symptoms can have psychological triggers. Harry On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/260185.php
Re: [Vo]:Was polywater all just a mistake?
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: since instead of a water with a few percent silicates picked up from glass tubing to form a polymer, this commercial product is using a mix a few percent water-soluble polymers dissolved in mostly water. Did you catch the slight distinction there? ... didn't think so, and semantics is a bitch when you want it to be... especially where the visible similarities outweigh the hidden differences; Wow! That is fascinating. I did not know that. Here is another interesting thing about polywater. Franks said that many scientists who did the research felt it was time well spent. One woman said it was the high point of her career, even though all of her results were negative. Some of them felt it was a waste. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: * Heat appears with D but not H. This is not true. Heat has been measured when H is used. Only a few people have detected heat with Pd-H. Fleischmann found marginal heat, and you reported some. Let me put this way: heat comes a lot more readily with deuterium. Since the choice of D or H cannot affect the calorimetry, that indicates something real is happening. * Heat only appears with high loading. This is only true during electrolysis. True, but again it is a control factor which cannot possibly influence the calorimetry, so it cannot be causing an instrument artifact. A calorimeter is not affected by the source of energy. Well, it is at least plausible that a calorimeter in which the temperature is measured in the electrolyte might be affected by the choice of heavy water or light water. I do not think there is any measurable difference, but there could be one. A gas calorimeter with the sample and temperature sensor surrounded by D or H gas will probably have a slightly different calibration curve for the two gases. In a calorimeter where you measure outside the cell, the cell components cannot affect performance. Except to a tiny extent, where the heat originates in different parts of the cell, especially the top or bottom, as shown by the Italians. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On May 9, 2013, at 12:20 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: * Heat appears with D but not H. This is not true. Heat has been measured when H is used. Only a few people have detected heat with Pd-H. Fleischmann found marginal heat, and you reported some. Let me put this way: heat comes a lot more readily with deuterium. Since the choice of D or H cannot affect the calorimetry, that indicates something real is happening. True, but only a few people have made the effort. Most people consider H2O to be dead, so why bother. In addition, H2O is not used to calibrate a cell using D2O. This is done using a Pt cathode or an electric heater. * Heat only appears with high loading. This is only true during electrolysis. True, but again it is a control factor which cannot possibly influence the calorimetry, so it cannot be causing an instrument artifact. True. My point is that the effect of composition is variable, as it should be based on any basic understanding. Nevertheless, as you say, the effect is real and in the right direction to be consistent with basic understanding of reactions of any kind. A calorimeter is not affected by the source of energy. Well, it is at least plausible that a calorimeter in which the temperature is measured in the electrolyte might be affected by the choice of heavy water or light water. I do not think there is any measurable difference, but there could be one. A gas calorimeter with the sample and temperature sensor surrounded by D or H gas will probably have a slightly different calibration curve for the two gases. In a calorimeter where you measure outside the cell, the cell components cannot affect performance. Except to a tiny extent, where the heat originates in different parts of the cell, especially the top or bottom, as shown by the Italians. Here the discussion is between a good calorimeter and a bad calorimeter. A bad calorimeter has all kinds of potential errors. A good calorimeter measured only heat, nothing else. Yes, some bad calorimeters were used. Nevertheless, most data was taken using good calorimeters, which continues to be the case. Making a good calorimeter requires skill, which had to be learned. Apparently, many skeptics have still not learned how to tell the difference. Ed Storms. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Cude said “The evidence for cold fusion is a dog's breakfast of inconsistent claims of excess heat and various products of nuclear reaction. After 24 years, there is still not an experiment that anyone skilled in the art can do, and get quantitatively predictable positive results, whether it's excess heat, tritium, or helium (or an unequivocally positive result).” Response: I want the LeClair effect debunked. I have yet to be satisfied. It uses polywater to produce cold fusion, how simple a debunking job could this be? I don’t mean just words, I mean conclusive debunking evidence. There is a whole class of cold fusion claims that involve cavatation, please turn your considerable debunking expertize to this area of cold fusion. Are you a one trick pony show? You need to expand your horizons if you want to aspire to world class debunking. Many vortex members think LeClair is crazy. You will have some support here and an eager audience from some quarters, or do you only relish the center of attention as a lone rebel voice of sanity crying bravely and heroically in the wilderness of unreason and irrationality. As an object lesson, show them that they are no better than you in their cynical and closed minded behavior. Always be mindful that debunking is not a selfish endeavor that only serves your personal needs and compulsions, it is a social responsibility that you owe to society in general. Cynics' propensity to spot setups and snow jobs before the rest of us also makes them socially valuable. Infamous cynic Maureen Dowd, for instance, did a Pulitzer-winning job of highlighting tragic flaws in the Clinton administration. Cynics deserve more respect than they get, Bayan says. You need naysayers who will shout down ideas that are extreme or just plain foolish. Some men must put in the work, unheralded and unsung to protect society from the ravages of pseudo-science. For some as of yet unknown reason, fate has chosen you out of the uncaring masses to undertake this thankless effort. On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: You need positive credible evidence to convince people that cold fusion is real. And there isn't any. It's a little painful to watch this thread, Joshua. This may come as a surprise, but I'm not trying to make it painless for true believers. Also, no one's holding a gun to your head. Here you assert that positive, credible evidence has not been provided, after people have provided positive, credible evidence The statement about positive credible evidence is a summary, not an argument. I've written a lot of words to support that summary. Mainstream does not believe the evidence for cold fusion. Therefore, it is not credible. It's really an observation, but like I said, it's not meant to stand on its own as a compelling reason to reject it. The evidence for cold fusion is a dog's breakfast of inconsistent claims of excess heat and various products of nuclear reaction. After 24 years, there is still not an experiment that anyone skilled in the art can do, and get quantitatively predictable positive results, whether it's excess heat, tritium, or helium (or an unequivocally positive result). That's why the number of refereed positive claims has dwindled to one or two papers a year, and why the claims become ever more lame. Many of the papers in the last decade are about the SPAWAR's CR-39 results, which have been challenged, and which SPAWAR itself has shut down.The few claims of excess power are in the range of a watt or so, when PF claimed 10 W in 198, and 140 in 1993. All the internet excitement results from larger but unpublished claims, and from people looking for investment, and using methods of calorimetry shown to be fallible more than a decade ago. It's not pretty. -- not all of it, but some, it seems to me; sufficient evidence, at any rate, to build a prima facie case that we should all go do some more reading. I've done a lot of reading, and like most people who are not emotionally invested in cold fusion's success, I have become more skeptical as a result. Later on will then no doubt go on to assert once more that positive, credible evidence has not been provided. If you mean as a result of more reading, then yes. Because I'm pretty familiar with the body of evidence. But if later on some better evidence, as described several times, came along, I'd be thrilled to change my mind. I believe the chance of that happening is vanishingly small.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Cude wrote: After 24 years, there is still not an experiment that anyone skilled in the art can do, and get quantitatively predictable positive results, whether it's excess heat, tritium, or helium (or an unequivocally positive result).” Yes, there is. It was published in 1996. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf See also: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDtheenablin.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Was polywater all just a mistake?
