[Vo]:Energy From Fusion In Two Years, CEO Says, Commercialization In Five

[Kevin O'Malley]

Energy From Fusion In Two Years, CEO Says, Commercialization In Five
 Jeff McMahon



https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/01/14/private-firm-will-bring-fusion-reactor-to-market-within-five-years-ceo-says/#4b64b0591d4a






Jeff McMahon
Contributor
Green Tech
>From Chicago, I write about green technology, energy, environment.



TAE Technologies will bring a fusion-reactor technology to
commercialization in the next five years, its CEO announced recently
at the University of California, Irvine.

"The notion that you hear fusion is another 20 years away, 30 years
away, 50 years away—it's not true," said Michl Binderbauer, CEO of
the company formerly known as Tri Alpha Energy. "We're talking
commercialization coming in the next five years for this technology."

That trajectory is considerably sooner than Binderbauer described when
he took over as CEO in 2017. It would put TAE ahead of two formidable
competitors. The 35-nation ITER project expects to complete its
demonstration reactor in France in 2025. Vancouver-based General
Fusion Inc. is devoting the next five years, with support from the
Canadian government, to developing a prototype of its fusion reactor.
And the Massachusetts Institute of Technology announced last March
that it expects to bring its fusion reactor to market in ten years.

For more than 20 years TAE has been pursuing a reactor that would fuse
hydrogen and boron at extremely high temperatures, releasing excess
energy much as the sun does when it fuses hydrogen atoms. Lately the
California company has been testing the heat capacity of its process
in a machine it named Norman after the late UC Irvine physicist Norman
Rostoker.


Its next device, dubbed Copernicus, is designed to demonstrate an
energy gain. It will involve deuterium-tritium fusion, the aim of most
competitors, but a milestone on TAE's path to a hotter, but safer,
hydrogen-boron reaction.

Binderbauer expects to pass the D-T fusion milestone within two years.

"What we're really going to see in the next couple years is actually
the ability to actually make net energy, and that's going to happen in
the machine we call Copernicus," he said in a "fireside chat" at UC
Irvine, appearing alongside actor Harry Hamlin (of "Clash of the
Titans" and "LA Law"), who was an early supporter and a co-founder of
the company.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen is another prominent supporter, and
Alphabet/Google a shareholder.

TAE has been funded so far by more than $500 million in private equity.

"An endeavor as monumental as this requires an upfront commitment of
very substantial proportions, which runs counter to the way most R&D
money is parceled out," according to the company's website. "With TAE
operating as a private company, we have been able to research,
experiment and iterate more rapidly than our competition."

But TAE is ready now to talk to the government.

"We're in the process of funding and putting that project together
right now," Binderbauer said of Copernicus. "We're working actually
for the first time with the DOE, in some form of a relationship where
they're gonna contribute some in-kind, and this will be a sort of
public-private partnership to pull that off, and then it goes to
commercialization."

Watch Brinderbaur and Hamlin at UC Irvine:


I've covered the energy and environment beat since 1985, when I
discovered my college was discarding radioactive waste in a dumpster.
That story ran in the Arizona Republic, and I have chased electrons
and pollutants ever since, for dailies in Arizona and California, for
al... MORE
By Jeff McMahon, based in Chicago. Follow Jeff McMahon on Facebook,
Google Plus, Twitter, or email him here.

Re: [Vo]:Energy From Fusion In Two Years, CEO Says, Commercialization In Five

[Kevin O'Malley]

My prediction is that for the next 20 years there will be gigantic
fraud scams in Fusion engineering.  Like this one.

Scientists have discovered how to milk the fear and greed of
billionaires and it aint gonna be pretty.

On 1/14/19, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
> Energy From Fusion In Two Years, CEO Says, Commercialization In Five
>  Jeff McMahon
>
>
>
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/01/14/private-firm-will-bring-fusion-reactor-to-market-within-five-years-ceo-says/#4b64b0591d4a
>
>

[Vo]:Rare cosmological events recorded in muscovite mica.

[Kevin O'Malley]

Rare cosmological events recorded in muscovite mica.


F. M. Russell, School of Computing and Engineering University of
Huddersfield, HD1 3DH, U.K.

 
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2f7ad4fe6232404eca928274d022ca00dbd699f1790550d820b93ccbca7c61a7.png

Figure 1. Scan of sheet of muscovite showing the fossil tracks of
charged particles. The  diagram  identifies  the  relevant  parts  of
the  fossil  tracks resulting from a nuclear star. The directions of
the principal atomic chains are shown.Most of the tracks lying in
these directions are due  to  quodons.Some tracks can  be  channelling
 relativistic particles  but  these  usually  show  fans from  nuclear
 scattering events, which quodons cannot create. The direction of
flight of the particle  causing  the  star  is  unknown.  It  results
in  at  least  eighttracks. When  tracks  lie  in  the  (001)-plane
they  are  usually continuous.  For  those  moving  at  an  angle  to
this  plane  they  will intersect  the  potassium  sheets,  where  the
 recording  occurs,  at separated points. The long vertical chains of
dots are of this type. The  fan  shaped patterns  are  caused  by
nuclear  scattering  events that   produced   atomic   cascades   in
which   kink-like   lattice excitations  are  created.  These  fans
are  clustered  around  the principal crystal directions.The sheet of
mica is 15cm x 29cm.

Abstract.

A study of fossil tracks of charged particles recorded in crystals of
muscovite has revealed evidence  of  rare  events  of  cosmological
origin. The  events  are  not  compatible  with  known  particle
interactions with matter. They were recorded during a period when the
crystals were in a metastable state during cooling after growth 13km
water equivalent underground. In this state a phase transition can be
triggered by low energy events in the range 1eV to 10keV, when the
crystals effectively behave as solid-state bubble chambers. At higher
energies the chemical etching technique can be used to reveal massive
damage to the lattice. The rare events show evidence of interaction
with the crystal over a great range of energies. They leave a
distinctive record that is easily recognised.

 Introduction.



The  search  for  evidence  of exotic  events of  cosmological  origin
usually  starts  with assumptions about possible interactions with
ordinary matter. Irrespective of these the detector should offer  a
large  sensitive  volume  and  a moderately long  recording
time.Ideally,  it  also  should  enable detailed  study  of
individual  recorded  events.  An  interesting approach looked  for
fossil evidence of scattering of WIMPs in crystals of muscovite
[1,2].It was based on the possibility that an atom recoiling from  a
scattering  event  might  cause sufficient damage  to  a  lattice that
 it could  be  revealed  by  the technique  of  chemical  etching.
This  technique  is  limited by  the  extent  of  damage  needed  to
allow etching  and  by background recoils generated  over geologic
time  scales  from radioactivity,  nuclear fission and cosmic
radiation.Ifatomic force microscopy is used to determine the depth of
etch pits thenthe lower limit on recoil energies to give an etchable
track is a few tens of keV.This contrasts with the lower limit of
about 1eV for recording in muscovite when in the metastable state
considered here. Crystals of muscovite often show visible
defectsconsisting of a hatch-work of black lineslying in the cleavage
(001)-plane. Many of these lines lie in principal crystallographic
directions at 60ointervals but not all.A study of the properties of
these exceptions showed that some were the fossil tracks of charged
leptons. In particular, somewere the tracks of positrons emitted from
the isotope 40K that occursin the monatomic sheets of potassium
forming part of the crystalstructure. It was found that the recoil of
the nucleus  arising  from  the dominant beta  decay channelcreated  a
 mobile  lattice  excitation  called  a quodon. These quodons cantrap
a charge and propagate unimpeded along chains of potassium atoms for
great  distances.They move  at ~3km/s  and  are the  cause  of  the
majority  of lines lying  in  the  60o directions.Evidence  also  was
found  for  fossil  tracks  due  to  e-p  showers[3].  These  showed
that  the tracks  were  recorded  after  the  crystal  had  grown  but
 the  temperature  was  still  above  700K,  which allowed migration
of atoms to formthe black lines.Therecording process operating in the
metastable state does  not  depend  on  ionisation.  It arises  from a
 phase  transition  triggered  by the  presence  of a positive charge
when the crystal is in a metastable state during cooling.In this state
the lattice needs nucleation sitesto  expel  excess  iron  to  form
the  black ribbons  of  magnetite. The sensitivity  of  this process
is shown by the lower limit of energy of a quodon of about 1eV for it
to be recorded.In effect, the crystals behave as a solid-state bubble
chamber.

[Vo]:Google, University of Maryland File Patent based on ‘High Density Electron Clouds’

[Kevin O'Malley]

Google, University of Maryland File Patent based on ‘High Density
Electron Clouds’
Posted on February 7, 2019 • 12 Comments
Thanks to Max Nozin for referencing a new patent application
(published February 7th, 2019) filed by Google Inc. and the University
of Maryland, College Park on Aug 3, 2017.




This patent reads like one of Axil Axil's posts here on Vortex or
elsewhere.   He's the only one I have seen going on and on about
Plasmon interactions, SPPs (Surface Plasmon Polaritons), and so on.
I expect the phrase SPP BEC to be in wide use within a few weeks







The title is “Enhanced Electron Screening Through Plasmon Oscillations”.

Here is the abstract:

Enhanced Coulomb repulsion screening around light element nuclei is
achieved by way of utilizing electromagnetic (EM) radiation to induce
plasmon oscillations in target structures (e.g., nanoparticles) in a
way that produces high density electron clouds in localized regions of
the target structures, thereby generating charge density variations
around light element atoms located in the localized regions. Each
target structure includes an electrically conductive body including
light elements (e.g., a metal hydride/deuteride/tritide) that is
configured to undergo plasmon oscillations in response to the applied
EM radiation. The induced oscillations causes free electrons to
converge in the localized region, thereby producing transient high
electron charge density levels that enhance Coulomb repulsion
screening around light element (e.g., deuterium) atoms located in the
localized regions. Various systems capable of implementing enhanced
Coulomb repulsion screening are described, and various nanostructure
compositions and configurations are disclosed that serve to further
enhance fusion reaction rates.

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=20190043624.PGNR.&OS=dn/20190043624&RS=DN/20190043624

The term ‘high density electron clouds’ is familiar in connection with LENR



The Google/U of Maryland Patent talks about ‘low energy fission’ in
the ‘Field of Invention’ section:

The present invention relates specifically to the generation of the
light-Nuclei elements (LNEs) Lithium, Beryllium and Boron by the
process of low energy fission, breaking down, Carbon, Nitrogen, and
Oxygen (CNOs) with the introduction of instability to the CNOs heavy
stable isotopes through the application high-frequency radio waves at
the NMR frequency, in the presence of a strong magnetic field, of the
targeted source material.

[Vo]:GoFundMe: Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source

[Kevin O'Malley]

Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source


I'm setting up a GoFundMe campaign to buy a gamma spectrometer and go
to London to test these cells, per Alan's invitation.   It would make
sense for someone more qualified to make the visit , take the
measurements, and generate the YouTube video.   Hint:   Jed.

Alan Smith and his team claim to be generating Gamma Rays above
background noise radiation on a chemical fuel cell, which is
impossible.  He has invited anyone with the means to come and test his
cells.

http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/2018-05-10-3.png

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5597-atom-ecology/?pageNo=99

http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2018/09/22/have-cold-fusion-will-travel/

  I intend to purchase a Gamma Spectrometer, travel to London and
visit his laboratory, and test his claim, to see for myself.  I will
post a video on YouTube , one way or another, whether it debunks his
claim or supports it.

I do not have to be the one going to London to do this.  Anyone near
there can use this money and visit the lab , as long as they
demonstrate they know how to use a spectrometer, per Alan's
invitation.   When we are done with testing the devices, we will
donate the spectrometer to the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project or
use it for further testing/debunking of claims.

The time has come for independent testing of some of these types of
energy cells.  If they are real, they will be a tremendous energy
breakthrough.   If they are not real, you will help to stop energy
related scams.

[Vo]:Re: GoFundMe: Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source

[Kevin O'Malley]

https://www.gofundme.com/8nmynh-geiger?teamInvite=WC66VANcJqCD05UmM6byRPSAQOc6WHY1zMnMFDuwZkswE1QewWCy5ezPYj5IT06O

On 5/11/19, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
> Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source
>
>
> I'm setting up a GoFundMe campaign to buy a gamma spectrometer and go
> to London to test these cells, per Alan's invitation.   It would make
> sense for someone more qualified to make the visit , take the
> measurements, and generate the YouTube video.   Hint:   Jed.
>
> Alan Smith and his team claim to be generating Gamma Rays above
> background noise radiation on a chemical fuel cell, which is
> impossible.  He has invited anyone with the means to come and test his
> cells.
>
> http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/2018-05-10-3.png
>
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5597-atom-ecology/?pageNo=99
>
> http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2018/09/22/have-cold-fusion-will-travel/
>
>   I intend to purchase a Gamma Spectrometer, travel to London and
> visit his laboratory, and test his claim, to see for myself.  I will
> post a video on YouTube , one way or another, whether it debunks his
> claim or supports it.
>
> I do not have to be the one going to London to do this.  Anyone near
> there can use this money and visit the lab , as long as they
> demonstrate they know how to use a spectrometer, per Alan's
> invitation.   When we are done with testing the devices, we will
> donate the spectrometer to the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project or
> use it for further testing/debunking of claims.
>
> The time has come for independent testing of some of these types of
> energy cells.  If they are real, they will be a tremendous energy
> breakthrough.   If they are not real, you will help to stop energy
> related scams.
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: GoFundMe: Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source

[Kevin O'Malley]

At one time, National Instruments had an initiative to work with LENR
researchers like Dennis Cravens.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3051476/posts

>From what I can tell, it amounted to nothing.

MFMP breathlessly announced that they were detecting Gamma rays.
www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/follow-2/347-gamma
Then their researcher took his toys and went home, saying nothing more.

Someone needs to bell the cat.   If it isn't going to be guys like
Cravens or folks who know one end of a gamma spectrometer and happen
to live near London, then it is up to guys like me who have very
little means and very little expertise but if the cat gets belled,
then it was doable all along, right?


