Re: [Vo]:LENR needs mortar and unity!

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> I don't know where you are getting your information from but it looks to
> me that others in academia are taking a wait and see stand rather than
> dismissing Rossi as you do.
>

I get my information from the researchers. I meet with them every few years
at ICCF conferences, and we often exchange message when I copy-edit their
papers.

Where do you get your information? You are wrong.

If you have any doubt about my report, I suggest you contact some
researchers yourself.


>   It also seems there is more research going on in Ni/LAH/Li systems with
> other governments now starting to back it.
>

There has been for some time. It has little or nothing to do with Rossi.
Anyway, Rossi's own credibility is gone, for obvious reasons. Seriously, do
you think that any scientist or engineer would believe there might be 1 MW
of heat released in that warehouse facility? Do you think anyone outside of
Planet Rossi believes there can be an endothermic process that magically
swallows up that much heat, 24 hours a day, for months? That's crazy. No
one with a scientific or technical background would believe such nonsense
if they were not deeply in thrall of Rossi's deceptions. If someone not
named Rossi said things like that, you and Peter Gluck would instantly
dismiss them. You only believe it because you are emotionally invested in
Rossi, you are engaged in wishful thinking, and you cannot face reality.



> The problem with the better proven electrolysis route is that it is not
> clear how it can be scaled up.
>

That's incorrect. Many large scale electrolytic devices have been built,
for various purposes.



>   I expect to see a commercial unit from Rossi in 6 - 12 months.
>

You are deluded, as I said. If anything Rossi said were true, he and the
people in that warehouse facility would be dead. You saw the photos of it;
you know that as well as I do. You just cannot admit it even to yourself.

It's over. You need to let go of Rossi.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR needs mortar and unity!

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
I don't know where you are getting your information from but it looks to 
me that others in academia are taking a wait and see stand rather than 
dismissing Rossi as you do.  It also seems there is more research going 
on in Ni/LAH/Li systems with other governments now starting to back it.
The problem with the better proven electrolysis route is that it is not 
clear how it can be scaled up.  I expect to see a commercial unit from 
Rossi in 6 - 12 months.


AA

On 9/16/2016 4:24 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Axil Axil > wrote:

LENR should breakup into two independent sects, the Rossi sect and
the Rothwell sect.


That is more or less what has happened. However, you should not call 
it the "Rothwell sect." That gives the impression that I am part of a 
minority, or that I somehow lead the effort. Ask around and you will 
see that nearly all researchers in this field think Rossi is a 
flimflam man and a liar. Rossi has no support among the conventional 
academic researchers. As I pointed out before, Pam boss seems to 
despise him even more than I do.


I do not know anyone who is actually doing research or has published 
papers in this field who supports Rossi. There were a few years ago, 
but not now.


You Rossi supporters are a small minority. A few of you apparently 
still believe Defkalion. I find that mind-boggling, in light of the 
Gamberale report:


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

It makes me wonder what do these people have to do before you will 
finally see they are liars. It seems you will excuse anything.


- Jed

[Vo]:Dwarfs, Roasters and Holmlid

[Jones Beene]

Red Dwarf stars like our closest neighbor, Proxima Centari, are provocative
. especially if they heat a habitable planet and are close enough to travel
to (using the EMdrive ?). 

This conjecture comes up today due to input from SciFi and SciAm concerning
a recent fictional tale that turned out to be nearly true. You can read
about that in the cite below, but there is further possibility that they
don't go into. No surprise. After all this is SciAm, what did you expect?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-book-that-predicted-proxima-b-
excerpt/

The least massive red dwarf has a few % the mass of the Sun but the
temperature and pressures to support hot nuclear fusion is still there.
However, if cold fusion of the type involving "ultradense hydrogen" is real
(Holmlid effect) there is the outside chance that we will find a warmer
Jupiter out there to fill in the gap between red dwarf and cold gas giant. 

Maybe this is already found, since there is a little known class of large
planets called "roasters".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Jupiter

Back to Proxima Centauri, which is located just 4.2 light-years away and is
only a little larger than Jupiter in diameter but more massive. Its planet
is the about the size of Earth and is likely to be habitable. The smallest
known dwarf star is a bit smaller. But if we dispose of the requirement of
hot fusion as being the only heat source, then there could be another
category between gas giant and red dwarf, which is the "roaster" category,
yet without a nearby star to keep it hot.