Generally the density of liquid water tends to increase with decreasing temperature. However water density is a maximum at a temperature of +4 degree C and a pressure of 1 Bar so that the density decreases slightly as the temperature approaches O degree C. At higher pressures the maximum density shifts towards O degree C. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fluid-density-temperature-pressure-d_309.html On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Amazin' stuff, water: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/strange.html
Re: [Vo]:'Nocebo Effect' - Expectation Of Negative Effects Can Increase Likelihood Of Experiencing Symptoms
not new same result for GMM wave. maye it have been teste for voodoo fear, and other black sorcery... people are condemned in court in africa for such induced disease. soon in EU. 2013/5/9 Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/260185.php
[Vo]:A more logical business model for Rossi?
The recent amendments of Rossi's patent claims and his comment during the recent interview broadcasted this week where Rossi stated that enrichment of Nickel to Ni-62 and Ni-64 is an important part of his techology and that enriched Nickel works much better makes me wonder. Current quotes that I received indicated $15,000 per gram Ni-62. Wouldn't it be much simpler for Rossi to publish his e-cat techology to the public, making it open source and sell the enriched nickel at a competative price?
[Vo]:Battery fix
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/techflash/2013/03/details-emerge-on-boeing-787.html *Details emerge on Boeing 787 lithium-ion battery fix; FAA testing half over * Could LENR be proved by the meltdown of the Lithium batteries through the structure of the Dreamliner. The cause of the battery fires is not yet known. The solution is a protection plan predicated on the maximum chemical potential that the batteries can contain. But if the cause is LENR, will the containment be enough to protect t plane from the the raging nuclear fires in the batteries from burning through the structure of the plane?
Re: [Vo]:A more logical business model for Rossi?
Your assumptions are not correct. Rossi needs only a few nano-grams of nickel Ni62 and Ni64 to cover the 3 grams of micro-powder base substrate with enriched nickel nanowire. The nanowire formation process can include the isotopic mass separation enrichment process at little additional cost. On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote: The recent amendments of Rossi's patent claims and his comment during the recent interview broadcasted this week where Rossi stated that enrichment of Nickel to Ni-62 and Ni-64 is an important part of his techology and that enriched Nickel works much better makes me wonder. Current quotes that I received indicated $15,000 per gram Ni-62. Wouldn't it be much simpler for Rossi to publish his e-cat techology to the public, making it open source and sell the enriched nickel at a competative price?
Re: [Vo]:Battery fix
NTSB to Conduct “Urgent” New Rounds of Tests on Dreamliner Batteries May 08, 2013 10:10 AM While United Airlines and LOT Polish Airlines are planning their upcoming flights with the newly “fixed” Dreamlinerhttp://cms.pmghosting.net/tp_news_manager.cfm?action=Edit, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) says it is conducting an urgent new round of testing on the Boeing 787's lithium-ion batteries in order to find a root cause before commercial flights ramp up in June. On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/techflash/2013/03/details-emerge-on-boeing-787.html *Details emerge on Boeing 787 lithium-ion battery fix; FAA testing half over* Could LENR be proved by the meltdown of the Lithium batteries through the structure of the Dreamliner. The cause of the battery fires is not yet known. The solution is a protection plan predicated on the maximum chemical potential that the batteries can contain. But if the cause is LENR, will the containment be enough to protect t plane from the the raging nuclear fires in the batteries from burning through the structure of the plane?
Re: [Vo]:Battery fix
Axil, You should have read the Vortex posting I may recently, repeated below (the data on arcing is especially informative) - Lattice Energy LLC- Technical Discussion-NTSB Logan Dreamliner Runaway Data Suggest High Local Temps-May 7 2013 http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-technical-discussionntsb-logan-dreamliner-runaway-data-suggest-high-local-tempsmay-7-2013 The discussion of the energetics of electrical arcs is quite interesting. The temperatures, current and power densities attainable in low voltage arcs is quite counter-intuitive. Also, perhaps worth noting, is that crack formation on metal surfaces initiate breakdown discharges that create micro-volcanic ejecta sites. -- Lou Pagnucco Axil wrote: http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/techflash/2013/03/details-emerge-on-boeing-787.html *Details emerge on Boeing 787 lithium-ion battery fix; FAA testing half over * Could LENR be proved by the meltdown of the Lithium batteries through the structure of the Dreamliner. The cause of the battery fires is not yet known. The solution is a protection plan predicated on the maximum chemical potential that the batteries can contain. But if the cause is LENR, will the containment be enough to protect t plane from the the raging nuclear fires in the batteries from burning through the structure of the plane?
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: plate tectonics evidence where overwhelming much before they were accepted. there was explanation for the moving mechanisme decades before. Maybe much before they were universally accepted. Support grew with the evidence, as might be expected. Cold fusion has stagnated at essential rejection for 24 years. Obviously the controversy isn't over. I meant it is comparable to the time when plate tectonics was considered fringe science. It took about 45 years from the time continental drift was first proposed in 1912 to its acceptance. However, the concept is really much older and was first proposed in 1596. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift According to Wikipedia it seems the concept of continental drift wasn't firmly rejected until the mid 19 th century due to certain findings and the influence of James Dana, a prominent geologist of the time. Harry Harry Harry
Re: [Vo]:A more logical business model for Rossi?
Sputtering in vaccum chamber?