On 5/12/19, JonesBeene  wrote:
> Why wouldn’t it  would make more sense to contact a company located in
> London who manufacture or sell gamma spectrometers to do the testing using
> one of their own experts?
>
> There must be  one or more companies located in or near London that would
> likely  do this testing for free – for the publicity value. For instance
> here is one:
>
> https://www.kromek.com/
>
> Based on past attempts to fund LENR through these online sites like
> GoFundMe, this effort may not generate much interest - and even if it did,
> wouldn’t it be more credible to use an expert in spectrometry to do the
> measurements – preferably one associated with the maker of the equipment or
> with a University?
>
>  Jones
>
>
> From: Kevin O'Malley
>
> https://www.gofundme.com/8nmynh-geiger?teamInvite=WC66VANcJqCD05UmM6byRPSAQOc6WHY1zMnMFDuwZkswE1QewWCy5ezPYj5IT06O
>
>> Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source
>
>> I'm setting up a GoFundMe campaign to buy a gamma spectrometer and go
>> to London to test these cells, per Alan's invitation.   It would make
>> sense for someone more qualified to make the visit , take the
>> measurements, and generate the YouTube video.   Hint:   Jed.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: GoFundMe: Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source

[Kevin O'Malley]

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5271-clearance-items/?postID=110493#post110493





Online
kevmol...@gmail.com
Member
Likes Received844
A moment ago
New
#3,781

Alan Smith wrote:
Kev- you have zero idea. For a start you were not specifically
invited, and neither did I invite 'anyone' - I invited specific people
with some relevant scientific background, which I don't think you
have. Also you didn't ask permission to use my image or company
details on a GFM page. The answer to that would have been 'no' in any
case, even if you were Edward Teller. Beyond that you don't need a
gamma spec to count with, and neither would you need S100K to travel
to the UK with a $1000 Geiger counter.

Kev- you have zero idea.

***So you move this attempt to get to the bottom of things to
Clearance Items? How does that further the science?



For a start you were not specifically invited,

***Yes I was. Right here. By you.



and neither did I invite 'anyone' - I invited specific people with
some relevant scientific background,

***For some odd reason, they do not seem to be interested, or they
don't have the "time" or can't be bothered. And when I accept your
invitation, it is moved to Clearance Items. So one way or another, I'm
doing what I can with what I have.



which I don't think you have.

***It says right on the GoFundMe page that I'm more than happy to have
someone else more qualified than me go and do the testing as long as
they report back for everyone to see. None of this MFMP
take-my-toys-home and tell no one what happened nonsense. I have a
BSEE and 20 years experience as an Electrical Engineer, so if that
isn't someone with enough background then you REALLY need to clarify
your invitation.



Also you didn't ask permission to use my image

***Your image is on the web. You gave everyone your permission to
associate you with this Atom-Ecology project.





or company details on a GFM page.

***There are no company details other than what you have provided on
the web. What is the issue here?



The answer to that would have been 'no' in any case,

***So you issue an invitation to test your device. I accept your
invitation but don't have the means. I announce my intention to get
the means, and you retract your invitation, to someone with a very
pro-LENR bent. Something really doesn't add up.



even if you were Edward Teller.

***So, you're retracting accepted invitations from BSEE guys who are
pro-LENR, and if those guys had gigantic qualifications you still
won't accept it. Something doesn't add up.



Beyond that you don't need a gamma spec to count with,

***I got that information straight off the website that announced the
Gammas. Just go ahead and announce what will be needed and I'll try to
acquire it.



and neither would you need S100K to travel to the UK with a $1000
Geiger counter.

***Sure I do. I need to pay for the gamma spectrometer, package and
ship it past customs (probably quite a few questions about why someone
wants to count gamma rays in London, eh?) and then buy the tickets,
get the passport, arrange for transport and hotel accommodations
for... say, ... 3 days. Then it's a second camera, the money for the
software to put together the video, various other things to set up
like a hosting website or somesuch thing, and before you know it,
there goes $50k or whatever.



If there's money left over it gets donated to MFMP. Heck, we could
save a ton of money by getting someone with their own Gamma
spectrometer who lives near London and has his own camera and puts up
the YouTube video, but that isn't happening, is it?



Someone has to bell the cat, and I'm willing to do it. Maybe I'm not
able, but I don't see the ones who ARE able , I don't see them
stepping forward willing to bell the cat.



On 5/12/19, JonesBeene  wrote:
> Why wouldn’t it  would make more sense to contact a company located in
> London who manufacture or sell gamma spectrometers to do the testing using
> one of their own experts?
>
> There must be  one or more companies located in or near London that would
> likely  do this testing for free – for the publicity value. For instance
> here is one:
>
> https://www.kromek.com/
>
> Based on past attempts to fund LENR through these online sites like
> GoFundMe, this effort may not generate much interest - and even if it did,
> wouldn’t it be more credible to use an expert in spectrometry to do the
> measurements – preferably one associated with the maker of the equipment or
> with a University?
>
>  Jones
>
>
> From: Kevin O'Malley
>
> https://www.gofundme.com/8nmynh-geiger?teamInvite=WC66VANcJqCD05UmM6byRPSAQOc6WHY1zMnMFDuwZkswE1QewWCy5ezPYj5IT06O
>
>> Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source
>
>&

Re: [Vo]:Re: GoFundMe: Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source

[Kevin O'Malley]

Budgetary quote request: Gamma Spectrometer and Training   Inbox
Add star  Kevin O'Malley   Sun, May 12, 2019 at 11:17 AM
To: sa...@kromek.com
Bcc: kevmol...@gmail.com
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
Hello Kromek:

I'm interested in purchasing one of your gamma ray spectrometers to
use in an industrial research project.   I have set up a GoFundMe page
to gather the resources to pay for such a project and need a budgetary
quote for  one device and the training necessary to get an ordinary
Electrical Engineer with 20 years experience (but none with Gamma
Spectrometers) to do the testing.



The testing is intended to be done near London.  When testing is done,
I will publish the results and donate the device to an organization
that is looking into furthering the science on energy resources.

Best regards

Kevin O'Malley
Semi-retired Electrical Engineer
phone:

On 5/12/19, JonesBeene  wrote:
> Why wouldn’t it  would make more sense to contact a company located in
> London who manufacture or sell gamma spectrometers to do the testing using
> one of their own experts?
>
> There must be  one or more companies located in or near London that would
> likely  do this testing for free – for the publicity value. For instance
> here is one:
>
> https://www.kromek.com/
>
> Based on past attempts to fund LENR through these online sites like
> GoFundMe, this effort may not generate much interest - and even if it did,
> wouldn’t it be more credible to use an expert in spectrometry to do the
> measurements – preferably one associated with the maker of the equipment or
> with a University?
>
>  Jones
>
>
> From: Kevin O'Malley
>
> https://www.gofundme.com/8nmynh-geiger?teamInvite=WC66VANcJqCD05UmM6byRPSAQOc6WHY1zMnMFDuwZkswE1QewWCy5ezPYj5IT06O
>
>> Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source
>
>> I'm setting up a GoFundMe campaign to buy a gamma spectrometer and go
>> to London to test these cells, per Alan's invitation.   It would make
>> sense for someone more qualified to make the visit , take the
>> measurements, and generate the YouTube video.   Hint:   Jed.
>
>
>

[Vo]:Re: GoFundMe: Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source

[Kevin O'Malley]

Re: GoFundMe: Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed
Energy Source   Inbox
Unstarred  Kevin O'Malley   Sat, May 11, 2019 at 8:30 PM
7 hidden messages – Show
Unstarred  Kevin O'Malley   Mon, May 13, 2019 at 11:16 AM
Add star  AlanG<&&&&&&&&@aol.com>   Mon, May 13, 2019 at 11:54 AM
Reply-To: &&&&&&&@aol.com
To: Kevin O'Malley 
Cc: alan smith <&&&&&&&&@yahoo.co.uk>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original



Hello Kevin,

I did try to send my message directly to vortex-l, but apparently my
posting rights there have expired after a year or more of inactivity.
You have my permission to re-post my message verbatim on vortex-l, for
which I thank you. Please do NOT quote or include it on any GoFundMe,
Patreon or any similar web site, other than by links to my original
documents.

In case you aren't familiar with MFMP's underlying philosophy of  Live
Open Science, our experiments and publications are in the public
domain and disclosed in real time to the extent possible. We ask only
that you quote our work with attribution AND by link to the original
sources rather than cut-and-paste.

I also personally claim copyright by Creative Commons License, notice
of which you must include and not remove from the original sources if
you do quote them other than by link. See the text and the black box
at this page for further details.

I have included Alan Smith in this reply, since he is an interested
party in your current funding proposal.

Regards,
Alan Goldwater
MFMP

On 5/13/2019 11:16 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
Hello Alan:

Please allow me to post that information on Vortex-L , which is where
you found it and what you are responding to.   And also to post it
elsewhere.

Is there some reason that this information was not updated at MFMP,
and AT the TIME?

Please consider all of our correspondence henceforth to be for
attribution unless you specifically point out , paragraph by
paragraph, what is to be considered private or non-attributable
information.  I have trouble understanding why people prefer to keep
things private when it should be so loudly proclaimed on the
mountaintops.

best regards

Kevin


On 5/12/19, AlanG <&&&&&@aol.com> wrote:


On 5/12/2019 10:01 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
MFMP breathlessly announced that they were detecting Gamma rays.
www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/follow-2/347-gamma
Then their researcher took his toys and went home, saying nothing more.



Kevin, that episode happened over six years ago, when MFMP was just
starting. We later did extensive experiments using gamma spectroscopy,
with at least one positive result:
https://bit.ly/2Hi3ICc
https://bit.ly/2W2Qu48

Our report on that experiment and its analysis received intensive peer
review, resulting in publication by JCMNS
<http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol21.pdf#page=86>

Alan Goldwater
MFMP

Re: [Vo]:Re: GoFundMe: Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source

[Kevin O'Malley]

I received a quote from Kromek, more than 10k Pounds (I don't have the
symbol for pounds nor euros) and they want to keep the  quote to be
confidential.  This is yet another area where things just don't add
up, where Alan S says it should be $1000 (one thousand American
dollars) but the public quote will be well above 10X that amount.
That's without training.

This is what it costs to get down past the bovine fecal matter.


On 5/12/19, JonesBeene  wrote:
> Why wouldn’t it  would make more sense to contact a company located in
> London who manufacture or sell gamma spectrometers to do the testing using
> one of their own experts?
>
> There must be  one or more companies located in or near London that would
> likely  do this testing for free – for the publicity value. For instance
> here is one:
>
> https://www.kromek.com/
>
> Based on past attempts to fund LENR through these online sites like
> GoFundMe, this effort may not generate much interest - and even if it did,
> wouldn’t it be more credible to use an expert in spectrometry to do the
> measurements – preferably one associated with the maker of the equipment or
> with a University?
>
>  Jones
>
>
> From: Kevin O'Malley
>
> https://www.gofundme.com/8nmynh-geiger?teamInvite=WC66VANcJqCD05UmM6byRPSAQOc6WHY1zMnMFDuwZkswE1QewWCy5ezPYj5IT06O
>
>> Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source
>
>> I'm setting up a GoFundMe campaign to buy a gamma spectrometer and go
>> to London to test these cells, per Alan's invitation.   It would make
>> sense for someone more qualified to make the visit , take the
>> measurements, and generate the YouTube video.   Hint:   Jed.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: GoFundMe: Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source

[Kevin O'Malley]

It says right on the GoFundMe page, and has said so for several days,
that my invitation was rescinded.  It is yet another stepstone of
bullshit laid down for whomever it is that will bell the cat.

Any money raised outside of this rescinded invitation will be sent to
MFMP.  If they choose to not accept money then I'll post that little
tidbit and decide where else to go.

And if anyone has demonstrated mental instability, it is Russ George.
So... back to your regularly scheduled programming.


On 5/17/19, russ.geo...@gmail.com  wrote:
> Kevin O'Malley seems to be running under some sort of mental instability as
> he is definitely NOT invited to visit the Atom-Ecology/Ecalox lab. His
> GofundMe campaign seems to be predicated on his raising money based on his
> coming to the lab to view my work. I repeat he is NOT invited. That puts all
> his messaging into the realm of worse than bullshit, as when one is raising
> money on false pretenses there is a different word for that. He should cease
> his wrongful exhortations.
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: Kevin O'Malley 
> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019 8:49 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: GoFundMe: Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test
> Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source
>
> I received a quote from Kromek, more than 10k Pounds (I don't have the
> symbol for pounds nor euros) and they want to keep thequote to be
> confidential.  This is yet another area where things just don't add up,
> where Alan S says it should be $1000 (one thousand American
> dollars) but the public quote will be well above 10X that amount.
> That's without training.
>
> This is what it costs to get down past the bovine fecal matter.
>
>
> On 5/12/19, JonesBeene  wrote:
>> Why wouldn’t it  would make more sense to contact a company located in
>> London who manufacture or sell gamma spectrometers to do the testing
>> using one of their own experts?
>>
>> There must be  one or more companies located in or near London that
>> would likely  do this testing for free – for the publicity value. For
>> instance here is one:
>>
>> https://www.kromek.com/
>>
>> Based on past attempts to fund LENR through these online sites like
>> GoFundMe, this effort may not generate much interest - and even if it
>> did, wouldn’t it be more credible to use an expert in spectrometry to
>> do the measurements – preferably one associated with the maker of the
>> equipment or with a University?
>>
>>  Jones
>>
>>
>> From: Kevin O'Malley
>>
>> https://www.gofundme.com/8nmynh-geiger?teamInvite=WC66VANcJqCD05UmM6by
>> RPSAQOc6WHY1zMnMFDuwZkswE1QewWCy5ezPYj5IT06O
>>
>>> Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source
>>
>>> I'm setting up a GoFundMe campaign to buy a gamma spectrometer and go
>>> to London to test these cells, per Alan's invitation.   It would make
>>> sense for someone more qualified to make the visit , take the
>>> measurements, and generate the YouTube video.   Hint:   Jed.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: GoFundMe: Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source

[Kevin O'Malley]

Uhh, Jed I proposed explicitly that YOU would be more suited to go
and test but you declined.   Alan S said that it would take $1000 for
a gamma spectrometer, but he's off by 10X.   Let's just apply that
coefficient elsewhere, shall we?

I think it'll take $5k to train me.   Applying Allan's incorrection
coefficient, it would make the training $50k.   I think it would be
several thousand in expenses, most of us don't even think it would be
that much so there's no need to apply Allan's incorrection
coefficient.  But it's easy to see that we're already at $60k before I
step foot on a plane to London.   Again, and as it SAYS on the
GoFundMe page, someone else can do it and I'll happily send them the
money in my stead.


> Plus, if I understand correctly, he is asking for $100,000. That's about
> $97,000 more than anyone needs to do this. That surely is fraud, to use the
> word Russ dares not say.
***Jed, you yourself wrote on LENR-Forum that you would do it for
$1Million.   So if I'm fraudulent at $100k, then you are 10X more
fraudulent.   See how this 10X incorrection coefficient is helpful in
weeding out bullshit?   What would it take for YOU to bell the cat?
You are the one who keeps bringing up the bell-the-cat concept.  So go
ahead and post what it would take, and let me just call you a fraud
already so that we can all be on the same page.