In fact, although the cloud temperature of Jupiter is  a chilly -145 degrees
C, the temperature near the planet's core is a rather toasty 24,000 degrees
C . which ironically is far hotter than the surface of the sun. Go figure.
If a Jupiter-like planet had a larger iron-nickel core so that the hot zone
is moved closer to the surface, then the cloud temperature could become
balmy, due to more internal heat. The moons of such a Hot Jupiter would then
be where to look for life.

Since Jupiter probably has a solid hydrogen core, it is indeed possible that
unbeknownst to most cosmologists - one contributory heat source already is
due to LENR. But if not, there still could be a more massive planet, or a
less massive red dwarf, which is heated by the Holmlid effect (defined as
ultra-dense hydrogen exposed to semi-coherent radiation on a catalyst). 

By Jove, you heard it first on vortex.

Re: [Vo]:LENR needs mortar and unity!

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:

LENR should breakup into two independent sects, the Rossi sect and the
> Rothwell sect.
>

That is more or less what has happened. However, you should not call it the
"Rothwell sect." That gives the impression that I am part of a minority, or
that I somehow lead the effort. Ask around and you will see that nearly all
researchers in this field think Rossi is a flimflam man and a liar. Rossi
has no support among the conventional academic researchers. As I pointed
out before, Pam boss seems to despise him even more than I do.

I do not know anyone who is actually doing research or has published papers
in this field who supports Rossi. There were a few years ago, but not now.

You Rossi supporters are a small minority. A few of you apparently still
believe Defkalion. I find that mind-boggling, in light of the Gamberale
report:

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

It makes me wonder what do these people have to do before you will finally
see they are liars. It seems you will excuse anything.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR needs mortar and unity!

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:

A researcher with a good experiment should contact I.H. They might fund the
>> research. No one else will. No government will.
>>
>
> Once burned twice shy.
>
> Do you really think I.H. would take another flier on cold fusion at this
> point?
>

They are supporting other researchers. I know this because I am contact
with I.H. and also with some of the researchers. I do not know how many
researchers are working with them.



> Rossi did a great job.  He has totally nuked the chances of CF to go
> anywhere for a long, long time to come.  Between getting egg on a lot of
> people's faces, costing some people a lot of money, and making some CF
> experts look like idiots for not seeing through him sooner . . . whatever
> aura of respectability the field might have had has gone in the dumper at
> this point.
>

I agree. However, I.H. has not given up, fortunately.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR needs mortar and unity!

[Axil Axil]

LENR should breakup into two independent sects, the Rossi sect and the
Rothwell sect. Each of these sects should ignore the other.

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence 
wrote:

>
>
> On 09/16/2016 03:36 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>>
>> A researcher with a good experiment should contact I.H. They might fund
>> the research. No one else will. No government will.
>>
>
> Once burned twice shy.
>
> Do you really think I.H. would take another flier on cold fusion at this
> point?
>
> Rossi did a great job.  He has totally nuked the chances of CF to go
> anywhere for a long, long time to come.  Between getting egg on a lot of
> people's faces, costing some people a lot of money, and making some CF
> experts look like idiots for not seeing through him sooner (which should
> have surprised nobody -- con man versus scientists, con man usually wins),
> whatever aura of respectability the field might have had has gone in the
> dumper at this point.
>
> Anyhow that's my sad opinion on the situation :-(
>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR needs mortar and unity!

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 09/16/2016 03:36 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


A researcher with a good experiment should contact I.H. They might 
fund the research. No one else will. No government will.


Once burned twice shy.

Do you really think I.H. would take another flier on cold fusion at this 
point?


Rossi did a great job.  He has totally nuked the chances of CF to go 
anywhere for a long, long time to come.  Between getting egg on a lot of 
people's faces, costing some people a lot of money, and making some CF 
experts look like idiots for not seeing through him sooner (which should 
have surprised nobody -- con man versus scientists, con man usually 
wins), whatever aura of respectability the field might have had has gone 
in the dumper at this point.


Anyhow that's my sad opinion on the situation :-(

Re: [Vo]:LENR needs mortar and unity!

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:

It happens I thought first about the classic LENR community.
>

You might as well try to herd cats.



> But your idea can be taken in consideration, what about a league and a
> movement of Sucessful Competitors of the Rossi Technology- as claimed by
> Rossi?
>

Rossi has no technology. If he claims there are competitors, he lies.