Op donderdag 9 mei 2013 schreef Axil Axil (janap...@gmail.com) het volgende:
Your assumptions are not correct.
Rossi needs only a few nano-grams of nickel Ni62 and Ni64 to cover the 3
grams of micro-powder base substrate with enriched nickel nanowire.
The nanowire formation process can include the isotopic mass separation
enrichment process at little additional cost.
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Teslaalset
robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com');
wrote:
The recent amendments of Rossi's patent claims and his comment during the
recent interview broadcasted this week where Rossi stated that enrichment
of Nickel to Ni-62 and Ni-64 is an important part of his techology and that
enriched Nickel works much better makes me wonder.
Current quotes that I received indicated $15,000 per gram Ni-62.
Wouldn't it be much simpler for Rossi to publish his e-cat techology to
the public, making it open source and sell the enriched nickel at a
competative price?
Re: [Vo]:Battery fix
*You should have read the Vortex posting I may recently, repeated below (the data on arcing is especially informative) -* I have read it. WL seem to be fascinated and awed by the power of charge concentration. The quotes in your reference refer to concentrations that are stellar in power, the power nuclear weapons were also referenced and also white dwarf stars WL seems to be moving more toward electrons and away from neutrons in their theorizing. Is a crisis of theory ahead for WL? Time will tell. On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:05 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Axil, You should have read the Vortex posting I may recently, repeated below (the data on arcing is especially informative) - Lattice Energy LLC- Technical Discussion-NTSB Logan Dreamliner Runaway Data Suggest High Local Temps-May 7 2013 http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-technical-discussionntsb-logan-dreamliner-runaway-data-suggest-high-local-tempsmay-7-2013 The discussion of the energetics of electrical arcs is quite interesting. The temperatures, current and power densities attainable in low voltage arcs is quite counter-intuitive. Also, perhaps worth noting, is that crack formation on metal surfaces initiate breakdown discharges that create micro-volcanic ejecta sites. -- Lou Pagnucco Axil wrote: http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/techflash/2013/03/details-emerge-on-boeing-787.html *Details emerge on Boeing 787 lithium-ion battery fix; FAA testing half over * Could LENR be proved by the meltdown of the Lithium batteries through the structure of the Dreamliner. The cause of the battery fires is not yet known. The solution is a protection plan predicated on the maximum chemical potential that the batteries can contain. But if the cause is LENR, will the containment be enough to protect t plane from the the raging nuclear fires in the batteries from burning through the structure of the plane?
Re: [Vo]:A more logical business model for Rossi?
Yes. some sort of metal coating method. Piantelli also does this sort of coating process to prepare the surface of his bars. On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote: Sputtering in vaccum chamber? Op donderdag 9 mei 2013 schreef Axil Axil (janap...@gmail.com) het volgende: Your assumptions are not correct. Rossi needs only a few nano-grams of nickel Ni62 and Ni64 to cover the 3 grams of micro-powder base substrate with enriched nickel nanowire. The nanowire formation process can include the isotopic mass separation enrichment process at little additional cost. On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.comwrote: The recent amendments of Rossi's patent claims and his comment during the recent interview broadcasted this week where Rossi stated that enrichment of Nickel to Ni-62 and Ni-64 is an important part of his techology and that enriched Nickel works much better makes me wonder. Current quotes that I received indicated $15,000 per gram Ni-62. Wouldn't it be much simpler for Rossi to publish his e-cat techology to the public, making it open source and sell the enriched nickel at a competative price?
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:36 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Doesn't answer the question. ***Of course it does. It just establishes the failure of the evidence. ***No, it establishes the real reason why intelligent people don't get involved in Cold Fusion. The reason for the derision ***Sneering is against the rules here. is because intelligent people don't buy your indisputable proof. ***Nope. It's because you're a skeptopath. Others just like to pile on and when we scratch the surface, we find they're utterly uninformed about the evidence. If intelligent people bought it, the skeptics would be the ones whose careers would be dragged through the mud. ***You proceed from an odd form of idealism. Scientists are human. On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: If this is such indisputable proof, why is it that intelligent people don't buy it? Do they hate the thought of clean and abundant energy? We know that's not the case from the events of 1989. ***because intelligent people don't like having their careers dragged through the mud. Doesn't answer the question. It just establishes the failure of the evidence. The reason for the derision is because intelligent people don't buy your indisputable proof. If intelligent people bought it, the skeptics would be the ones whose careers would be dragged through the mud.
Re: [Vo]:Battery fix
Some quotes from the reference as follows: The numbers can be obtained from the values we measured for field emitted currents, electric field, the emitter dimensions and volume for transferring electromagnetic field energy into electron kinetic energy. Combining these gives, (10 GV/m)(10-7 m)(1 mA)/(10-7m)3 = 10^^21 W/m3, a value that seems to be greater than all other natural effects, except perhaps GammaRay Bursters (GRB's). The power density is comparable to nuclear weapons. Almost nothing can withstand enormous, star-surface-like local temperatures created by arcs or LENRS and remain unreactive. Creation of nightmarish local witches' brew cauldrons of inter-reacting compounds and ions in some regions of failing batteries ;very fast, hyper-accelerated reaction rates in superheated zones. On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *You should have read the Vortex posting I may recently, repeated below (the data on arcing is especially informative) -* I have read it. WL seem to be fascinated and awed by the power of charge concentration. The quotes in your reference refer to concentrations that are stellar in power, the power nuclear weapons were also referenced and also white dwarf stars WL seems to be moving more toward electrons and away from neutrons in their theorizing. Is a crisis of theory ahead for WL? Time will tell. On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:05 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Axil, You should have read the Vortex posting I may recently, repeated below (the data on arcing is especially informative) - Lattice Energy LLC- Technical Discussion-NTSB Logan Dreamliner Runaway Data Suggest High Local Temps-May 7 2013 http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-technical-discussionntsb-logan-dreamliner-runaway-data-suggest-high-local-tempsmay-7-2013 The discussion of the energetics of electrical arcs is quite interesting. The temperatures, current and power densities attainable in low voltage arcs is quite counter-intuitive. Also, perhaps worth noting, is that crack formation on metal surfaces initiate breakdown discharges that create micro-volcanic ejecta sites. -- Lou Pagnucco Axil wrote: http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/techflash/2013/03/details-emerge-on-boeing-787.html *Details emerge on Boeing 787 lithium-ion battery fix; FAA testing half over * Could LENR be proved by the meltdown of the Lithium batteries through the structure of the Dreamliner. The cause of the battery fires is not yet known. The solution is a protection plan predicated on the maximum chemical potential that the batteries can contain. But if the cause is LENR, will the containment be enough to protect t plane from the the raging nuclear fires in the batteries from burning through the structure of the plane?