On 5/18/19, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>  wrote:
>
>
>> His GofundMe campaign seems to be predicated on his raising money based
>> on
>> his coming to the lab to view my work. I repeat he is NOT invited. That
>> puts all his messaging into the realm of worse than bullshit, as when one
>> is raising money on false pretenses there is a different word for that.
>
>
> Plus, if I understand correctly, he is asking for $100,000. That's about
> $97,000 more than anyone needs to do this. That surely is fraud, to use the
> word Russ dares not say.
>
> - Jed
>

Re: [Vo]:GoFundMe: Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source

[Kevin O'Malley]

"The offer to test for gammas was rescinded.
Please donate instead to the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project."

I don't understand why this page is still there.
***Because it all falls within my original intention, which is to bell
the cat.  If in the future I decide to make MFMP a beneficiary of some
other type of fundraising effort, I'll do it the way you have asked
publicly AFTER THIS EFFORT, not in an Ex Post Facto manner.   I set
this one up to answer my own question of what it would take for ME to
bell that cat.  I would encourage others to do so as well.  Jed is
already posted in as willing to do it for a cool $million.   That
makes me look cheap in comparison.


This was my answer to the question of what it would take to bell the
cat for cold fusion. Of course I think Someone ELSE should bell the
cat, like Jed Rothwell whom I posted as a good candidate, since he's
tested cold fusion devices before. He declined. The question is "what
would it take for ME to bell the cat". This is the answer.

This is an exercise in removal of excuses. Not just others' excuses,
but my own as well. The price is deliberately high so that people who
live closer to the site , people who are more qualified, people who
have better equipment could underbid me. They are not doing that. It's
a sign that something is amiss.

It only took me a few keystrokes to get started with the GoFundMe
thing, and I can say unequivocally that it's a relatively painless
process that doesn't take much time. So... there's that removal of
excuses thing going on right there.


Those are the elements of what it takes to bell the cat: Willingness,
time, capability, wherewithal . Those who have the time and
willingness are low on capability and wherewithal. Those who have the
capabilty and wherewithal are low on willingness and time. Most of us
can develop capability and wherewithal, but we can't really develop
willingness and freed time .


To be candid, there's one more element: Bullshit. When Celani pulled
out his Geiger counter , Rossi climbed all over him because it could
point to what he was using in his cells. Probably bullshit. MFMP
announced they found gammas, Biberian replicated it 48 hours later,
then they went off and tested other stuff without saying a word.
Bullshit. Now we have MFMP coming back on line to send me a private
message because they're not on Vortex-L nor here, how they quietly
referenced the gammas in some peer reviewed thingie, surrounded by a
ton of bullshit. Then we have Alan claiming he has gammas, so I'm
ready to answer the question for myself as to what it would take me to
overcome all the bullshit that's been thrown around over this gamma
issue, and including the bullshit thrown around there. So you have my
answer. It should be easy to underbid me for those who have a higher
tolerance of bullshit. Then everyone's happy, and the cat gets belled.

Instead of focusing on getting someone to underbid me, they went ahead
and OVERbid me, saying they would do it for a $million. And then they
turn around and accuse me of being a scam because I posted that I
would do it in a first class fashion. No need to start negotiations at
economy class. But the unsubtle hint is that the invitation to test
has been rescinded.
Help spread the word!


On 5/18/19, AlanG  wrote:
> A week ago I wrote this to Kevin O'Malley off-list, regarding his
> mention of MFMP:
>
> "/MFMP always welcomes donations and we have a 501c3 which could make
> such contributions tax-deductible in the US. I already have a Gamma
> Spectrometer system thanks to past contributions, but the equipment
> needs of a lab are never-ending. If you really want to help us, it must
> be a new GoFundMe campaign, with no mention of Alan Smith or
> Atom-Ecology.//
> 
> //For MFMP to be the beneficiary, we will need to approve the goal and
> specific text of your campaign before you post it. I've included our
> other Directors (Bob Greenyer and Ryan Hunt) in this reply for their
> comments."/
>
> Kevin has not replied to my message, and his intentions are unclear.
>
> AlanG for MFMP
>
> On 5/18/2019 7:47 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>
>> Plus, if I understand correctly, he is asking for $100,000.
>>
>>
>> Yup. That's what it says. That's chutzpah!
>>
>> It also says:
>>
>> "The offer to test for gammas was rescinded.
>> Please donate instead to the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project.
>>
>>
>> I don't understand why this page is still there.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:GoFundMe: Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source

[Kevin O'Malley]

Kevin has not replied to my message, and his intentions are unclear.
***  My initial statements were in public rather than in private.  To
be candid, the paragraph you wrote to me privately right before this
one you're quoting , well that paragraph kinda sets the tone.  And
since it's done in private, I kept my response private.  Now that your
response is public, my response is public.

Re: [Vo]:GoFundMe: Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source

[Kevin O'Malley]

However, we have no idea who these experts are, what they saw, or what
they said. So that doesn't count. We can't make anything of it. Of
course S&G have every right to keep this secret, but I suggest we pay
no attention to them until they go public and publish a professional
paper. In my opinion, secret projects have no credibility.
***I suspected as much.   My bullshit detector is going off right and
left.  The simple fact is that anyone who CAN go and measure gamma
rays credibly has not been publicly invited except over at LENR-Forum,
where I was banned after being there for 5 years for accepting this
invitation.   Someone with a BSEE and 20 years' experience isn't
enough for Alan, and he even said that if I had the expertise of
Edward Teller that he wouldn't allow testing.   Again :   Bullshit.


Those are the elements of what it takes to bell the cat: Willingness,
time, capability, wherewithal . Those who have the time and
willingness are low on capability and wherewithal. Those who have the
capabilty and wherewithal are low on willingness and time. Most of us
can develop capability and wherewithal, but we can't really develop
willingness and freed time .


To be candid, there's one more element: Bullshit. When Celani pulled
out his Geiger counter , Rossi climbed all over him because it could
point to what he was using in his cells. Probably bullshit. MFMP
announced they found gammas, Biberian replicated it 48 hours later,
then they went off and tested other stuff without saying a word.
Bullshit. Now we have MFMP coming back on line to send me a private
message because they're not on Vortex-L nor here, how they quietly
referenced the gammas in some peer reviewed thingie, surrounded by a
ton of bullshit. Then we have Alan claiming he has gammas, so I'm
ready to answer the question for myself as to what it would take me to
overcome all the bullshit that's been thrown around over this gamma
issue, and including the bullshit thrown around there. So you have my
answer. It should be easy to underbid me for those who have a higher
tolerance of bullshit. Then everyone's happy, and the cat gets belled.


What's sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.  It does
not appear to be a joke that I was banned, so you should be banned as
well, for posting fraud.   The serious contenders should be posting
their underbids.  Simple.

Someone with the background goes and tests for gammas , then guess
what -- it'll be the end of their career.  I think they will be
charging far more than $100k for doing something that ends their
career, and we see the absolute result:  SILENCE.   As long as there
is silence, there is no offer to test gammas.   It's just
career-ending bullshit.


On 5/18/19, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
>
>
>> Jed is
>> already posted in as willing to do it for a cool $million.   That
>> makes me look cheap in comparison.
>>
>
> That was a JOKE.
>
>
>
>> Of course I think Someone ELSE should bell the
>> cat, like Jed Rothwell whom I posted as a good candidate, since he's
>> tested cold fusion devices before. He declined.
>
>
> I declined because I know nothing about gamma rays. I am totally
> unqualified to test this claim. Also because I am in the U.S. There must be
> hundreds of people in the UK qualified to do this.
>
>
> The question is "what
>> would it take for ME to bell the cat". This is the answer.
>>
>
> That answer is absurd. It is $97,000 too expensive. A person would be
> insane to pay that much, or to contribute to that effort.
>
> Not only that, but your entire approach is ass-backwards. Putting the cart
> before the horse. No one should contribute any money to your proposed test
> until the following has been done:
>
> 1. They have to INVITE YOU. Obviously!!
>
> 2. Smith & George have to publish a comprehensive report describing their
> instruments, procedures and results. This is essential. People have to know
> what you will see, and how to go about testing it. Let us have no
> surprises.
>
> 3. Various experts should examine their report, critique it, and give
> advice. They should say: "Sure, that looks good. Here's how I would test
> it. Here are the instruments I would take." If they say, "I can't tell" or
> "that doesn't sound like it is working" then no one should pay Kevin
> O'Malley to go look at it. That would be a stupid waste of money.
>
> 4. In the GFM page, O'Malley should list his background, qualifications and
> similar tests he has done in the past. He should post a detailed list of
> the procedures he intends to do, and a detailed lists of expenses. Again,
> no one should contribute a dime until that is made clear. We 

Re: [Vo]:Re: GoFundMe: Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source

[Kevin O'Malley]

No, it is not easy to see this. It is insane. The person who does this
should not need any training or equipment.
***Such people aren't stepping forward.  My proposal should be easy to
underbid, instead we have ... more bullshit.   You joking around.

The simple fact is that whoever goes forward to test gammas and
actually finds them will probably find his career over.   That's gotta
be worth $100k.  And that's why no one is stepping forward to overcome
the ... bullshit.


On 5/18/19, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
>
> Uhh, Jed I proposed explicitly that YOU would be more suited to go
>> and test but you declined.
>
>
> Okay, you proposed I go. I told you I know nothing about this. Why are you
> repeating this? You have "explicitly proposed" that the wrong person be
> sent to do something he does not have slightest idea how to do, in a type
> of experiment he has never seen. So, your proposal tells us you have no
> clue.
>
>
>
>> I think it'll take $5k to train me.   Applying Allan's incorrection
>> coefficient, it would make the training $50k.
>
>
> If you need any training, you are the wrong person. We need to send someone
> who has spent years measuring gamma rays. Someone in the UK who has all of
> the equipment in a lab at his fingertips.
>
>
>
>>I think it would be
>> several thousand in expenses, most of us don't even think it would be
>> that much so there's no need to apply Allan's incorrection
>> coefficient.  But it's easy to see that we're already at $60k before I
>> step foot on a plane to London.
>
>
> No, it is not easy to see this. It is insane. The person who does this
> should not need any training or equipment.
>
>
>
>> > Plus, if I understand correctly, he is asking for $100,000. That's
>> > about
>> > $97,000 more than anyone needs to do this. That surely is fraud, to use
>> the
>> > word Russ dares not say.
>> ***Jed, you yourself wrote on LENR-Forum that you would do it for
>> $1Million.
>
>
> Yeah. That was a joke, as I said. If you thought I was serious you lack a
> sense of humor. The word "cool" might have tipped you off that I wasn't
> serious. The fact that the sum is outrageous should have tipped you off.
> And my follow up comments would seem facetious to most people:
>
> Me: I am *starting the negotiation* at $1 million. Say yes today, without
> delay, or it goes to $2 million.
>
> Alan: I propose $1M plus a basket full of white kittens, and a barrel of
> blue M&M's
>
> Me: Driving a hard bargain, are we? Well, two can play that game! I raise
> you. I will do it for *$3 million*. That's my final offer, unless you want
> to pay more.
>
> Does that sound serious to you? Really?!?
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: GoFundMe: Geiger Counter + Lab Tour to Test Atom-Ecology Claimed Energy Source

[Kevin O'Malley]

You either send a credible expert, or no one.
***You are credible.  If Kromek gave you training on their gamma
spectrometer, you'd be in the upper echelon of credible testers.
Anyone who gets trained would be able to defend themselves and if not,
Kromek is gonna look real bad.  Simple.

Someone has to break through the bullshit.   All the "credible
experts" are not stepping forward.  If enough ordinary guys get
trained and test positive gammas, it will bell the cat.

Please answer the question of what it would take for YOU to bell the
cat.  $5k for gamma spectrometer training is cheap compared to trying
to get some "credible expert " whose career is gonna be over as soon
as he announces he found gammas.

Those are the 5 elements.  , Willingness, time, capability,
wherewithal and bullshit.


On 5/18/19, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
>
>
>> The simple fact is that whoever goes forward to test gammas and
>> actually finds them will probably find his career over.   That's gotta
>> be worth $100k.  And that's why no one is stepping forward to overcome
>> the ... bullshit.
>>
>
> I doubt that the career would be over, but if that is the situation, no
> credible person will do the job. You are not a credible person, and neither
> am I. No one would believe us even if we did it. So there is no point to
> sending us. You either send a credible expert, or no one.
>

Re: [Vo]:Planckian dissipation phenomenon

[Kevin O'Malley]

If time is determined by the speed of light, how would you determine
which packets were generated first?  Would they be going by some other
limiting speed agent other than C?

On 5/12/19, H LV  wrote:
> If one can build a transmitter and a receiver to transmit and detect wave
> packets travelling with sub c group velocity why can't one do the same for
> wave packets with group velocity much greater than c and achieve
> communication which is much faster than c?
> Harry
>
> On Fri, May 3, 2019, 11:51 PM Axil Axil 
>>
>>
>> It should be noted that while Einstein's theory of special relativity
>> prevents (real) mass, energy, or information from traveling faster than
>> the
>> speed of light c (Lorentz et al. 1952, Brillouin and Sommerfeld 1960,
>> Born
>> and Wolf 1999, Landau and Lifschitz 1997), there is nothing preventing
>> "apparent" motion faster than c (or, in fact, with negative speeds,
>> implying arrival at a destination before leaving the origin). For
>> example,
>> the phase velocity and group velocity of a wave may exceed the speed of
>> light, but in such cases, no energy or information actually travels
>> faster
>> than c. Experiments showing group velocities greater than c include that
>> of
>> Wang et al. (2000), who produced a laser pulse in atomic cesium gas with
>> a
>> group velocity of -310c. In each case, the observed superluminal
>> propagation is not at odds with causality, and is instead a consequence
>> of
>> classical interference between its constituent frequency components in a
>> region of anomalous dispersion (Wang et al. 2000).
>>
>> Keith Fredericks has an opinion that strange radiation is a tachyon. This
>> SR quasiparticle might be tachyonic is that it is most likely based on
>> the
>> polariton. The polariton does generate superluminal light in the form of
>> x-waves.
>>
>> https://www.nature.com/articles/lsa2017119
>>
>> Superluminal X-waves in a polariton quantum fluid
>>
>> This article shows that a polariton can naturally produce superluminal
>> light (X-waves) when excited with a pulsed laser.
>>
>> This unexpected behavior of light may explain how Strange radiation (SR)
>> can be considered a tachyon, a superluminal particle.
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:How to make money with cold fusion

[Kevin O'Malley]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts

How I Made Money from Cold Fusion
Exclusive Article for Free Republic | 1/23/10 | Kevmo
Posted on 1/23/2010, 12:28:49 PM by Kevmo

Freeper gets a fascinating contract listed on Intrade, bets that the
experiment will be replicated, and cashes in.