> Do yiu see a personality r an organization
> able to unify LENR- in some extent?
>

Given the personalities of the researchers I think this is a forlorn hope.

I do not see much use for unity at this stage. A researcher with a good
experiment should contact I.H. They might fund the research. No one else
will. No government will.



> As Lennart has said there is still no verdict regarding the Rossi
> Technology.
>

He is wrong. The verdict is clear. If Rossi's claims were true everyone in
the warehouse would be dead. If Rossi's claims were even partly true, the
warehouse would have been very hot, and it was not.

The details are spelled out in Exhibit 5, but all you really need to know
is that the warehouse was not as hot as an oven. As you see from the photos
it would have been if there had actually been a 1 MW heat source.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR needs mortar and unity!

[Peter Gluck]

It happens I thought first about the classic LENR community.
But your idea can be taken in consideration, what about a league and a
movement of Sucessful Competitors of the Rossi Technology- as claimed by
Rossi? If unity pro goes with difficulty perhaps unity against something is
more stimulative?
What is your personal strategy? Do yiu see a personality r an organization
able to unify LENR- in some extent?
As Lennart has said there is still no verdict regarding the Rossi
Technology.


peter

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> We sure as hell do should not unify behind Rossi, if that is what you are
> thinking. If researchers endorse flimflam artists such as Rossi and
> Defkalion it will be the end of cold fusion.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:LENR needs mortar and unity!

[Lennart Thornros]

One should not judge without all info.
One does not need to believe that AR has anything, but 'we sure as hell
should' give him the right to prove himself before judgement.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> We sure as hell do should not unify behind Rossi, if that is what you are
> thinking. If researchers endorse flimflam artists such as Rossi and
> Defkalion it will be the end of cold fusion.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR needs mortar and unity!

[Jed Rothwell]

We sure as hell do should not unify behind Rossi, if that is what you are
thinking. If researchers endorse flimflam artists such as Rossi and
Defkalion it will be the end of cold fusion.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A question about Heavy and light Isotopes and LENR.

[Stephen Cooke]

Hi Bob

I think you are right about factors out side the nucleus being of great 
importance.

I was wondering if the data from these transmutations and isotopic shifts could 
tell us something independent of any theory about the nucleus. For example if 
the observed data requires particular states to form and if this could tell us 
something about the environment or processes external to the nucleus itself.

I guess much of this has already been considered by many.l though. So probably 
I should read a bit more too ;)

Sent from my iPhone

On 16 Sep 2016, at 17:12, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:

Actually what you describe has already happened.  Norman Cook himself is 
weighing in on a theory of LENR.  However, I don't think it is that simple.  
Dr. Cook is well versed at what happens inside the nucleus, but the LENR 
phenomenon is bigger than that - it needs a condensed matter physicist also 
versed in nuclear physics.  Now the field narrows.  Even then, there is 
probably the need for introduction of new physical phenomena that are not 
recognized or understood today - perhaps the ignored negative solutions to 
Dirac's equation that were swept under the rug by Feynman.

Looking simply at the nuclear physics end alone is like saying that LENR is 
related to hot fusion, wherein only the two fusing nuclei are the domain of the 
problem because they are isolated when they react.

That is why LENR is reported in the Journal of "Condensed Matter Nuclear 
Science" - a science that embodies nuclear science and also condensed matter 
(solids).

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 4:25 AM, Stephen Cooke 
> wrote:


Actually it would be interesting to give this data to an expert on nuclear 
physics who has no bias one way or other about LENR and see what he comes up 
with as an explanation.

Re: [Vo]:A question about Heavy and light Isotopes and LENR.

[Stephen Cooke]

Thanks very much Eric for the pointers to the other papers and for the link to 
your interesting paper too.

I have a lot to catch up with it seems.

I was wondering if the transmutations and isotopic evolutions could turn out to 
require certain states such as excitation or parity spin states or some more 
subtle conditions that might help inform about a higher level external process 
or environment . Rather than first looking at external processes and seeing how 
they affect the nucleus.

But I have a lot to read to catch up with most of you here who have been doing 
this for years and probably have already considered this approach.

Sent from my iPhone

On 16 Sep 2016, at 15:11, Eric Walker 
> wrote:

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Stephen Cooke 
> wrote:

This [using Norman Cook's theory as a guide] would be a bottom up approach from 
first principles which might the match well with one or more of the more usual 
top down theories ideas.