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: interlab reproducibility is still a bitch. ***True enough, but that doesn't make it a pathological science. It makes it a difficult one.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:42 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: That's a reflection of what mainstream science thinks of cold fusion. It doesn't answer the question of why, if the proof is so obvious, ***Interesting little conditional you've inserted here. The proof is not obvious but the evidence is. With so much evidence, with 14000 replications, the evidence is compelling. This is far from a pathological science. mainstream science holds that view, including when they are enlisted to study the best evidence. ***There is simply far too much latitude granted to such studies. An example is the 2 times there were investigations into Space Shuttle accidents. The recommendations of the panels were that management wasn't to blame, but management was to blame. A graduate student in science would probably ruin their career by studying astrology or creationism too. It says something about the fields. ***If a grad student in physics were to study astrology, it's obvious they've stepped out of their core competence. But if they want to study Condensed Matter Nuclear Science and LENR, they're within their core competence. It says nothing particularly relevant about the field of astrology. Your ridiculous analogy says something about human nature.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Mainstream does not believe the evidence for cold fusion. Therefore, it is not credible. ***What a ridiculous line of reasoning. The evidence is credible, just like the evidence for plate tectonics was credible. Just because others didn't believe it, there was no bearing whatsoever on whether the evidence was credible. It's easy to see that you aren't here to enlighten anyone, find any common ground, nor move the field forward. You're here to sneer. Your intellectual dishonesy is what makes you not credible. On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: You need positive credible evidence to convince people that cold fusion is real. And there isn't any. It's a little painful to watch this thread, Joshua. This may come as a surprise, but I'm not trying to make it painless for true believers. Also, no one's holding a gun to your head. Here you assert that positive, credible evidence has not been provided, after people have provided positive, credible evidence The statement about positive credible evidence is a summary, not an argument. I've written a lot of words to support that summary. Mainstream does not believe the evidence for cold fusion. Therefore, it is not credible. It's really an observation, but like I said, it's not meant to stand on its own as a compelling reason to reject it. The evidence for cold fusion is a dog's breakfast of inconsistent claims of excess heat and various products of nuclear reaction. After 24 years, there is still not an experiment that anyone skilled in the art can do, and get quantitatively predictable positive results, whether it's excess heat, tritium, or helium (or an unequivocally positive result). That's why the number of refereed positive claims has dwindled to one or two papers a year, and why the claims become ever more lame. Many of the papers in the last decade are about the SPAWAR's CR-39 results, which have been challenged, and which SPAWAR itself has shut down.The few claims of excess power are in the range of a watt or so, when PF claimed 10 W in 198, and 140 in 1993. All the internet excitement results from larger but unpublished claims, and from people looking for investment, and using methods of calorimetry shown to be fallible more than a decade ago. It's not pretty. -- not all of it, but some, it seems to me; sufficient evidence, at any rate, to build a prima facie case that we should all go do some more reading. I've done a lot of reading, and like most people who are not emotionally invested in cold fusion's success, I have become more skeptical as a result. Later on will then no doubt go on to assert once more that positive, credible evidence has not been provided. If you mean as a result of more reading, then yes. Because I'm pretty familiar with the body of evidence. But if later on some better evidence, as described several times, came along, I'd be thrilled to change my mind. I believe the chance of that happening is vanishingly small.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
So, Pons Fleischmann were careless researchers, eh? Then how is it that their findings have been replicated 14,700 times? How did they become 2 of the most preeminent electrochemists of their day before they took on this anomaly?How careless do you have to be to read a thermometer incorrectly? You won't answer because you can't. Your position becomes more preposterous with each post. On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:47 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: In Storms' book I think there are 180 positive excess heat studies. Each one typically reflects several excess heat events. A few were based on dozens of events. Fleischmann and Pons had the best success rate, running 64 cells at a time several times. Every one of them worked. On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: Until they didn't. ***Then you acknowledge those 64 cells did work. Pursuing this finding is not pathological science. You like semantic games I see. Sure they worked, where by work I mean they appeared to give off excess heat, to a careless researcher.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
At least I know how to spell his name. ***Gee, that's about as semantically irrelevant as an argument can get. He has considerable stature, yes. I don't know how much of that is justified, but it is certainly not due to his work in cold fusion. ***It was due to his work in Nuclear Physics. Are those others representative of cold fusion debunkers?How many debunkers have won their nation's highest honor due to work in Nuke Physics? How many have buildings named after them? His work stacks up just fine compared to those others. On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Going by peer-reviewed literature, it's almost stopped now. ***I see you're changing your stance. Earlier you said it had stopped. Always be careful of context, semantics, and qualifiers. In the context of giving credit for debunking, I said the field was already dead, and the credit had been given. So, yes, in the perception of the mainstream, the field is dead. But, going by the peer-reviewed literature, there is manifestly still some activity, but it has almost stopped. Happy? What's left now are only the mentally feeble and the scammers. ***Dr. Arrata is a mental giant compared to you. At least I know how to spell his name. He has considerable stature, yes. I don't know how much of that is justified, but it is certainly not due to his work in cold fusion. Anyway, compared the Gell-Mann, Weinberg, Glashow, Lederman, Hawking, Seaborg, he doesn't stack up so well.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: It's self evident that there are images of an unknown physical entity. ***Wow, you put more credence into bigfoot than cold fusion. Amazing. Just amazing. Note that National Instruments DID NOT go out on a limb to say what you just did over bigfoot, but they DID over cold fusion. You conveniently just overlook that fact and move onto your other word salad. You're completely full of shit.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:57 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Again with the semantics. I don't really care what word you use. To me, both polywater and cold fusion are almost certainly bogus phenomena, ... In my vocabulary ... ***Now that your position has been obliterated, you're moving onto Humpty Dumpty definitions. Yet another way we can all see you're full of shit.
Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Mon, 6 May 2013 18:21:16 -0700: Hi, [snip] If that fails, because, for example, Robin shows overwhelming evidence that the experimenter would be harmed by secondary EMF if there were watts of 4He's being generated (setting neutrons aside), I will feel compelled to consider one of these alternatives: Where did I do this? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Once again you're trying to conflate tritium with heat. Forget 1989, take a deep breath and focus only on the tritium findings at Los Alamos. And a lot of other places too! TAMU and the National Cold Fusion Institute (NCFI) are good examples, and don't forget the other Los Alamos study by Storms. Conflate is the key word here. This is important! It is a mistake people on both sides make. As Jones says -- These papers are about producing tritium using LENR, and that does not necessarily involve excess heat. AND You cannot tolerate the reality of LENR, even without heat - so instead of moving on to the issue of whether heat can be made in a commercially useful way, you have to resort to this kind of silly denial - by suggesting that all of this work at Los Alamos was nothing but measurement error. Cude and others conflate many different assertions and issues. They stir everything into one pot. You have to learn to compartmentalize with cold fusion, or with any new phenomenon or poorly understood subject. You have to remember that some things are extremely well established, but others may be wrong. Facts may have limited applicability: there is no doubt that high loading is a control factor with Pd-D electrolysis, but it may play no role with gas loading. Most of all, you have to remember that proving one aspect of it does not prove another, although it may lend support. In this case, the tritium findings by Storms and soon after at TAMU and NCFI proved beyond doubt that cold fusion is a real, nuclear phenomenon. After they published that 1990 it was case closed. Every scientist on earth should have believed it. Many scientists do not believe it because they have never heard of these results, or because they irrational or unscientific. Their continued disbelief tells us nothing about the quality of the evidence, which is irrefutable. The excess heat results proved that it is not a chemical effect, in the normal sense. Perhaps it is a Mills effect. Again, there is so much evidence for this, at such high s/n ratios, it is irrefutable. The helium results support the hypothesis that this is some sort of deuterium fusion, at least with Pd-D. There is no doubt about the helium, but no one has searched for helium or deuterium from Ni-H cells. All the other claims are fuzzy, in my opinion. There is not as much evidence for them. Whether heat can be made in a commercially useful way is important. I say almost certainly yes. Others say maybe not. It hasn't been done yet, so obviously we can't be certain. The point is, DO NOT CONFUSE THESE QUESTIONS. Do not conflate them! Answering one does not automatically answer the others. Doubts about one do not automatically extend to the others. They are related but still separate. Yes, the heat is real, but no, that in itself does not prove the heat can be commercialized. Equally important, the fact that some researchers do lousy calorimetry does not call into question the calorimetry done by others. McKubre does not have to answer for work done by Mills, or Cravens, or Mizuno. No one has to answer for Rossi, except perhaps his collaborators at U. Bologna. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Thu, 9 May 2013 14:20:42 -0700 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:57 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Again with the semantics. I don't really care what word you use. To me, both polywater and cold fusion are almost certainly bogus phenomena, ... In my vocabulary ... ***Now that your position has been obliterated, you're moving onto Humpty Dumpty definitions. Yet another way we can all see you're full of shit. Admin: any chance you can ban this fellow for a while? In several of his recent posts, he has descended far below the bar for decency you set up for this list.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
You mean you can't use that word? I did a search found it 128 times on Vortex-L. Does that mean that all 128 times, those people were given a timeout? I don't see evidence of it. On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: On Thu, 9 May 2013 14:20:42 -0700 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:57 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Again with the semantics. I don't really care what word you use. To me, both polywater and cold fusion are almost certainly bogus phenomena, ... In my vocabulary ... ***Now that your position has been obliterated, you're moving onto Humpty Dumpty definitions. Yet another way we can all see you're full of shit. Admin: any chance you can ban this fellow for a while? In several of his recent posts, he has descended far below the bar for decency you set up for this list.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: Admin: any chance you can ban this fellow for a while? In several of his recent posts, he has descended far below the bar for decency you set up for this list. Oh come now! Cude isn't that bad. - Jed
[Vo]:‘Pathological Science’ is not Scientific Misconduct (nor is it pathological)
‘Pathological Science’ is not Scientific Misconduct (nor is it pathological) Henry H. Bauer* Abstract: ‘Pathological’ science implies scientific misconduct: it should not happen and the scientists concerned ought to know better. However, there are no clear and generally agreed definitions of pathological science or of scientific misconduct. The canonical exemplars of pathological science in chemistry (N-rays, polywater) as well as the recent case of cold fusion in electrochemistry involved research practices not clearly distinguishable from those in (revolutionary) science. The concept of ‘pathological science’ was put forth nearly half a century ago in a seminar and lacks justification in contemporary understanding of science studies (history, philosophy, and sociology of science). It is time to abandon the phrase. http://www.hyle.org/journal/issues/8-1/bauer.htm
Re: [Vo]:Barron's (April 27, 2013) investigates Li-battery fires
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Fri, 3 May 2013 07:46:14 -0600: Hi Ed, [snip] Transmutation occurs but not at the a rate required to make detectable energy. Both you and Horace have said this. Can you suggest one or two experimental papers where this is shown? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
re: [Vo]:got something
Frank, A little more information please.. the citation is for reaction rate over a thermal range and for different pressure values. Are you doing an exact replication of same experiment or did you current thru your filament? Tungsten can be melted if you created a Langmuir torch... I do keep an eye on tungsten as a good candidate for LENR because it's high melting temp could allow smaller more active final geometry if matched with an appropriate alloy.. perhaps you found it if your melting occurred without the electrical arcing normally required for welding :_) Fran http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/AtomicH/atomicH.html Invented by Langmuir in 1926 , this device produces a temperature of 3700 degrees centigrade. Tungsten can be melted, diamond vapourised. A jet of hydrogen gas is dissociated as it passes through an electric arc. H2 H + H - 422 kJ. An endothermic reaction, with the intensely hot plasma core of the arc providing the dissociation energy. The atomic hydrogen produced soon recombines; and this recombination is the source of such high temperatures (easily outperforming oxy-hydrogen: 2800oC and oxy-acetylene: 3315oC). The hydrogen can be thought of as simply a transport mechanism to extract energy from