In 2008, Dr. Yoshiaki Arata performed a fascinating experiment with
Deuterium Gas loaded onto a Palladium matrix, and without any input
power, showed that there was some excess heat. Generating excess heat
in cold fusion cell wasn't a new development -- scientists had been
replicating the Pons-Fleischman effect for 2 decades. What was a new
development was how easily replicable this particular experiment was.
It seemed to me that this would be the easiest way to replicate
anomalous heat production, removing the tired old standby excuse that
the energy input from electrolysis was causing this excess heat,
because there was NO energy input in this experiment. So I proposed to
Intrade that they open up a contract that this experiment would be
replicated in a peer reviewed, scientific Journal.

I also posted a discussion thread on the Intrade forum
http://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/2239.page

"This week, Dr. Yoshiaki Arata demonstrated Cold Fusion in a
reproducible environment. I sent in a suggestion to intrade that a
contract be opened up that it would be replicated in a peer-reviewed
journal by January 1, 2009. I haven't heard yet if there's any
interest."
AZoNano.com Energy Breakthrough as Japanese Physicist Sucessfully and ...
http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=6472

To my surprise, Intrade opened up this contract in 2008, where it
basically stagnated. Since I was not involved in the peer review
process, my assessment was that the experiment would only take several
weeks to make it through the grueling process, rather than several
months. It was actually someone at Free Republic who set me straight
on that:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2022063/posts?page=164#164

The contract closed at the end of 2008 at zero, meaning that anyone
who bet that the experiment would be replicated and published had lost
their bet.

I found the contract fascinating and asked Intrade to open a new
contract in 2009, which they did. A few months into 2009, there
started to be some replication experiments published by scientists,
but the whole process was outshined by Dr. Pamela Mossier-Boss
publishing her exciting results where she showed that there were
Neutrons being generated in the cold fusion cell at the Navy Space
Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR).

'Cold Fusion' Rebirth? New Evidence For Existence Of Controversial
Energy Source
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090323110450.htm
ScienceDaily (Mar. 23, 2009) — [Researchers are reporting compelling
new scientific evidence for the existence of low-energy nuclear
reactions (LENR), the process once called "cold fusion" that may
promise a new source of energy. One group of scientists, for instance,
describes what it terms the first clear visual evidence that LENR
devices can produce neutrons, subatomic particles that scientists view
as tell-tale signs that nuclear reactions are occurring. The report,
which injects new life into this controversial field, will be
presented March 23 in Salt Lake City, Utah, at the American Chemical
Society's 237th National Meeting. "Our finding is very significant,"
says study co-author and analytical chemist Pamela Mosier-Boss, Ph.D.,
of the U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) in
San Diego, Calif. "To our knowledge, this is the first scientific
report of the production of highly energetic neutrons from an LENR
device."]

And then the CBS TV newsmagazine 60 Minutes chimed in with their
report on cold fusion on April 19, 2009, pushing the Arata replication
results further into the background. The video and an article
describing it are here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/17/60minutes/main4952167.shtml

I started posting references to replication of Arata's experiment in
the Intrade Forum, saying such things as, "Oh, and the experiment was
a replication of Arata's demonstration last May. So it was in
quantitative fact proof that Arata's demonstration worked as stated. "
>From the PhysOrg article and discussion:
'Cold fusion' rebirth? New evidence for existence of controversial
energy source
http://www.physorg.com/news157046734.html

I transferred as much money as I was willing to lose over to Intrade.
This was harder that I thought it would be, because Intrade does not
accept credit cards. I bought up as many contracts as I could, and
posted that I would pay $5-$6 for a contract that would pay out at
$100. In reality, it's paying 50-60Cents per contract, and the payout
is $10, for some bizarre reasoning that Intrade uses 1/10th of the
actual monetary figures. To my surprise, there were still folks at
Intrade posting that I was "Mental" , or as BobbyE wrote: "I have
trouble getting reality 

Re: [Vo]:Asked & Answered

[Kevin O'Malley]

epublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3968011.32;reftype=comment>
 | To 31 <https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3968011/posts?page=41#31> | View
Replies <https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3968011/replies?c=32> | Report
Abuse <https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3968011/abuse?c=32>]







On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 6:43 PM Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> Thanks for bumping the thread -- T4BTT
>
> LENR seems to have its own set of Anti-Science Truthers. In the last
> couple of years, there has been quite a bit of activity in the area of Low
> Energy Nuclear Reactions. Originally, the field was called Cold Fusion in
> 1989 when Pons & Fleischmann announced their findings prematurely. They
> were ridiculed and blacklisted by scientists who could have lost funding
> for their nuclear projects in 1989, even though some of their findings were
> soon replicated.. You can get the story here:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=263
>
>
> In fact, the only verified instance of Fraud in LENR was when MIT
> scientists fudged their results to show a negative result rather than the
> positive one the data supports.
>
> The ongoing story here on Free Republic has been one where the detractors
> use ridicule, falsehoods, false argumentation, classic fallacies,
> misdirection, and all manner of unscientific and ugly behavior other than
> to discuss the science behind the claims. In order to fight fire with fire,
> I started calling these pathological skeptics “seagulls” but the moderator
> told me not to do that. So the skeptopaths are allowed certain tactics on
> FR but the LENR afficianados are not. It turns out that one of the
> moderators resigned, and his scientific background was lacking in terms of
> being able to properly absorb this material. At one time he even put it on
> the same level as BigFoot without backing it up when confronted:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2917406/posts?page=3976#3976
>
>
> And even though the Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated hundreds of
> times by more than a thousand scientists, even in mainstream peer-reviewed
> journals.
>
>
> https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2&sh=www.springerlink.com
> .
> Jing-tang He
> • Nuclear fusion inside condense matters
> • Frontiers of Physics in China
> Volume 2, Number 1, 96-102, DOI: 10.1007/s11467-007-0005-8
> This article describes in detail the nuclear fusion inside condense
> matters—the Fleischmann-Pons effect, the reproducibility of cold fusions,
> self-consistency of cold fusions and the possible applications
> .
> Note that Jing-tang He found there were 14,700 replications of the Pons
> Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect.
> http://www.boliven.com/publication/10.1007~s11467-007-0005-8?q=(%22David%20J.%20Nagel%22)
>
> .
> National Instruments is a multibillion dollar corporation that does not
> need to stick its neck out for “bigfoot stories”. After noting more than
> 150 replications, they recently concluded that with so much evidence of
> anomalous heat generation...
> http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf
> Conclusion
> • There is an unknown physical event and there is a need of better
> measurements and control tools. NI is playing a role in accelerating
> innovation and discovery.
>
>
>
> The current state of the science of LENR is that the Pons Fleischmann
> Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated and it is an established
> scientific fact. But it is not an established ENGINEERING field because the
> effect is difficult to generate and there is still some lingering stigma
> associated with the field. The level of pathological resistance this field
> receives is unconscionable for those of us who seek scientific answers and
> engineering solutions.
>
> If you find that the thread leads to this post it is because I no longer
> respond to the seagulls, I send all inquiries to this post so that crickets
> are not generated, nor is there an impression left that they have an
> objection worth pursuing. If lurkers feel the objection is worth pursuing,
> they can repost the same question.
> To learn more about LENR, I recommend the LENR-CANR website
> http://lenr-canr.org/
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>> Basic derision
>>
>> ***That's all the skeptopaths seem to be able to muster.  They can't
>> counteract the science.  They downshift into ridicule because they can get
>> away with it.  It's basically like saying, "hey, look, I can be an asshole
>> and get away with it, so that's what I'm going to do."  It does NOTHING to
>> further the science.  There isn't even an attempt to refute the science
>> behind the claims.
>>
>> The same thing happened to the Wright brothers for 5 years between the
>> time they first flew an airplane in 1903 and the time they had a contract
>> to demo against in 1908.  What happened to those skeptopaths in 1904?  They
>> were utterly discredited, but within a few weeks of the Wright brothers
>> demonstration, they were spouting off yet again about how things should be
>> done differently, better, more to their liking.  It's horse shit.
>>
>
>

[Vo]:A Super New Theory to Explain Superconductivity

[Kevin O'Malley]

*A Super New Theory to Explain Superconductivity*

*Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism ^
 *|
5 July 2021 | Hiroyasu Koizumi

Posted on *7/11/2021, 7:26:10 AM*

A Super New Theory to Explain Superconductivity

By UNIVERSITY OF TSUKUBA JULY 10, 2021

Electricity Superconductivity Concept

A researcher at the University of Tsukuba introduces a new theoretical
model of high-temperature superconductivity, in which electrical current
can flow with zero resistance, which may lead to extremely efficient energy
generation and transmission.

A scientist from the Division of Quantum Condensed Matter Physics at the
University of Tsukuba has formulated a new theory of superconductivity.
Based on the calculation of the “Berry connection,” this model helps
explain new experimental results better than the current theory. The work
may allow future electrical grids to send energy without losses.

Superconductors are fascinating materials that may look unremarkable at
ambient conditions, but when cooled to very low temperatures, allow
electrical current to flow with zero resistance. There are several obvious
applications of superconductivity, such as lossless energy transmission,
but the physics underlying this process is still not clearly understood.
The established way of thinking about the transition from normal to
superconducting is called the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) theory. In
this model, as long as thermal excitations are kept small enough, particles
can form “Cooper pairs” which travel together and resist scattering.
However, the BCS model does not adequately explain all types of
superconductors, which limits our ability to create more robust
superconducting materials that work at room temperature.

Now, a scientist from the University of Tsukuba has come up with a new
model for superconductivity that better reveals the physical principles.
Instead of focusing on the pairing of charged particles, this new theory
uses the mathematical tool called the “Berry connection.” This value
computes a twisting of space where electrons travel. “In the standard BCS
theory, the origin of superconductivity is electron pairing. In this
theory, the supercurrent is identified as the dissipationless flow of the
paired electrons, while single electrons still experience resistance,”
Author Professor Hiroyasu Koizumi says.

As an illustration, Josephson junctions are formed when two superconductor
layers are separated by a thin barrier made of normal metal or an
insulator. Although widely used in high-precision magnetic field detectors
and quantum computers, Josephson junctions also do not fit neatly the
inside BCS theory. “In the new theory, the role of the electron pairing is
to stabilize the Berry connection, as opposed to being the cause of
superconductivity by itself, and the supercurrent is the flow of single and
paired electrons generated due to the twisting of the space where electrons
travel caused by the Berry connection,” Professor Koizumi says. Thus, this
research may lead to advancements in quantum computing as well as energy
conservation.

Reference: “Superconductivity by Berry Connection from Many-body Wave
Functions: Revisit to Andreev−Saint-James Reflection and Josephson Effect”
by Hiroyasu Koizumi, 5 July 2021, Journal of Superconductivity and Novel
Magnetism. DOI: 10.1007/s10948-021-05905-y
-
arXiv.org > cond-mat > arXiv:2105.02364

https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.02364

Condensed Matter ~~ Superconductivity [Submitted on 5 May 2021] Berry
connection from many-body wave functions and superconductivity:
Calculations by the particle number conserving Bogoliubov-de Gennes
equations

Hiroyasu Koizumi, Alto Ishikawa A fundamentally revised version of
superconductivity theory has been put forward by the present authors since
the standard theory of superconductivity based on the BCS theory cannot
explain superconductivity in cuprates discovered in 1986, and
reexaminations on several experimental results on the conventional
superconductors indicate the necessity for a fundamental revision.

The revision is made on the origin of the superconducting phase variable,
which is attributed to a Berry connection arising from many-body wave
functions. With this revision, the theory can be cast into a particle
number conserving formalism. We have developed a method to calculate
superconducting states with the Berry connection using the particle number
conserving version of the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equations. An example
calculation is made for a model originally built for cuprate
superconductors.

Subjects: Superconductivity (cond-mat.supr-con) Cite as: arXiv:2105.02364
[cond-mat.supr-con] (or arXiv:2105.02364v1 [cond-mat.supr-con] for this
version)

Re: [Vo]:Thermacore and the missing link to the Kervran effect

[Kevin O'Malley]

Thermacore came very close to the big time when they were granted a patent
for a solid state thermal diode.  Hagelstein was one of the inventors.
 Yet another mystery in this field.



https://patents.google.com/patent/US6396191


Thermal diode for energy conversion
Abstract
Solid state thermionic energy converter semiconductor diode implementation
and method for conversion of thermal energy to electric energy, and
electric energy to refrigeration. In embodiments of this invention a highly
doped n* region can serve as an emitter region, from which carriers can be
injected into a gap region. The gap region can be p-type, intrinsic, or
moderately doped n-type. A hot ohmic contact is connected to the n*-type
region. A cold ohmic contact serves as a collector and is connected to the
other side of the gap region. The cold ohmic contact has a recombination
region formed between the cold ohmic contact and the gap region and a
blocking compensation layer that reduces the thermoelectric back flow
component. The heated emitter relative to the collector generates an EMF
which drives current through a series load. The inventive principle works
for hole conductivity, as well as for electrons.


US6396191B1

United States

InventorPeter L. Hagelstein
Yan R. Kucherov

--

--
Application US09/721,051 events
1999-03-11
Priority to US12390099P
2000-11-22
Application filed by Eneco Inc

2002-05-28
Application granted
2002-05-28
Publication of US6396191B1

2020-03-06
Anticipated expiration

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 10:53 AM Jones Beene  wrote:

> A neglected paper and fringe theory, which may stand up to closer
> scrutiny, appeared last year from Romania. It addresses the Kervran effect
> and the Mills hydrino with a vortex model somewhat reminiscent of the
> recent "Berry" superconductor theory.
>
> https://medcraveonline.com/PAIJ/PAIJ-04-00204.pdf
>
> The Kervran effect has an overlooked connection to one of the most
> convincing experiments ever in LENR, involving the company Thermacore, Inc
> ... and their work with Randell Mills plus the eventual patent nearly 30
> years ago. The important paper from that era has been removed from the BLP
> site: Thermacore, Inc. "Final Report, SBIR Phase I, Nascent Hydrogen: An
> Energy Source."
>
> The Thermacore Patent, now expired, is 5,273,635 from 1993 Inventors:
> Gernert, Shaubach, and Ernst Note: Randell Mills is NOT listed as
> co-inventor. Nor did they mention the Kervran effect, but the did document
> a characteristic emission line at 54.4 eV which Mills predicted. There was
> no radioactivity. One wonders in hindsight if they would have found calcium
> after the year long run, should they have looked.
>
> Another missed opportunity?
>
> Consider this quote from Thermacore: "Light water electrolytic experiments at 
> Thermacore show positive results. The most outstanding example is a cell 
> producing 41 watts of heat with only 5 watts of electrical input. The cell 
> has operated continuously for over one year..." That is a COP of 8, claimed 
> by experts.
>
> It bears repeating: THE CELL OPERATED CONTINUOUSLY FOR OVER ONE YEAR, and 
> remember, this statement is not coming from some fly-by-night self-promoting 
> entrepreneur, nor even university professors who are ignorant of 
> manufacturing realities - but instead it comes from one of the most 
> well-respected of high-tech firms in the World, in thermal engineering. This 
> is the firm which *invented the heat-pipe* and other related devices.
>
> Yet it all came to naught. Go figure.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Thermacore and the missing link to the Kervran effect

[Kevin O'Malley]

That paper is very "vortician".   Right up our alley.