This sounds like a top-down approach, starting from some assumptions about 
what's going on and then interpreting the data.  What I was thinking of was a 
bottom-up approach, where one keeps theory out of the picture as much and just 
catalogues what's been found.  Ed Storm's "Science of Low Energy Nuclear 
Reaction" gives a good high-level overview, but it doesn't go into sufficient 
detail.  After reading that book, it's probably good to start looking at actual 
experimental papers.  There are several authors that have repeatedly reported 
them over the years, including but not limited to these ones:

  *   Iwamura
  *   Mizuno
  *   Saavatimova
  *   Karabut

Reading their papers is a good start.  Although transmutations are all over the 
map, there are a handful of possible patterns that could be followed up on 
more.  Here is a speculative attempt I made not at systematizing the data but 
at guessing at what's going on: http://vixra.org/pdf/1512.0278v2.pdf.  Because 
it was speculative, one shouldn't draw any conclusions from it.  Also, there's 
a section on Rossi that is unfortunately probably incorrect and should be 
ignored.

What I would have loved when I was writing that paper was a reliable 
systematization of the transmutation research, which goes into great detail on 
what's been reported without introducing theoretical considerations.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:A question about Heavy and light Isotopes and LENR.

[Stephen Cooke]

Your largely of course about Norman Cook having his own views about how to 
present the Nucleus, but I found the initial part of his book where he 
describes the relationship between various states and nucleus stability which 
is data based and independent of his ideas quite interesting.

By bottom up I mean looking at and understanding the raw data from the isotope 
and transmutations in the nucleus in this data and comparing it to other known 
raw data to see if it can inform about higher level processes that could be 
nuclear, atomic, chemical or any number of higher level processes.


On 16 Sep 2016, at 15:11, Eric Walker 
> wrote:

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Stephen Cooke 
> wrote:

This [using Norman Cook's theory as a guide] would be a bottom up approach from 
first principles which might the match well with one or more of the more usual 
top down theories ideas.

This sounds like a top-down approach, starting from some assumptions about 
what's going on and then interpreting the data.  What I was thinking of was a 
bottom-up approach, where one keeps theory out of the picture as much and just 
catalogues what's been found.  Ed Storm's "Science of Low Energy Nuclear 
Reaction" gives a good high-level overview, but it doesn't go into sufficient 
detail.  After reading that book, it's probably good to start looking at actual 
experimental papers.  There are several authors that have repeatedly reported 
them over the years, including but not limited to these ones:

  *   Iwamura
  *   Mizuno
  *   Saavatimova
  *   Karabut

Reading their papers is a good start.  Although transmutations are all over the 
map, there are a handful of possible patterns that could be followed up on 
more.  Here is a speculative attempt I made not at systematizing the data but 
at guessing at what's going on: http://vixra.org/pdf/1512.0278v2.pdf.  Because 
it was speculative, one shouldn't draw any conclusions from it.  Also, there's 
a section on Rossi that is unfortunately probably incorrect and should be 
ignored.

What I would have loved when I was writing that paper was a reliable 
systematization of the transmutation research, which goes into great detail on 
what's been reported without introducing theoretical considerations.

Eric

[Vo]:LENR needs mortar and unity!

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/09/sep-16-2016-lenr-needs-mortar-unity.html

peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:A question about Heavy and light Isotopes and LENR.

[Bob Higgins]

Actually what you describe has already happened.  Norman Cook himself is
weighing in on a theory of LENR.  However, I don't think it is that
simple.  Dr. Cook is well versed at what happens inside the nucleus, but
the LENR phenomenon is bigger than that - it needs a condensed matter
physicist also versed in nuclear physics.  Now the field narrows.  Even
then, there is probably the need for introduction of new physical phenomena
that are not recognized or understood today - perhaps the ignored negative
solutions to Dirac's equation that were swept under the rug by Feynman.

Looking simply at the nuclear physics end alone is like saying that LENR is
related to hot fusion, wherein only the two fusing nuclei are the domain of
the problem because they are isolated when they react.

That is why LENR is reported in the Journal of "Condensed Matter Nuclear
Science" - a science that embodies nuclear science and also condensed
matter (solids).

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 4:25 AM, Stephen Cooke 
wrote:

>
>
> Actually it would be interesting to give this data to an expert on nuclear
> physics who has no bias one way or other about LENR and see what he comes
> up with as an explanation.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A question about Heavy and light Isotopes and LENR.