the arc plasma and transfer it to a work surface. It produces a true flame, as the heat is liberated by a chemical reaction. H + H H2 + 422kJ. The molecular hydrogen burns off in the atmosphere, contributing little to the heat output. From the May 1, 1926 issue of The Science News-Letter - ...developed by Dr. Irving Langmuir, assistant director of the Schenectady laboratory, and makes use of what he calls flames of atomic hydrogen Electric currents of 20 amperes and at voltages ranging from 300 to 800 From A Text Book of Inorganic Chemistry, Partington 1946 - Atomic hydrogen. - Langmuir (1912) has shown that hydrogen in contact with a tungsten wire heated by an electric current at low pressure, is dissociated into atoms: H2 = 2H. This splitting of the hydrogen molecule is attended by the absorption of a large amount of energy, about 100kcal per gram molecule. The atomic hydrogen so formed is chemically very active. Langmuir also showed that atomic hydrogen is formed when an electric arc between tungsten electrodes is allowed to burn in hydrogen at atmospheric pressure. The atomic hydrogen was blown out of the arc by a jet of molecular hydrogen directed across the arc, and formed an intensely hot flame, which is capable of melting tungsten (m.p. 3400oC). This flame obtains its heat not from combustion but from the recombination of hydrogen atoms into H2. It is suitable for melting and welding many metals. Iron can be melted without contamination with carbon, oxygen or nitrogen. Because of the powerful reducing action of the atomic hydrogen, alloys can be melted without fluxes and without surface oxidation. A feature of the flame is the great rapidity with which heat can be delivered to a surface, which is very important in welding operations. From: fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 10:01 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:got something I tried all kinds of gasses on all sorts of filaments Got nothing then something happened with ammonia on tungsten filaments. http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/1980/F1/f19807600280 I will get to the bottom of what ever melted my wire. Frank Znidarsic
Re: [Vo]:Barron's (April 27, 2013) investigates Li-battery fires
Robin, here are some review papers that cite many examples. I also treat the subject in my book, where I give many cations. Transmutation is an exothermic reaction that makes heat when it occurs. The amount of heat is related to the rate. The measured rates are all too small to make enough heat to be detected using present methods. Ed Storms Srinivasan, M., G. Miley, and E.K. Storms, Low-energy nuclear reactions: Transmutations, in Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia: Science, Technology, and Applications, S. Krivit, J.H. Lehr, and T.B. Kingery, Editors. 2011, John Wiley Sons: Hoboken, NJ. p. 503-539. 2.Biberian, J.-P., Biological Transmutations: Historical Perspective. J. Cond. Matter Nucl. Sci., 2012. 7: p. 11-15. 3. Miley, G.H. and P.J. Shrestha. Review of transmutation reactions in solids. in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA: World Scientific Publishing Co. p. 361. On May 9, 2013, at 4:18 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Fri, 3 May 2013 07:46:14 -0600: Hi Ed, [snip] Transmutation occurs but not at the a rate required to make detectable energy. Both you and Horace have said this. Can you suggest one or two experimental papers where this is shown? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:got something
I was applying RF energy 60 to 500 mega hertz to a thin tungsten wire in ammonia at one atmosphere. The ammonia container was very small plastic container to limit any explosion hazard. It was a plastic candy tube from Starbucks. I have done this with many wires, palladium, nickel, copper, nichrome etc. The tungsten wire got hot and blew apart at one point. I don't believe that is was a cold fusion reaction. I believe that the ammonia disassociated near the warm wire and caused some local heating. After doing the experiment many times with hydrogen, natural gas, propane, helium, chlorine, the ammonia tungsten experiment reacted differently. The tungsten wire was extracted from a retro light bulb. I did not like the tungsten because of its high resistance. It did not resonate in my RF tank circuit very well, it tended to damp the RF oscillations. I wish there was more to offer. I am beginning to doubt the results of others as I observed nothing but this. Not much. I could make a battery out of any two metals and a potato for demo purposes. I could not, however, build a high performance high tech battery. I could not demonstrate a low performance cold fusion reaction no matter what I tried. I am beginning to become suspect of the whole field. Frank Z -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, May 9, 2013 6:19 pm Subject: re: [Vo]:got something Frank, A little more information please.. the citation is for reaction rate over a thermal range and for different pressure values. Are you doing an exact replication of same experiment or did you current thru your filament? Tungsten can be melted if you created a Langmuir torch… I do keep an eye on tungsten as a good candidate for LENR because it’s high melting temp could allow smaller more active final geometry if matched with an appropriate alloy.. perhaps you found it if your melting occurred without the electrical arcing normally required for welding :_) Fran http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/AtomicH/atomicH.htmlInvented by Langmuir in 1926 , this device produces a temperature of 3700 degrees centigrade. Tungsten can be melted, diamond vapourised. A jet of hydrogen gas is dissociated as it passes through an electric arc. H2 H + H - 422 kJ. An endothermic reaction, with the intensely hot plasma core of the arc providing the dissociation energy. The atomic hydrogen produced soon recombines; and this recombination is the source of such high temperatures (easily outperforming oxy-hydrogen: 2800oC and oxy-acetylene: 3315oC). The hydrogen can be thought of as simply a transport mechanism to extract energy from the arc plasma and transfer it to a work surface. It produces a true flame, as the heat is liberated by a chemical reaction. H + H H2 + 422kJ. The molecular hydrogen burns off in the atmosphere, contributing little to the heat output. From the May 1, 1926 issue of The Science News-Letter - ...developed by Dr. Irving Langmuir, assistant director of the Schenectady laboratory, and makes use of what he calls flames of atomic hydrogen Electric currents of 20 amperes and at voltages ranging from 300 to 800 From A Text Book of Inorganic Chemistry, Partington 1946 - Atomic hydrogen. - Langmuir (1912) has shown that hydrogen in contact with a tungsten wire heated by an electric current at low pressure, is dissociated into atoms: H2 = 2H. This splitting of the hydrogen molecule is attended by the absorption of a large amount of energy, about 100kcal per gram molecule. The atomic hydrogen so formed is chemically very active. Langmuir also showed that atomic hydrogen is formed when an electric arc between tungsten electrodes is allowed to burn in hydrogen at atmospheric pressure. The atomic hydrogen was blown out of the arc by a jet of molecular hydrogen directed across the arc, and formed an intensely hot flame, which is capable of melting tungsten (m.p. 3400oC). This flame obtains its heat not from combustion but from the recombination of hydrogen atoms into H2. It is suitable for melting and welding many metals. Iron can be melted without contamination with carbon, oxygen or nitrogen. Because of the powerful reducing action of the atomic hydrogen, alloys can be melted without fluxes and without surface oxidation. A feature of the flame is the great rapidity with which heat can be delivered to a surface, which is very important in welding operations. From: fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 10:01 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:got something I tried all kinds of gasses on all sorts of filaments Got nothing then something happened with ammonia on tungsten filaments. http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/1980/F1/f19807600280 I will get to the bottom of what ever melted my wire. Frank