The possible explaining of some controversial effects by a *vortexial* atom
model

Volume 4 Issue 2 - 2020

Marius Arghirescu State Office for Inventions and Trademarks,
Patents Department, Romania Correspondence: Marius Arghirescu, State Office
for Inventions and Trademarks, Patents Department; Romania,
 Email Received: April 23, 2020 | Published: April 30, 2020



Abstract
 In the paper is presented a *vortexial *pre-quantum model of atom, based
on a vortexial type of electron’ and proton’ magnetic moment, resulted in a
cold genesis theory(CGT) as etherono-quantonic vortex ( ) * B r (r ’) (r r
’), Γ =Γ +Γ > µ µµ µ of heavy’ tachyonic etherons (ms ≈10-60 kg; w>c)-
generating the magnetic potential A, and of quantons (mh =h⋅1/ c2
=7.37x10-51 kg)-generating vortex-tubes B ξ that materializes the B-field
lines of the magnetic induction, the proton’s magnetic moment resulting by
a degenerate Compton radius. The model may explain the ‘hydrino’ atom, with
n=½, the tachyonic speed of the electronic neutrino and the Kervran effect
of biological nuclear transmutations. By the multi-vortexial model of
nucleon resulted in CGT, are explained also some astrophysical observation
which sustains the CGT’s hypothesis of pulsatile antigravitic pseudo-charge
and gravitational waves generating at the surface of a ‘black hole type
star by matter→energy conversion, resulting also the possibility of cosmic
dust’s cold forming.

 Keywords

: *vortexial* atom, hydrino, OPERA experiment, Kervran effect, antigravitic
charge, gravitational waves

>

Re: [Vo]:Asked & Answered

[Kevin O'Malley]

Update on moderation, and it just so happens it took place on a
transmutation thread.



-

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3977426/posts?page=19#19


--
*Comment #13 Removed by Moderator*
--
*Comment #14 Removed by Moderator*
--

--
*Comment #16 Removed by Moderator*
--
*Comment #17 Removed by Moderator*
--
*Comment #18 Removed by Moderator*
--

This topic has a following, people who wish to learn and discuss the
materials presented.

Please refrain from posting anything that doesn’t legitimately address the
issue.

Something is going on in this segment of science. There are a considerable
number of research groups studying the matter.

19 <https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3977426/posts?page=19#19> posted
on *7/19/2021, 6:45:09 PM* by Sidebar Moderator
<https://freerepublic.com/~sidebarmoderator/>
[ Post Reply <https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3977426/reply?c=19>
| Private
Reply
<https://freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3977426.19;reftype=comment>
 | View Replies <https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3977426/replies?c=19>
 | Report Abuse <https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3977426/abuse?c=19>]

On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 10:03 AM Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> Case in Point.
>
> Moderation is heavy on certain threads in one direction, VERY light on
> LENR threads in the anti-science direction.
>
>
>- Laser induced transmutation on palladium thin films in hydrogen
>atmosphere <https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3968011/posts>
>6/17/2021, 9:20:38 AM · 41 of 41
><https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3968011/posts?page=41#41>
>Admin Moderator <https://freerepublic.com/~adminmoderator/> to *Kevmo*
>
>Knock it off.
>Post Reply <https://freerepublic.com/perl/post?id=3968011,41> | Private
>Reply
>
> <https://freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?reftype=comment;refid=3968011.41>
> | To 40 <https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3968011/posts?page=40#40>
> | View Replies
><https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3968011/replies?c=41>
>
>
>
> https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3968011/posts?page=41#41
>
>
> --
>
> background
>
> -
>
> Updated No Internal Trolling Rules for FR per Jim Robinson
> https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3928396/posts
> If someone says stop, then stop. Do not enter onto a thread on a topic you
> don’t like just to disrupt, rattle cages, poke sticks, insult the regulars,
> or engage in trolling activities, etc.
>
>
>
> This “freeper” has been asked multiple times to leave these threads.
>
> 40 <https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3968011/posts?page=40#40> posted
> on *6/17/2021, 7:00:06 AM* by Kevmo  <https://freerepublic.com/~kevmo/>(some
> things may be true even if Donald Trump said them. ~Jonathan Karl)
> [ Post Reply <https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3968011/reply?c=40> | 
> Private
> Reply
> <https://freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3968011.40;reftype=comment>
>  | To 39 <https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3968011/posts?page=41#39> | View
> Replies <https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3968011/replies?c=40> | Report
> Abuse <https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3968011/abuse?c=40>]
>
> To: *Steely Tom*
>
> Science has a protocol. Conservatism has a protocol.
>
> Apparently there is a protocol that overrides both of them, the protocol
> of the gang @$$#0/e.
>
> 38 <https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3968011/posts?page=38#38> posted
> on *6/17/2021, 5:07:26 AM* by Kevmo  <https://freerepublic.com/~kevmo/>(some
> things may be true even if Donald Trump said them. ~Jonathan Karl)
> [ Post Reply <https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3968011/reply?c=38> | 
> Private
> Reply
> <https://freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3968011.38;reftype=comment>
>  | To 35 <https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3968011/posts?page=41#35> | View
> Replies <https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3968011/replies?c=38> | Report
> Abuse <https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3968011/abuse?c=38>]
>
>
> To: *Seagull*
>
> What does it take to get rid of seagulls on FR?
>
> 30 <https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3968011/posts?page=30#30> posted
> on *6/16/2021, 11:54:52 AM* by Kevmo  <https://freerepublic.com/~kevmo/>(

Re: [Vo]:BEC transforms photon frequency

[Kevin O'Malley]

regarding “A “linear BEC” sounds rather like the “hydroton” model of Edmund
Storms”



https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3981264/posts?page=15#15



--

A Bose Einstein Condensate is when a group of atoms start acting like one
atom, in concert.

Lots of hints that what’s going on in LENR is BECs. But the drawback is
that BECs form at such low temperatures. So the trick is to find how BECs
might form at higher temperatures, find evidence for it.

That evidence is slowly arriving.

A Linear BEC would be a linear formation of perhaps only a few atoms,
acting in concert.

Here is where I think there might be an intersection with Ed’s model. When
that vibrating linear BEC runs into an edge dislocation of the matrix... it
BENDS the BEC. It stresses it such that 2 of the captured atoms fuse
together because the Coulomb Barrier is so low inside the BEC.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352900842_Novel_Cold_Fusion_Reactor_with_Deuterium_Supply_from_Backside_and_Metal_Surface_Potential_Control?channel=doi&linkId=60dea792299bf1ea9ed6206f&showFulltext=true

Look at Figure 1. Scheme of edge dislocation loops in Pd containing
condensed H/D.

I posted that article here
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3976833/posts

15 
posted on *8/2/2021,
7:37:53 AM* by Kevmo  
[ Post Reply  | Private
Reply

 | To 9  | View
Replies  | Report
Abuse ]

>

[Vo]:Physicists Create Long Sought ‘Wigner Crystal’

[Kevin O'Malley]

*Physicists Create a Bizarre ‘Wigner Crystal’ Made Purely of Electrons ...
The unambiguous discovery of a Wigner crystal relied on a novel technique
for probing the insides of complex materials.*

*https://www.quantamagazine.org ^

*|
AUGUST 12, 2021 | Karmela Padavic-Callaghan

Posted on *8/13/2021, 11:14:21 AM *

In 1934, Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, theorized a strange
kind of matter — a crystal made from electrons. The idea was simple;
proving it wasn’t. Physicists tried many tricks over eight decades to nudge
electrons into forming these so-called Wigner crystals, with limited
success. In June, however, two independent groups of physicists reported in
Nature the most direct experimental observations of Wigner crystals yet.

“Wigner crystallization is such an old idea,” said Brian Skinner, a
physicist at Ohio State University who was not involved with the work. “To
see it so cleanly was really nice.”

To make electrons form a Wigner crystal, it might seem that a physicist
would simply have to cool them down. Electrons repel one another, and so
cooling would decrease their energy and freeze them into a lattice just as
water turns to ice. Yet cold electrons obey the odd laws of quantum
mechanics — they behave like waves. Instead of getting fixed into place in
a neatly ordered grid, wavelike electrons tend to slosh around and crash
into their neighbors. What should be a crystal turns into something more
like a puddle.

One of the teams responsible for the new work found a Wigner crystal almost
by accident. Researchers in a group led by Hongkun Park at Harvard
University were experimenting with electron behavior in a “sandwich” of
exceptionally thin sheets of a semiconductor separated by a material that
electrons could not move through. The physicists cooled this semiconductor
sandwich to below −230 degrees Celsius and played around with the number of
electrons in each of the layers.

The team observed that when there was a specific number of electrons in
each layer, they all stood mysteriously still. “Somehow, electrons inside
the semiconductors could not move. This was a really surprising find,” said
You Zhou, lead author on the new study.

Zhou shared his results with theorist colleagues, who eventually recalled
an old idea of Wigner’s. Wigner had calculated that electrons in a flat
two-dimensional material would assume a pattern similar to a floor
perfectly covered with triangular tiles. This crystal would stop the
electrons from moving entirely.

In Zhou’s crystal, repulsive forces between electrons in each layer and
between the layers worked together to arrange electrons into Wigner’s
triangular grid. These forces were strong enough to prevent the electron
spilling and sloshing predicted by quantum mechanics. But this behavior
happened only when the number of electrons in each layer was such that the
top and bottom crystal grids aligned: Smaller triangles in one layer had to
exactly fill up the space inside bigger ones in the other. Park called the
electron ratios that led to these conditions the “telltale signs of bilayer
Wigner crystals.”

After they realized that they had a Wigner crystal on their hands, the
Harvard team made it melt by forcing the electrons to embrace their quantum
wave nature. Wigner crystal melting is a quantum phase transition — one
that is similar to an ice cube becoming water, but without any heating
involved. Theorists previously predicted the conditions necessary for the
process to occur, but the new experiment is the first to confirm it through
direct measurements. “It was really, really exciting to see what we
actually learned from textbooks and papers in experimental data,” Park said.

Past experiments found hints of Wigner crystallization, but the new studies
offer the most direct evidence because of a novel experimental technique.
The researchers blasted the semiconductor layers with laser light to create
a particle-like entity called an exciton. The material would then reflect
or re-emit that light. By analyzing the light, researchers could tell
whether the excitons had interacted with ordinary free-flowing electrons,
or with electrons frozen in a Wigner crystal. “We actually have direct
evidence of a Wigner crystal,” Park said. “You can actually see that it’s a
crystal that has this triangular structure.”

The second research team, led by Ataç Imamoğlu at the Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology Zurich, also used this technique to observe the
formation of a Wigner crystal.

The new work illuminates the infamous problem of many interacting
electrons. When you put a lot of electrons into a small space, they all
push on each other, and it becomes impossible to keep track of all the
mutually intertwined forces.

Philip Phillips, a physicist at the University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign who

[Vo]:New High-Performance Solid-State Battery Surprises the Engineers Who Created It

[Kevin O'Malley]

New High-Performance Solid-State Battery Surprises the Engineers Who
Created It TOPICS:Battery TechnologyEnergyNanotechnologyUCSD By UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA - SAN DIEGO SEPTEMBER 24, 2021
https://scitechdaily.com/new-high-performance-solid-state-battery-surprises-the-engineers-who-created-it/
New
Battery Technology Concept Engineers create a high performance
all-solid-state battery with a pure-silicon anode. Engineers created a new
type of battery that weaves two promising battery sub-fields into a single
battery. The battery uses both a solid state electrolyte and an all-silicon
anode, making it a silicon all-solid-state battery. The initial rounds of
tests show that the new battery is safe, long lasting, and energy dense. It
holds promise for a wide range of applications from grid storage to
electric vehicles. The battery technology is described in the September 24,
2021 issue of the journal Science. University of California San Diego
nanoengineers led the research, in collaboration with researchers at LG
Energy Solution. Silicon anodes are famous for their energy density, which
is 10 times greater than the graphite anodes most often used in today’s
commercial lithium ion batteries. On the other hand, silicon anodes are
infamous for how they expand and contract as the battery charges and
discharges, and for how they degrade with liquid electrolytes. These
challenges have kept all-silicon anodes out of commercial lithium ion
batteries despite the tantalizing energy density. The new work published in
Science provides a promising path forward for all-silicon-anodes, thanks to
the right electrolyte. All-Solid-State Battery With a Pure-Silicon Anode 1)
The all solid-state battery consists of a cathode composite layer, a
sulfide solid electrolyte layer, and a carbon free micro-silicon anode. 2)
Before charging, discrete micro-scale Silicon particles make up the energy
dense anode. During battery charging, positive Lithium ions move from the
cathode to the anode, and a stable 2D interface is formed. 3) As more
Lithium ions move into the anode, it reacts with micro-Silicon to form
interconnected Lithium-Silicon alloy (Li-Si) particles. The reaction
continues to propagate throughout the electrode. 4) The reaction causes
expansion and densification of the micro-Silicon particles, forming a dense
Li-Si alloy electrode. The mechanical properties of the Li-Si alloy and the
solid electrolyte have a crucial role in maintaining the integrity and
contact along the 2D interfacial plane. Credit: University of California
San Diego “With this battery configuration, we are opening a new territory
for solid-state batteries using alloy anodes such as silicon,” said Darren
H. S. Tan, the lead author on the paper. He recently completed his chemical
engineering PhD at the UC San Diego Jacobs School of Engineering and
co-founded a startup UNIGRID Battery that has licensed this technology.
Next-generation, solid-state batteries with high energy densities have
always relied on metallic lithium as an anode. But that places restrictions
on battery charge rates and the need for elevated temperature (usually 60
degrees Celsius or higher) during charging. The silicon anode overcomes
these limitations, allowing much faster charge rates at room to low
temperatures, while maintaining high energy densities. The team
demonstrated a laboratory scale full cell that delivers 500 charge and
discharge cycles with 80% capacity retention at room temperature, which
represents exciting progress for both the silicon anode and solid state
battery communities. Silicon as an anode to replace graphite Silicon
anodes, of course, are not new. For decades, scientists and battery
manufacturers have looked to silicon as an energy-dense material to mix
into, or completely replace, conventional graphite anodes in lithium-ion
batteries. Theoretically, silicon offers approximately 10 times the storage
capacity of graphite. In practice however, lithium-ion batteries with
silicon added to the anode to increase energy density typically suffer from
real-world performance issues: in particular, the number of times the
battery can be charged and discharged while maintaining performance is not
high enough. Much of the problem is caused by the interaction between
silicon anodes and the liquid electrolytes they have been paired with. The
situation is complicated by large volume expansion of silicon particles
during charge and discharge. This results in severe capacity losses over
time. “As battery researchers, it’s vital to address the root problems in
the system. For silicon anodes, we know that one of the big issues is the
liquid electrolyte interface instability,” said UC San Diego
nanoengineering professor Shirley Meng, the corresponding author on the
Science paper, and director of the Institute for Materials Discovery and
Design at UC San Diego. “We needed a totally different approach,” said
Meng. Indeed, the UC San Diego led team took a different approach: they
elimin