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Stephen Cooke 
wrote:

This [using Norman Cook's theory as a guide] would be a bottom up approach
> from first principles which might the match well with one or more of the
> more usual top down theories ideas.
>

This sounds like a top-down approach, starting from some assumptions about
what's going on and then interpreting the data.  What I was thinking of was
a bottom-up approach, where one keeps theory out of the picture as much and
just catalogues what's been found.  Ed Storm's "Science of Low Energy
Nuclear Reaction" gives a good high-level overview, but it doesn't go into
sufficient detail.  After reading that book, it's probably good to start
looking at actual experimental papers.  There are several authors that have
repeatedly reported them over the years, including but not limited to these
ones:

   - Iwamura
   - Mizuno
   - Saavatimova
   - Karabut

Reading their papers is a good start.  Although transmutations are all over
the map, there are a handful of possible patterns that could be followed up
on more.  Here is a speculative attempt I made not at systematizing the
data but at guessing at what's going on:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1512.0278v2.pdf.  Because it was speculative, one
shouldn't draw any conclusions from it.  Also, there's a section on Rossi
that is unfortunately probably incorrect and should be ignored.

What I would have loved when I was writing that paper was a reliable
systematization of the transmutation research, which goes into great detail
on what's been reported without introducing theoretical considerations.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:A question about Heavy and light Isotopes and LENR.

[Stephen Cooke]

Eric I agree with what you said here completely.

I think it could be well worth some one with an un biased mind looking through 
these transmutations and isotope evolutions to see what information it throws 
up.

I guess for most of us find it very difficult to do though as I think we all 
have our own pet theories or ideas though or opinions on others that can only 
influence us.

I guess people like Iwamura are doing avoid job at identifying them though.

After Jones Beene recommendation I have been reading through parts of Ed Storms 
book again it's amazing what's in there when you look back at it. I read it 
initially a year or so ago as an introduction to LENR when I was new to the 
subject but it's really of benefit once you have learnt a bit more about it. He 
made a huge work with that book I think.

I agree with you though now after re-reading these sections there are 
transmutations all over the place. But perhaps combining Ed Storms book with 
some information in Norman Cooks book about Nuclear Structure which has some 
interesting factual information an correlation of states with structure and a 
good advanced book on quantum mechanics and Quantum tunneling some one could 
make some sense of the transmutations and isotope evolutions from first 
principles that could the go on to inform both theory at atomic level and 
theory regarding the kinds of environments required to generate those 
conditions. This would be a bottom up approach from first principles which 
might the match well with one or more of the more usual top down theories ideas.

Actually it would be interesting to give this data to an expert on nuclear 
physics who has no bias one way or other about LENR and see what he comes up 
with as an explanation.


On 16 Sep 2016, at 02:33, Eric Walker 
> wrote:

>From what I've seen, there's transmutations all over the map.  This is an area 
>that is in need of systematization in the hands of someone careful who does 
>not have a pet theory to advance, or who can do a rigorous job despite having 
>a pet theory.  This is the kind of topic for which it would be easy to draw 
>facile generalizations that on closer inspection are a bit light on the 
>evidence, something I think is regularly done.  And you'd want someone to 
>avoid simply adopting the researchers' own conclusions and just look at the 
>data they publish.

One conclusion that should in my opinion be avoided as an example of such a 
facile generalization: the transmutations are insufficient to account for 
excess heat.  While it is true that some LENR researchers have convinced 
themselves of this, one need only realize that if carbon or silicon or some 
other common "impurity" is actually a transmutation byproduct, then there could 
potentially be a lot of excess heat that could be ascribed to the transmutation 
process, especially if one includes fission byproducts in the evidence for 
transmutations.

Eric


On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Stephen Cooke 
> wrote:
I have a couple of questions that maybe some here can answer.

In the LENR context:

Are transmutations of elements and isotope evolutions for elements lighter and 
including Ni ever observed for heavier isotopes (I.e neutron rich isotopes)? Or 
only for those isotopes with fewer neutrons than ideally required for maximum 
stability.



Are the transmutations of elements for elements heavier heavier than Ni ever 
observed for lighter isotopes (I.e. Low Neutron isotopes)? Or only those 
isotopes with more neutrons than ideally required for maximum stability.