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Conflate is the key word here. This is important! It is a mistake people on both sides make. Yes, definitely -- conflation is a critical mistake, but it is most likely to occur when it is convenient for one's position. Throw perpetual motion machines, homeopathy, polywater and cold fusion all into the same category. It does not matter that there appear to be basic differences that make the comparison strained, at best. Conflation is less likely to occur when it is inconvenient to the position you're intending to tendentiously pursue: plate tectonics, semiconductors and cold fusion are not in the same category and should be distinguished. Often conflation is a mistake. It is hard, for example, to keep in mind that there are Pd/D experiments, Pd/H experiments, W/D experiments, Ni/H experiments, etc., and that the results do not necessarily transfer from one to another. In this way it is easy to conflate conclusions made about one set of experiments with another set of experiments. We do that unintentionally all the time here; I certainly do. But sometimes conflation is a rhetorical device employed to advance a purpose unrelated to mutual understanding. I think a person would have to be mentally unbalanced to doggedly employ such a tactic intentionally in any more than jest, but there is an area of gray here between a commitment to intellectual integrity and a commitment to pursuing a strategic end which can make it hard to avoid such a device and easy to overlook that one is doing so. Eric
Re: [Vo]:got something
Do you see a charge in conductivity in the wire just before it overheats? Increase conductivity could also cause your tank circuit to increase in frequency. Can you measure for this? On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:52 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: I was applying RF energy 60 to 500 mega hertz to a thin tungsten wire in ammonia at one atmosphere. The ammonia container was very small plastic container to limit any explosion hazard. It was a plastic candy tube from Starbucks. I have done this with many wires, palladium, nickel, copper, nichrome etc. The tungsten wire got hot and blew apart at one point. I don't believe that is was a cold fusion reaction. I believe that the ammonia disassociated near the warm wire and caused some local heating. After doing the experiment many times with hydrogen, natural gas, propane, helium, chlorine, the ammonia tungsten experiment reacted differently. The tungsten wire was extracted from a retro light bulb. I did not like the tungsten because of its high resistance. It did not resonate in my RF tank circuit very well, it tended to damp the RF oscillations. I wish there was more to offer. I am beginning to doubt the results of others as I observed nothing but this. Not much. I could make a battery out of any two metals and a potato for demo purposes. I could not, however, build a high performance high tech battery. I could not demonstrate a low performance cold fusion reaction no matter what I tried. I am beginning to become suspect of the whole field. Frank Z -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, May 9, 2013 6:19 pm Subject: re: [Vo]:got something Frank, A little more information please.. the citation is for reaction rate over a thermal range and for different pressure values. Are you doing an exact replication of same experiment or did you current thru your filament? Tungsten can be melted if you created a Langmuir torch… I do keep an eye on tungsten as a good candidate for LENR because it’s high melting temp could allow smaller more active final geometry if matched with an appropriate alloy.. perhaps you found it if your melting occurred without the electrical arcing normally required for welding :_) Fran http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/AtomicH/atomicH.html Invented by Langmuir in 1926 , this device produces a temperature of 3700 degrees centigrade. Tungsten can be melted, diamond vapourised. A jet of hydrogen gas is dissociated as it passes through an electric arc. H2 H + H - 422 kJ. An endothermic reaction, with the intensely hot plasma core of the arc providing the dissociation energy. The atomic hydrogen produced soon recombines; and this recombination is the source of such high temperatures (easily outperforming oxy-hydrogen: 2800oC and oxy-acetylene: 3315oC). The hydrogen can be thought of as simply a transport mechanism to extract energy from the arc plasma and transfer it to a work surface. It produces a true flame, as the heat is liberated by a chemical reaction. H + H H2 + 422kJ. The molecular hydrogen burns off in the atmosphere, contributing little to the heat output. From the May 1, 1926 issue of The Science News-Letter - ...developed by Dr. Irving Langmuir, assistant director of the Schenectady laboratory, and makes use of what he calls flames of atomic hydrogen Electric currents of 20 amperes and at voltages ranging from 300 to 800 From A Text Book of Inorganic Chemistry, Partington 1946 - Atomic hydrogen. - Langmuir (1912) has shown that hydrogen in contact with a tungsten wire heated by an electric current at low pressure, is dissociated into atoms: H2 = 2H. This splitting of the hydrogen molecule is attended by the absorption of a large amount of energy, about 100kcal per gram molecule. The atomic hydrogen so formed is chemically very active. Langmuir also showed that atomic hydrogen is formed when an electric arc between tungsten electrodes is allowed to burn in hydrogen at atmospheric pressure. The atomic hydrogen was blown out of the arc by a jet of molecular hydrogen directed across the arc, and formed an intensely hot flame, which is capable of melting tungsten (m.p. 3400oC). This flame obtains its heat not from combustion but from the recombination of hydrogen atoms into H2. It is suitable for melting and welding many metals. Iron can be melted without contamination with carbon, oxygen or nitrogen. Because of the powerful reducing action of the atomic hydrogen, alloys can be melted without fluxes and without surface oxidation. A feature of the flame is the great rapidity with which heat can be delivered to a surface, which is very important in welding operations. *From:* fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.comfznidar...@aol.com?] *Sent:* Wednesday, May 08, 2013 10:01 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:*
Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:47 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Eric Walker's message of Mon, 6 May 2013 18:21:16 -0700: Hi, [snip] If that fails, because, for example, Robin shows overwhelming evidence that the experimenter would be harmed by secondary EMF if there were watts of 4He's being generated (setting neutrons aside), I will feel compelled to consider one of these alternatives: Where did I do this? I was hoping you try to model this scenario -- it was a request! ;) If you can show that a flux of alphas produced by several watts of d+d reactions (dumping the energy to kinetic energy of the alphas) will be sure to cause EMF that will escape from a reactor housing, that will allay concerns on my part that this idea has been too hastily adopted as an assumption. By contrast, if you were to model the situation and determine that any secondary radiation (apart from neutrons) is unlikely to escape, or that the question is difficult to determine, that will egg me on in thinking that a basic assumption in some of the cold fusion reasoning has been flawed. I am thinking of trying to model the system myself, but it looks complex. Eric
[Vo]:Ancient Astronaut Found On Spanish Cathedral?