Re: [Vo]:Asked & Answered: Rossi

[Kevin O'Malley]

Here is an updated example of threadjacking by way of bringing up Rossi.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3999491/posts?page=41#41

On 1/19/14, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
> There seems to be another thing that skeptopaths engage in.  They try to
> turn any LENR discussion into Andrea Rossi and his past.  LENR had 14,700
> replications before Andrea Rossi ever showed up on the scene.
>
> And BTW, Wikipedia recently removed all the supposed convictions of fraud
> for Rossi, because the evidence could not support it under a very simple
> response by Rossi that they need to either put up or shut up, so they shut
> up.  Rossi is convicted tax evader.  That's it.  No fraud convictions, if
> Wikipedia is to be believed.
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>> How to know you're dealing with a skeptopath:  they won't read the
>> simplest evidence put in front of them.
>>
>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=32#32
>>
>>
>> To: *tacticalogic*
>>  *"I'd be interested in a practical source of energy, and you keep
>> hawking this like it is. Where's the beef?"*
>>
>> Nah, you're just regurgitating the standard crawfishing that all
>> skeptopaths do when they can no longer claim that there is "no scientific
>> evidence" for cold fusion.
>>
>> First the refrain was "cold fusion experiments cannot be repeated".
>>
>> Then, when the researchers "did" improve the repeatability, the refrain
>> became "cold fusion experiments cannot be repeated fifty percent of the
>> time.
>>
>> Then, when repeatability increased past 50%, the refrain became "cold
>> fusion experiments cannot be repeated 100% of the time".
>>
>> Now, as some researchers repeatabiltity numbers approach 100%, the
>> refrain
>> has become "the amount of power is miniscule, even if it "can" be
>> repeated".
>>
>> So, the answer to your question is "the beef is still growing". And an
>> HONEST respondent would admit that.
>>
>> But in the not too distant future, I look forward to when LENR "does"
>> produce usable amounts of power. I wonder what you skeptopaths will say
>> then.
>> 32 <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=32#32>posted
>> on *Wed
>> 27 Nov 2013 05:28:54 AM PST* by Wonder
>> Warthog<http://www.freerepublic.com/%7Ewonderwarthog/>
>> [ Post Reply <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/reply?c=32>|
>> Private
>> Reply<http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3095784.32;reftype=comment>|
>> To
>> 31 <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=38#31> |
>> View
>> Replies <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/replies?c=32> |
>> Report
>> Abuse <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/abuse?c=32>]
>> --
>> To: *Wonder Warthog*
>>  *Nah, you're just regurgitating the standard crawfishing that all
>> skeptopaths do when they can no longer claim that there is "no scientific
>> evidence" for cold fusion.*
>>
>> Lemme guess. You can't show me the evidence to back that up, I'm supposed
>> to go find it.
>> 33 <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=33#33>posted
>> on *Wed
>> 27 Nov 2013 05:34:11 AM PST* by
>> tacticalogic<http://www.freerepublic.com/%7Etacticalogic/>
>> [ Post Reply <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/reply?c=33>|
>> Private
>> Reply<http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/mail-compose?refid=3095784.33;reftype=comment>|
>> To
>> 32 <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/posts?page=38#32> |
>> View
>> Replies <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/replies?c=33> |
>> Report
>> Abuse <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3095784/abuse?c=33>]
>> --
>> To: *tacticalogic*
>>  *"Lemme guess. You can't show me the evidence to back that up, I'm
>> supposed to go find it."*
>>
>> Not quite. I'll give you two starting places. The first is George
>> Beaudette's book "Excess Heat". You can access this either by buying a
>> copy
>> (Amazon)($), or via interlibrary loan (free or $ depending on the
>> policies
>> of your local library.
>>
>> The second is Edmund Storm's collection of summaries of LENR research,
>> which ca

Re: [Vo]:Outreach for discussion on Znidarsic-Smith genuine UFO reverse engineering using causal reasoning

[Kevin O'Malley]

If you really want to get down to the "natural forces" behind flying
saucers, just read ONE book:  Renato Vesco's "Intercept UFO".
https://www.amazon.com/Intercept-UFO-Renato-Vesco/dp/B0006WI572

It outlines the aerodynamic theories and technology of Ludwig Prandtl and
Oscar Schrenk & how those approaches to Boundary Layer Control were
implemented.  The key was using Sinterization and suction across the entire
wetted surface of the aircraft, increasing the lift coefficient by 8X.
 The allies won the war, these German weapon secrets were part of the war
booty, and voila!, 2 years later there were prototypes flying all over the
US  -- and crashing, unlike what one would expect from technologists
hundreds of thousands of years ahead of us capable of superluminal speed.

On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 9:44 AM Don  wrote:

> 2021.10.06
>
> BCC: Scientists and friends
>
>
> *Thank you for being curious about true alien tech.*
>
> I have a huge need to deliver a small corpus of logical connections made
> in mind by causal reasoning.
>
> This is about the control of the natural forces.
>
> ...
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Asked & Answered

[Kevin O'Malley]

Moving The Goalposts
Skeptopaths constantly move the goalposts for LENR.  This doesn't happen in
any other area of science.

https://www.lenr-forum.com/search-result/66261/?highlight=moving+goalposts



On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 9:23 PM Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> I'm growing weary of the same objections, over and over and over again on
> various internet sites.  So I'm going to post each q&a here & just send
> links.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Asked & Answered

[Kevin O'Malley]

Asked & Answered:  Capricious Moderation

We have had some interesting back & forth lately between skeptopaths and
LENRphiles on Free Republic.  Here is the latest:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4004206/posts?page=42#42
To: *Kevmo*

Just heat a body of water in a closed system reliably and you’d have
trillion dollar invention. No one has.

What are your credentials for being this arbitrator of what level of
skepticism is appropriate? Scientific papers published? University degrees?
Successful experiments run?

You act as if you have a lot of go fund me projects looking for suckers.
Any vested interest you should be disclosing?

42 <https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4004206/posts?page=42#42>
posted on *10/16/2021
8:31:29 PM PDT* by bhl <https://freerepublic.com/~bhl/>

My response was deleted by the admin moderator [it would appear].

My response was something along the lines of pointing out that the closed
system heating water has been replicated more than 150 times, with the link
to various threads on LENR forum and here where the 153 replications were
discussed.
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5728-how-do-you-convince-a-skeptic/?postID=105777&highlight=dolly#post105777
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3963819/posts

I also pointed him to threads where it's been asked & answered multiple
times about moving the goalposts.  Then I repeatedly asked him to leave the
thread because he is a troll.

---

There is a seeming disagreement between the sidebar moderator and the admin
moderator.  The admin moderator has been particularly one-sided and
capricious when it comes to LENR as well as other subjects.


---

Updated No Internal Trolling Rules for FR per Jim Robinson

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3928396/posts

If someone says stop, then stop. Do not enter onto a thread on a topic you
don't like just to disrupt, rattle cages, poke sticks, insult the regulars,
or engage in trolling activities, etc. ~Jim Robinson

The issue isn't whether we allow skepticism, it is whether we allow
hyperskeptics and skeptopaths to ruin the scientific dialog. Such FReepers
as Moonman62, TexasGator, CodeToad, Fireman15, bhl and others who persist
in polluting these threads have been asked to leave, and we are asking that
they open their own threads if they have comments.






https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3977426/posts?page=19#19

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

This topic has a following, people who wish to learn and discuss the
materials presented.

Please refrain from posting anything that doesn’t legitimately address the
issue.

Something is going on in this segment of science. There are a considerable
number of research groups studying the matter.

19 posted on 7/19/2021, 6:45:09 PM by Sidebar Moderator

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse]


On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 6:43 PM Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> Thanks for bumping the thread -- T4BTT
>
> LENR seems to have its own set of Anti-Science Truthers. In the last
> couple of years, there has been quite a bit of activity in the area of Low
> Energy Nuclear Reactions. Originally, the field was called Cold Fusion in
> 1989 when Pons & Fleischmann announced their findings prematurely. They
> were ridiculed and blacklisted by scientists who could have lost funding
> for their nuclear projects in 1989, even though some of their findings were
> soon replicated.. You can get the story here:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=263
>
>
> In fact, the only verified instance of Fraud in LENR was when MIT
> scientists fudged their results to show a negative result rather than the
> positive one the data supports.
>
> The ongoing story here on Free Republic has been one where the detractors
> use ridicule, falsehoods, false argumentation, classic fallacies,
> misdirection, and all manner of unscientific and ugly behavior other than
> to discuss the science behind the claims. In order to fight fire with fire,
> I started calling these pathological skeptics “seagulls” but the moderator
> told me not to do that. So the skeptopaths are allowed certain tactics on
> FR but the LENR afficianados are not. It turns out that one of the
> moderators resigned, and his scientific background was lacking in terms of
> being able to properly absorb this material. At one time he even put it on
> the same level as BigFoot without backing it up when confronted:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2917406/posts?page=3976#

[Vo]:Re: Superheated Bose-Einstein condensate exists above critical temperature

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:45 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

>
>
>
>  Superheated Bose-Einstein condensate exists above critical temperature
>
> April 10, 2013 by Lisa Zyga
>
> Physicists created a BEC that can persist at up to 1.5 times hotter than
> the critical temperature at which it normally decays. The BEC can survive
> in the superheated regime for more than a minute when different components
> of the boson gas are not in equilibrium.
>
> Credit: Alexander L. Gaunt, et al. ©2013 Macmillan Publishers Limited
> (Phys.org) —
>
> At very low temperatures, near absolute zero, multiple particles called
> bosons can form an unusual state of matter in which a large fraction of the
> bosons in a gas occupy the same quantum state—the lowest one—to form a
> Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC). In a sense, the bosons lose their
> individual identities and behave like a single, very large atom. But while
> previously BECs have only existed below a critical temperature, scientists
> in a new study have shown that BECs can exist above this critical
> temperature for more than a minute when different components of the gas
> evolve at different rates.
>
> The physicists, Alexander L. Gaunt, Richard J. Fletcher, Robert P. Smith,
> and Zoran Hadzibabic at the University of Cambridge in the UK, have
> published their study on the superheated BEC in a recent issue of Nature
> Physics. As the physicists explain, a superheated BEC is reminiscent of
> superheated distilled water (water that has had many of its impurities
> removed), which remains liquid above 100 °C, the temperature at which it
> would normally boil into a gas. In both cases, the temperature—as defined
> by the average energy per particle (boson or water molecule)—rises above a
> critical temperature at which the phase transition should occur, and yet it
> doesn't.
>
> In BECs and distilled water, the inhibition of a phase transition at the
> critical temperature occurs for different reasons. In general, there are
> two types of phase transitions. The boiling of water is a first-order phase
> transition, and it can be inhibited in clean water because, in the absence
> of impurities, there is in an energy barrier that "protects" the liquid
> from boiling away. On the other hand, boiling a BEC is a second-order phase
> transition.
>
> In this case, superheating occurs because the BEC component and the
> remaining thermal (non-condensed) component decouple and evolve as two
> separate equilibrium systems. The physicists explain how this mechanism
> works in more detail.
>
> In equilibrium, a BEC can only exist below a critical transition
> temperature. If the temperature is increased towards the critical value,
> the BEC should gradually decay into the thermal component. The particles
> flow between the two components until they have the same chemical potential
> (a measure of how much energy it takes to add a particle to either
> component), or in other words, until they are in equilibrium with each
> other. However, maintaining this equilibrium relies on the interactions
> between the particles.
>
> Here, the researchers demonstrated that in an optically trapped
> potassium-39 gas the strength of interactions can be reduced just enough so
> that the two components remain at the same temperature, but the particle
> flow between them is slowed down and their chemical potentials decouple.
> This condition makes it possible for the BEC to maintain a higher chemical
> potential than the surrounding thermal component, and thus survive far
> above its equilibrium transition temperature.
>
>
>
> "The thing that prompted this work was a previous paper of ours on
> measuring the equilibrium BEC transition temperature as a function of the
> interparticle interaction strength," Smith told Phys.org. "At the time we
> noticed that something funny was happening at very low interaction
> strengths: the transition temperature seemed higher than it should be by up
> to 5%. We realized that this was probably due to non-equilibrium effects,
> but could not explain it fully. Also, the effect was much smaller than we
> demonstrated now. Only after fully understanding the equilibrium properties
> of a BEC in an interacting gas we could come back to this problem,
> demonstrate a much clearer effect, and explain it quantitatively."
>
> In the new study, the physicists experimentally demonstrated that a BEC
> could persist in the superheated regime (at temperatures above the critical
> temperature) for more than a minute. They also showed that that they could
> cause the BEC to rapidly boil away by strengthening the interatomic
> interactions to their normal levels, confirming the presence of the
> 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Superheated Bose-Einstein condensate exists above critical temperature

[Kevin O'Malley]

In a personal correspondence, Y.E. Kim confirms that this BEC development
gives his theory yet another leg up.



Yes, high temperature BEC (HT-BEC) is possible with interacting Bosons
which is capable of forming a BEC cluster.

The arguments for requiring the very low T to form a BEC are valid only for
non-interacting or weakly interacting Bosons (as observed by Cornell,
Wieman, Ketterle, and others) for which the temperature is determined by
the tail of the MB velocity distribution. The MB velocity distribution is
appropriate for an ideal gas of non-interacting Bosons, but it is not
applicable to the interacting Bosons.

Some (or many) people still do not the understand this !

I expect that many of LENR phenomena at room temperatures and also at
higher temperatures can be explained by BEC clusters formation by the
interacting Bosons.

Yeong




>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Sun as a NAE

[Kevin O'Malley]

 On a prior thread, I think it was Jones Beene who suggested that
reversible proton fusion was one of the better models for LENR.

Jones 
BeeneFri,
05 Apr 2013 05:52:56
-0700

Once, in about every 10^20 reversible fusion events,  there is a beta decay
in the short time before the reversal can complete.



It is one of the rarest events in physics - but without it, our sun produces
no heat.



On earth, because of this rarity - an experimenter could run an LENR cell
for a thousand years and never see a single proton-proton fusion proceed to
deuterium





From: Harry Veeder

It seems a bit more logical to suggest that the lack of gammas can be better
explained by the lack of the kind of nuclear reaction that produces gammas.
The most prevalent nuclear reaction in the Universe, reversible proton
fusion, produces no gammas. Shouldn't we be taking a closer look at RPF?

Wikipedia says proton-proton fusion produces a neutrino and a positron.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction



Won't this result in an electron-positron anihilation and two gamma rays?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron%E2%80%93positron_annihilation



Harry

Re: [Vo]:Latest Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

[Kevin O'Malley]

Which paper is that?

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  His math is above my pay grade, but one
> detail that seems to emerge is that there could exist a deeply redundant
> ground state bound at 5 keV. It is a Klein-Gordon state and seems to have
> turned up in an earlier paper by Meulenberg and Sinha.
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:
That the size of the claimed effect has gotten smaller ... which is
consistent with pathological science.
***Hagelstein wrote this editorial shortly after having his latest LENR
experiment run for several MONTHS in his lab.  How has the size of the
claimed effect gotten smaller, and how is that consistent with pathological
science?

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> LENR+ is so 2011. I think the future is in LENR++ or maybe objective LENR.
> Nickel and light water are certainly easier to obtain than Pd and heavy
> water, but you still have to mine nickel, and refine it. LENR++ uses
> ordinary soil and tap water. Just mix the dirt with water 2:1 by mass in an
> empty tin (I find Libby's bean cans work best, especially if you eat them
> beforehand), add a secret catalyst, which I can't disclose, turn it upside
> down, and hit it with a hammer, and it begins to glow red hot. Pictures at
> 11.
>

***Some of what you write is worth examining, but you should be mindful of
the rules of this forum.  In particular, no sneering.

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Kevin O'Malley]

Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com
via
eskimo.com
7:48 AM (2 hours ago)
to vortex-l

Joshua, ...You argue that it is not real, but simply the result of many
mistakes made repeatedly by many well trained scientists.

***In order to avoid a straw argument, I ask Joshua if you do argue this?
If so, let's examine the mathematical possibility of so many positive
results arriving by virtue of mistakes.

I would estimate the chance of making a mistake that leads to positive
result to be 1 in 4.  You can use whatever estimate suits your fancy
afterwards.  That means 3 in 4 are genuine, mistake-free positive results,
right?  So let's be even more generous to the argument and make it 1 in 3.
So if 3 independent labs generate positive results due to mistakes, it's 1
in 3^3 or 1 in 27 chance of happening.  In my book, if there was a 1 in 10
chance of a professional scientist generating such errors, he should be
fired; but that's just me.

Since there have been more than 14,700 replications (see below), the chance
of measuring errors or noise causing false positives in replication would
be   1/3 ^ 14700, which is ~10^-5000

Perhaps you do not realize just how ignorant this statement is. The
mathematical definition of Impossible is if something has a chance of
10^-50.   Such a position is a whopping, gigantic, humungous four thousand
Five Hundred and fifty ORDERS OF MAGnitude  less than impossible. I tell
you what, I’ll grant you 3 levels of impossible to be “conservative” with
the numbers (which is about on the order of the number of molecules in the
universe), that is 4400 orders of magnitude less than impossible.



*
https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2&sh=www.springerlink.com
*




Jing-tang He
• Nuclear fusion inside condense matters
• Frontiers of Physics in China
Volume 2, Number 1, 96-102, DOI: 10.1007/s11467-007-0005-8
This article describes in detail the nuclear fusion inside condense
matters—the Fleischmann-Pons effect, the reproducibility of cold fusions,
self-consistency of cold fusions and the possible applications.



Note that Jing-tang He found there were 14,700 replications of the Pons
Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect.
  *
http://www.boliven.com/publication/10.1007~s11467-007-0005-8?q=(%22David%20J.%20Nagel%22)
*

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Kevin O'Malley]

Thanks for the reference, Jed.

In that paper by Johnson, they quote Craven & Letts.  Do you think it was
this paper that National Instruments proceeds from when they reviewed the
literature and cited more than 180 replications?



D. Craven and D. Letts, “The enabling criteria of electrochemical heat:
beyond a reasonable doubt,”

*Proc. 14th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science
(ICCF**14)*
**

, Washington, D.C., August 10–15, 2008

National Instruments is a multibillion dollar corporation that does not
need to stick its neck out for “bigfoot stories”.  They recently concluded
that after reviewing more than 180 replications, with so much evidence of
anomalous heat generation...
*http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf*
Conclusion
• There is an unknown physical event and there
is a need of better measurements and control
tools. NI is playing a role in accelerating
innovation and discovery.

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
> See also:
>
> Johnson, R and M. Melich. *Weight of Evidence for the Fleischmann-Pons
> Effect*. in *ICCF-14 International*
> *Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science*. 2008. Washington, DC
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/JohnsonRweightofev.pdf
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Kevin O'Malley]

*

Acknowledgments
*

We would like to acknowledge and thank JED ROTHWELL, Ed Storms, Dieter
Britz, Bill Collis

and Steve Krivit for their diligent archival/historical work in preserving
the record of CMNS.
Our review was based largely upon their work.
***Come on, Jed, admit it.  That's why you think so highly of this
paper  ;-)


On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>  Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
>
>
>>  In that paper by Johnson, they quote Craven & Letts.
>>
>
>  Cravens and Letts is here, by the way:
>
> http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDtheenablin.pdf
>
> This is an important paper.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Kevin O'Malley]

It's not that often that one can engage with someone who is demonstrably
off by 4400 orders of magnitude.  That's like saying a flea can fly fast
enough to knock over an elephant.  Oops, scratch that, the flea would need
to be able to destroy 8 or 9 planets in a row.  Well, actually, it's more
like 50 planets, but what's  a few orders of magnitude between friends?


On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

> I sincerely do not understand this collective exercise in masochism
> based on discussion with a bravo as Joshua Cude.
> He simply makes intentionally the error that considers CF's temporary
> problems as a sign that. CF does not exist
> Let's better concentrate on the problems of reproducibility and
> upscalability
> and if these cannot be solved in the Pd-D system then we have to solve
> them in other systems.With Joshua we can build only parallel monologues not
> a dialogue
>
> Peter
>
>
> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>>
>> Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com 
>> via<http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=en&ctx=mail&answer=1311182>
>> eskimo.com
>> 7:48 AM (2 hours ago)
>>  to vortex-l
>>
>> Joshua, ...You argue that it is not real, but simply the result of many
>> mistakes made repeatedly by many well trained scientists.
>>
>> ***In order to avoid a straw argument, I ask Joshua if you do argue
>> this?  If so, let's examine the mathematical possibility of so many
>> positive results arriving by virtue of mistakes.
>>
>> I would estimate the chance of making a mistake that leads to positive
>> result to be 1 in 4.  You can use whatever estimate suits your fancy
>> afterwards.  That means 3 in 4 are genuine, mistake-free positive results,
>> right?  So let's be even more generous to the argument and make it 1 in 3.
>> So if 3 independent labs generate positive results due to mistakes, it's 1
>> in 3^3 or 1 in 27 chance of happening.  In my book, if there was a 1 in 10
>> chance of a professional scientist generating such errors, he should be
>> fired; but that's just me.
>>
>> Since there have been more than 14,700 replications (see below), the
>> chance of measuring errors or noise causing false positives in replication
>> would be   1/3 ^ 14700, which is ~10^-5000
>>
>> Perhaps you do not realize just how ignorant this statement is. The
>> mathematical definition of Impossible is if something has a chance of
>> 10^-50.   Such a position is a whopping, gigantic, humungous four thousand
>> Five Hundred and fifty ORDERS OF MAGnitude  less than impossible. I tell
>> you what, I’ll grant you 3 levels of impossible to be “conservative” with
>> the numbers (which is about on the order of the number of molecules in the
>> universe), that is 4400 orders of magnitude less than impossible.
>>
>>
>>
>> *
>> https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2&sh=www.springerlink.com
>> *<https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2&sh=www.springerlink.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jing-tang He
>> • Nuclear fusion inside condense matters
>> • Frontiers of Physics in China
>> Volume 2, Number 1, 96-102, DOI: 10.1007/s11467-007-0005-8
>> This article describes in detail the nuclear fusion inside condense
>> matters—the Fleischmann-Pons effect, the reproducibility of cold fusions,
>> self-consistency of cold fusions and the possible applications.
>>
>>
>>
>> Note that Jing-tang He found there were 14,700 replications of the
>> Pons Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect.
>>   *
>> http://www.boliven.com/publication/10.1007~s11467-007-0005-8?q=(%22David%20J.%20Nagel%22)
>> *<http://www.boliven.com/publication/10.1007~s11467-007-0005-8?q=(%22David%20J.%20Nagel%22)>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Kevin O'Malley]

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck

Max Planck:

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die,
and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Wissenschaftliche Selbstbiographie. Mit einem Bildnis und der von Max von
Laue gehaltenen Traueransprache., Johann Ambrosius Barth Verlag, (Leipzig
1948), p. 22, as translated in Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers,
trans. F. Gaynor (New York, 1949), pp.33-34 (as cited in T.S. Kuhn, The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

Paraphrased variants:
Die Wahrheit triumphiert nie, ihre Gegner sterben nur aus. Truth never
triumphs — its opponents just die out.

Science advances one funeral at a time.


On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
>
>
>> either a generation of scientist get their PhD in cereal box, or they
>> hide an inconvenient fact. that they cannot find a definitive reason not to
>> accept LENR .
>>
>
> Or they suffer from cognitive dissonance having invested their careers and
> lives on a belief system that they cannot reset their minds to the truth
> which is before them.
>

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Kevin O'Malley]

P&F claimed about 10 W in 1989, and in 1993 they claimed 140W excess (with
40 W input), and they published in refereed journals. Hagelstein is
claiming an unverified 100 mW, and they have not published the results. 100
mW is 1400 times smaller than 140 W.
***As I stated, Hagelstein's experiment was over 6 MONTHS.   Rossi claims
he ran an industrial hot water heater for 2 YEARS.  The time factor is the
one which has grown.  I can see why researchers would want to scale down
the reaction when they study it, so they can come to an understanding of
it.

Your  questions are just another example of sneering.  There's no real
attempt to get to a working understanding.  Researchers don't do things the
way you like, so you call it pathological science.


On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>>
>> ***Hagelstein wrote this editorial shortly after having his latest LENR
>> experiment run for several MONTHS in his lab.  How has the size of the
>> claimed effect gotten smaller, and how is that consistent with pathological
>> science?
>>
>>
>>
>
> P&F claimed about 10 W in 1989, and in 1993 they claimed 140W excess (with
> 40 W input), and they published in refereed journals. Hagelstein is
> claiming an unverified 100 mW, and they have not published the results. 100
> mW is 1400 times smaller than 140 W.
>
>
> Hagelstein's experiment is shown to students at his course. He said
> visitors were welcome, but when someone visited and reported back in some
> forum, all he got to see was a closed tupperware box with wires coming out
> connected to stuff. Not really a convincing demo.
>
>
> Why doesn't he use the heat to do something really unequivocal, like
> heating a large volume of water. And if his COP is really 14, why can't he
> get more nanors, boil water, generate electricity and run the experiment on
> its own power. Why does a new source of energy still need energy input from
> the mains?
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

Wow. I had no idea. Now, why didn't they just do this bit of math for the
DOE panel instead of trying to convince them with boring old scientific
evidence.

***AFAIK, it was published after the (incredibly biased) DOE Panel.

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Kevin O'Malley]

But statistical analysis depends on the assumptions.
***Then plug in your assumptions back into the equation.  If you think 5/6
researchers will generate false positive errors, then 1/6 will have
generated genuine positive results.  If even 1/100 of them have generated
positive results then this phenomenon is worth pursuing.  Of course, the
reverse phenomenon of how 5 labs out of 6 can generate false positives is
also worth pursuing as well.


Mine would go like this: There is an appreciable chance that calorimetric
artifacts or errors would appear in cold fusion experiments. Rothwell
writes: "calorimetric errors and artifacts are more common than researchers
realize". In some of those cases, the scientists would be convinced that
apparent excess heat must be nuclear. For those scientists, if they keep at
it long enough, the chance that they would see more artifacts or commit
more errors supporting their ideas approaches 100%,
***If you think it approaches 100%, then plug that figure back into the
equation.  I think if the figure is more than 10%, those scientists should
be fired.  There is something to pursue here.


influenced by wishful thinking and the huge benefit to man and themselves
that successful results promise. So, then any number of successful claims
are possible limited only by the time and energy true believers are
prepared to invest, and the amount of funding they can find to support
them. Storms wrote: "...many of us were lured into believing that the
Pons-Fleischmann effect would solve the world's energy problems and make us
all rich."
***Like Ed says, Word Salad.  You can throw all the words around that you
want, but with 14,700 replications you end up with astronomically small
likelihood that they all made mistakes leading to false positives.   You
end up with 10^-1500 probability or similar, which is still way more than a
THOUSAND orders of magnitude past mathematically impossible.


Cold fusion is not the first phenomenon where this apparently unlikely
situation of mass delusion has occurred.
***I think you're the one who's deluded.  These are labs & scientists, not
journalists and homeopaths.