Ancient Astronaut Found On Spanish Cathedral? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4N8URW0eZA text below youtube video: *Published on Mar 6, 2013 * Very impressive carving that seems to depict an Astronaut holding a tether of some kind. The carving is part of a decorative mosaic of motifs, that decorate the Ieronimus Cathedral in Spain. De-bunkers have claimed that this is merely the work of a mischievous builder who worked on the restoration of the cathedral back in 1992, but some local sources reject that theory claiming, the people who have lived here for generations all know about the hombre de las estrellas, (Man Of Stars) Our grandfathers and grandmothers all talked about him, its common knowledge. Could this be proof of Time Travel, Alien visitation or something else? As always you decide.
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:‘Pathological Science’ is not Scientific Misconduct (nor is it pathological)
I had not seen this good defense before. I will ask the author if I can post up the chunk on cf. On 5/9/13 3:11 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: ‘Pathological Science’ is not Scientific Misconduct (nor is it pathological) Henry H. Bauer* Abstract: ‘Pathological’ science implies scientific misconduct: it should not happen and the scientists concerned ought to know better. However, there are no clear and generally agreed definitions of pathological science or of scientific misconduct. The canonical exemplars of pathological science in chemistry (N-rays, polywater) as well as the recent case of cold fusion in electrochemistry involved research practices not clearly distinguishable from those in (revolutionary) science. The concept of ‘pathological science’ was put forth nearly half a century ago in a seminar and lacks justification in contemporary understanding of science studies (history, philosophy, and sociology of science). It is time to abandon the phrase. http://www.hyle.org/journal/issues/8-1/bauer.htm -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
[Vo]:Halo Neutron
Atomic Nucleus with Halo: For the First Time, Scientists Measure the Size of a One-Neutron Halo with Lasers Atomic nucleus of beryllium is three times as large as normal due to halo / Publication in Physical Review Letters http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/13031.php 16.02.2009 Atomic nuclei are normally compact structures defined by a sharp border. About twenty-five years ago, it was discovered at the University of California in Berkeley that there are exceptions to this picture: Certain exotic atomic nuclei contain particles that shear off from the central core and create a cloud, which surrounds the central core like a 'heiligenschein' or halo. An example of such a halo occurs in beryllium-11, a specific isotope of the metal beryllium. Here, the halo is made up of a single neutron. For the first time ever, scientists at the Institute of Nuclear Chemistry of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz in cooperation with colleagues from other institutes have succeeded in precisely measuring this one-neutron halo by means of a laser, and in evaluating the dimensions of the cloud. By studying neutron halos, scientists hope to gain further understanding of the forces within the atomic nucleus that bind atoms together, taking into account the fact that the degree of displacement of halo neutrons from the atomic nuclear core is incompatible with the concepts of classical nuclear physics. We intuitively imagine the atomic nucleus as a compact sphere consisting of positively charged protons and uncharged neutrons, explains Dr. Wilfried Nörtershäuser of the Institute of Nuclear Chemistry. In fact, we have known since the 1980s that atomic nuclei of certain neutron-rich isotopes of the lightest elements - lithium, helium and beryllium - completely contradict this conception. These isotopes consist of a compact nuclear core and a cloud made of diluted nuclear material - called 'heiligenschein' or 'halo'. A halo consists mostly of neutrons that are very weakly bound to the nuclear core, normally with only one-tenth of the usual binding energy of a neutron inside the core, explains Nörtershäuser. The discovery of these exotic atomic nuclei created a new area of research, which Nörtershäuser as the head of a young investigators group funded by the German Helmholtz Association has pursued since 2005 at the University in Mainz and at the GSI Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research in Darmstadt. Measuring halo nuclei is extremely difficult, since they can only be artificially created in minute amounts. In addition, these synthesized nuclei decay within seconds, mostly even in milliseconds. Nörtershäuser’s team has now succeeded for the first time in measuring the nuclear charge radius in beryllium-11. This nucleus consists of a dense core with 4 protons and 6 neutrons and a single weakly bound neutron that forms the halo. In order to accomplish this ultra-precise laser spectroscopic measurement, the scientists used a method developed 30 years ago at the University of Mainz, but combined it now for the first time with the most modern techniques for precise laser frequency measurement, i.e., by employing an optical frequency comb. This combination alone was not sufficient, though. Only by further expanding the method using an additional laser system it was possible to achieve the right level of precision. The technique was then applied to beryllium isotopes at the Isotope Separator On Line (ISOLDE) facility for radioactive ion beams at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Geneva. The professional journal Physical Review Letters published this work in its latest February 13 issue. The measurements revealed that the average distance between the halo neutrons and the dense core of the nucleus is 7 femtometers. Thus, the halo neutron is about three times as far from the dense core as is the outermost proton, since the core itself has a radius of only 2.5 femtometers. This is an impressive direct demonstration of the halo character of this isotope. It is interesting that the halo neutron is thus much farther from the other nucleons than would be permissible according to the effective range of strong nuclear forces in the classical model, explains Nörtershäuser. The strong interaction that holds atoms together can only extend to a distance of between 2 to 3 femtometers. The riddle as to how the halo neutron can exist at such a great distance from the core nucleus can only be resolved by means of the principles of quantum mechanics: In this model, the neutron must be characterized in terms of a so-called wave function. Because of the low binding energy, the wave function only falls off very slowly with increasing distance from the core. Thus, it is highly likely that the neutron can expand into classically forbidden distances, thereby inducing the expansive 'heiligenschein'. This work was supported by the Helmholtz Association, the GSI Darmstadt and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).