On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>>
>> I would estimate the chance of making a mistake that leads to positive
>> result to be 1 in 4.  You can use whatever estimate suits your fancy
>> afterwards.  That means 3 in 4 are genuine, mistake-free positive results,
>> right?  So let's be even more generous to the argument and make it 1 in 3.
>> So if 3 independent labs generate positive results due to mistakes, it's 1
>> in 3^3 or 1 in 27 chance of happening.  In my book, if there was a 1 in 10
>> chance of a professional scientist generating such errors, he should be
>> fired; but that's just me.
>>
>> Since there have been more than 14,700 replications (see below), the
>> chance of measuring errors or noise causing false positives in replication
>> would be   1/3 ^ 14700, which is ~10^-5000
>>
>
> Wow. I had no idea. Now, why didn't they just do this bit of math for the
> DOE panel instead of trying to convince them with boring old scientific
> evidence.
>
>
> You can't dispute 10^-5000, so they would have all been convinced cold
> fusion is real, instead of 17 of 18 saying the evidence was not conclusive.
> And then all the funding they wanted would have been theirs. Have you
> contacted the DOE?
>
>
> But statistical analysis depends on the assumptions. Mine would go like
> this: There is an appreciable chance that calorimetric artifacts or errors
> would appear in cold fusion experiments. Rothwell writes: "calorimetric
> errors and artifacts are more common than researchers realize". In some of
> those cases, the scientists would be convinced that apparent excess heat
> must be nuclear. For those scientists, if they keep at it long enough, the
> chance that they would see more artifacts or commit more errors supporting
> their ideas approaches 100%, influenced by wishful thinking and the huge
> benefit to man and themselves that successful results promise. So, then any
> number of successful claims are possible limited only by the time and
> energy true believers are prepared to invest, and the amount of funding
> they can find to support them. Storms wrote: "...many of us were lured into
> believing that the Pons-Fleischmann effect would solve the world's energy
> problems and make us all rich."
>
>
> Cold fusion is not the first phenomenon where this apparently unlikely
> situation of mass delusion has occurred.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

And while you incorrectly deny the claimed replications of polywater, it is
quite similar.There were 450 peer-reviewed publications on polywater. Most
of those professional scientists turned out to be wrong. There were 200 on
N-rays; also all wrong. Cold fusion has more, but polywater had more than
N-rays, and if you can get 450 papers on a bogus phenomenon, twice as many
is not a big stretch, especially for a phenomenon with so much greater
implication, and if an unequivocal debunking doesn't come along.

 ***Polywater is an interesting episode in science.   In trying to verify
your claim of 450 peer-reviewed publications, I came across this discourse
between you and Jed on Skeptoid.

http://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/02/26/lenr-a-bright-future-part-1/



87 Responses to *LENR: A bright future? Part 1*

   1. Jed Rothwell  says:
   February 26, 2013 at 12:25
pm

   Cold fusion has been replicated thousands of times in over 200 major
   laboratories worldwide. I have a collection of 1,300 peer-reviewed journal
   papers on cold fusion, copied from the libraries at Los Alamos and Georgia
   Tech, and 2,000 other papers from conference proceedings, national
   laboratories and other sources. I suggest you review this literature. See:

   http://lenr-canr.org
   
Reply
   - Joshua Cude says:
  February 27, 2013 at 3:34
pm

  That sounds impressive, until you realize that in the last decade or
  more, the publication rate has slowed to a trickle of only a few
  peer-reviewed papers per year, and that they are all bad.

  So bad that none of the CF claims survive peer review in main-stream
  *nuclear* physics journals — the most relevant field. (If a single result
  had any credibility, you couldn’t keep it out of Phys Rev or PRL
or Science
  or Nature.)


So, here I can see you going off into the weeds.  If Polywater is an
example of pathological science, then how many of those peer reviewed
papers were published AFTER the main realization that chemicals in the
cleaning process had affected the glassware used in the experiments?  I
doubt it's going to be more than a dozen.  20 years after that episode in
science, no one was investigating Polywater.  If there were a contingent
still researching Polywater, then yes, that WOULD be a good example of
pathological science.  But there is no such contingent.

You try the same argumentation approach towards cold fusion papers.

LENR is different because there are still anomalous results being found 20
years after the scientific establishment threw it under the bus, because
there is no definitive study that proves it to be an artifact.  And if it
IS an artifact, it will likely be a chemical way to produce energy, so in
itself it will still be something worth following.
Then you write this:
So bad that none of the CF claims survive peer review in main-stream
*nuclear* physics journals — the most relevant field. (If a single result
had any credibility, you couldn’t keep it out of Phys Rev or PRL or Science
or Nature.)
***And for my own little corner of LENR, I know what you write is utterly
untrue.  I made money by betting that Yoshiaki Arata's results would get
replicated in a peer reviewed journal, and one of those journals was
Physics Letters A.

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg37542.html

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Kevin O'Malley]

A good example of the validity of Planck's observation to "fit reality" is
to look at how plate tectonics were initially rejected, then embraced a
generation later.


On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck
>>
>> Max Planck:
>>
>> A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
>> making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die,
>> and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
>>
>>
>> The irony is that not only is this not true, and that cold fusion is
> seeing it work the other way, but Planck himself is a counter-example.
>
>
> Some pathological beliefs, like N-rays and the planet vulcan, only really
> disappeared when the believers died. In cold fusion, the strongest and most
> active proponents are still the ones that were there from the beginning
> (There are some exceptions like Duncan and Zawodny). Cold fusion is likely
> to continue to fade away by attrition, although it clearly has a surprising
> staying power.
>
>
> Planck was slow to accept the idea of photons, but he did not have to die
> to increase their acceptance: about 10 years after Einstein introduced
> them, Planck came around. And of course, all the architects of modern
> physics, including Planck, were alive and well before they could conceive
> of relative time or discrete energy. So, the statement really doesn't fit
> reality, and I suspect he said it in jest.
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:


Either that, or they knew, as any intelligent person would, that no one not
already a true believer, would take such an analysis seriously.
***Oh, so the folks at National Instruments aren't intelligent?  Their JOB
is to measure things, so they investigated LENR last year and found there
to be no measurement errors generating these intriguing results.   In your
hyperventilating skeptopathic outlook, you throw far too many people under
the bus.

National Instruments is a multibillion dollar corporation that does not
need to stick its neck out for “bigfoot stories”.  They recently concluded
that with so much evidence of anomalous heat generation...
*http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf*
Conclusion
• There is an unknown physical event and there
is a need of better measurements and control
tools. NI is playing a role in accelerating
innovation and discovery.

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Kevin O'Malley]

Unpublished and unverified claims that mean nothing.
***Sure they do, but they aren't worth as much as published and
'verified'.  But does that mean your 450 published & peer reviewed papers
on Polywater are worth more than a visit to a sitting professor at MIT with
a 6 month ongoing experiment?  No.

 Hagelstein's work was published and there are some who visited him for
verification.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/05/hagelstein-public-invited-to-see-continuing-cold-fusion-demonstration-at-mit/

He even held a class and featured the experiment
*www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6zYdy5D4oY*

But what he didn't do is get it published in a physics-level peer reviewed
journal, at least not yet.  The situation for LENR is similar to what the
Wright brothers experienced between 1903-1908, when they OBVIOUSLY had made
huge advances in aeronautics but their article was rejected by Scientific
American because such progress was deemed impossible.  The Wright brothers
had to publish their results in a beekeepers journal.

View shared post <https://www.google.com/#>


On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>>
>> ***As I stated, Hagelstein's experiment was over 6 MONTHS.   Rossi claims
>> he ran an industrial hot water heater for 2 YEARS.  The time factor is the
>> one which has grown.
>>
>
> Unpublished and unverified claims that mean nothing. Maybe you're not
> familiar with the claims from the 90s. Check Roulette et al (from the P&F
> Toyota lab fame) or Piantelli for claims of tens or even a hundred watts
> for months at a time. Piantelli's were even published; Roulette's weren't.
> Hagelstein's claims are chickenfeed in comparison.
>
>
>
>> I can see why researchers would want to scale down the reaction when they
>> study it, so they can come to an understanding of it.
>>
>>
>>
> It's much easier to understand when the effect stands out more, not less.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

>
> Tritium is detected at levels far below what is necessary to explain the
> claims of excess heat, and the levels vary by about 10 orders of magnitude.
>
>
>

***Then you acknowledge that Tritium has been detected.
This is a finding worth pursuing.  It's also worth pursuing why it occurs
in levels lower than 'expected'.  Such a pursuit is not pathological
science.


The last time we had nuclear observations contradicting current scientific
theories, Einstein came up with Relativity to accommodate the new findings,
not to shoehorn them into the old theory.

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Kevin O'Malley]

That's a 1901 article.  They couldn't get published after 1903.


Wilbur Wright, Recent Experiments in Gliding Flight, November 1903
***I can't find this article.  There is one with the exact same title from
1897 by Octave Chanute.


On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
>
>> The Wright brothers had to publish their results in a beekeepers journal.
>>
>
> No. They published in the J. Western Society of Engineers, which was a
> top-notch journal. They published two papers:
>
> Wilbur Wright, Some Aeronautical Experiments, Sept. 18, 1901
>
> http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/i/Wrights/library/Aeronautical.html
>
> (This is really good. You should read it.)
>
> Wilbur Wright, Recent Experiments in Gliding Flight, November 1903
>
> The Scientific American and many other mainstream publications did reject
> the claims.
>
> The article in Gleanings in Bee Culture was written by the publisher of
> that journal, A. I. Root, who was a remarkable individual. That article is
> here:
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wright/reporter.html
>
> That journal is still being published. The title has changed but it has
> been published continuously:
>
> http://www.beeculture.com/
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

>
> 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.

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Kevin O'Malley]

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.

I trust physicists who are skeptical.  I don't trust physicists who are
pathologically skeptical, who refuse to look at the data in the same way
that Galileo's detractors refused to look through the telescope.  And yes,
I do think it's because of their greed, self-interest, hubris and various
other things.


On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> National Instruments is a multibillion dollar corporation that does not
>> need to stick its neck out for “bigfoot stories”.  They recently
>> concluded that with so much evidence of anomalous heat generation...
>> *http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf*<http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf>
>> Conclusion
>> • There is an unknown physical event and there
>> is a need of better measurements and control
>> tools. NI is playing a role in accelerating
>> innovation and discovery.
>>
>
>
> You don't trust all the academic physicists who are skeptical of cold
> fusion because you suspect them of -- what? -- greed, self-interest. I
> don't see how, but I don't get how you don't think that maybe corporate
> greed might have something to do with a billion dollar corporation making
> such a perfectly meaningless statement, other than that it might sell more
> instruments.
>
> And by the way, NI has donated equipment for  bigfoot studies (link via J
> Milstone):
>
> http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/bigfoot/nvcode-part-eight-infrasound/
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Kevin O'Malley]

Like Ed says,

What is the usefulness of all this discussion. Cude will not accept the
most obvious and well supported arguments and he will not
accept what I just said here. He makes no effort to find common ground or
to add any insight to the discussion. In his mind, the CF claims are only
pseudoscience - end of discussion. Why not let him go his way with this
belief and discuss something useful because, as past experiences
demonstrated, there is no end to this process.


On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Joshua Cude  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.
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>> A good example of the validity of Planck's observation to "fit reality"
>> is to look at how plate tectonics were initially rejected, then embraced a
>> generation later.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck
>>>>
>>>> Max Planck:
>>>>
>>>> A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
>>>> making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die,
>>>> and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The irony is that not only is this not true, and that cold fusion is
>>> seeing it work the other way, but Planck himself is a counter-example.
>>>
>>>
>>> Some pathological beliefs, like N-rays and the planet vulcan, only
>>> really disappeared when the believers died. In cold fusion, the strongest
>>> and most active proponents are still the ones that were there from the
>>> beginning (There are some exceptions like Duncan and Zawodny). Cold fusion
>>> is likely to continue to fade away by attrition, although it clearly has a
>>> surprising staying power.
>>>
>>>
>>> Planck was slow to accept the idea of photons, but he did not have to
>>> die to increase their acceptance: about 10 years after Einstein introduced
>>> them, Planck came around. And of course, all the architects of modern
>>> physics, including Planck, were alive and well before they could conceive
>>> of relative time or discrete energy. So, the statement really doesn't fit
>>> reality, and I suspect he said it in jest.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Kevin O'Malley]

Going by peer-reviewed literature, it's almost stopped now.
***I see you're changing your stance.  Earlier you said it had stopped.

What's left now are only the mentally feeble and the scammers.
***Dr. Arrata is a mental giant compared to you.

The rest of your argument is a classic fallacy, arguing from silence.  In
this case the silence is from the future, as if you knew what the future
beheld.


On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>>
>>  If Polywater is an example of pathological science, then how many of
>> those peer reviewed papers were published AFTER the main realization that
>> chemicals in the cleaning process had affected the glassware used in the
>> experiments?  I doubt it's going to be more than a dozen.  20 years after
>> that episode in science, no one was investigating Polywater.  If there were
>> a contingent still researching Polywater, then yes, that WOULD be a good
>> example of pathological science.
>>
>
> 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.
>
> Not all field are the same, but they can still be similar.
>
> For a decade, people chased polywater in vain. So far it's been 2 decades
> for cold fusion. It's been a century for homeopathy and perpetual motion
> and dowsing
>
> If cold fusion is ever debunked to everyone's satisfaction, or when the
> principals disappear by attrition, research in cold fusion will stop too.
> Going by peer-reviewed literature, it's almost stopped now. What's left now
> are only the mentally feeble and the scammers.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>  But there is no such contingent.
>>
>> You try the same argumentation approach towards cold fusion papers.
>>
>> LENR is different because there are still anomalous results being found
>> 20 years after the scientific establishment threw it under the bus, because
>> there is no definitive study that proves it to be an artifact.  And if it
>> IS an artifact, it will likely be a chemical way to produce energy, so in
>> itself it will still be something worth following.
>> Then you write this:
>> So bad that none of the CF claims survive peer review in main-stream
>> *nuclear* physics journals — the most relevant field. (If a single result
>> had any credibility, you couldn’t keep it out of Phys Rev or PRL or Science
>> or Nature.)
>> ***And for my own little corner of LENR, I know what you write is utterly
>> untrue.  I made money by betting that Yoshiaki Arata's results would get
>> replicated in a peer reviewed journal, and one of those journals was
>> Physics Letters A.
>>
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg37542.html
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>
>>  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  wrote:
>
> Until they didn't.
>
>
>

***Then you acknowledge those 64 cells did work.  Pursuing this finding is
not pathological science.

[Vo]:Scientists must Study the Nuclear Weak Force to Better Understand LENR

[Kevin O'Malley]

Scientists must Study the Nuclear Weak Force to Better Understand LENR

http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Scientists-must-Study-the-Nuclear-Weak-Force-to-Better-Understand-LENR.html
By Daily Energy Report | Tue, 07 May 2013 21:33 |

In the early part of the 20th Century physicists theorized that a
mysterious force held the nucleus of an atom together.  When it was
demonstrated that this force could be tapped, releasing tremendous amounts
of energy, a wave of excitement swept the scientific world.  It took only a
few short years before atomic energy theories were experimentally validated
in the first nuclear weapon detonations.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki followed.
Most of us alive today were born under the mushroom cloud that has loomed
over humanity ever since.  Accessing the power of the strong nuclear force
has been a mixed blessing:  it has brought the possibility of energy beyond
our wildest dreams but with nightmarish consequences that were literally
unimaginable a generation ago.

That physicists would become enamored of the strong nuclear force is
understandable:  the energy locked in the nucleus of the atom is potent, it
is real, and the challenge of harnessing it for useful purposes has become
the “holy grail” of scientific endeavor.

But could another, more subtle, “fundamental force” hold the key to our
energy future?

The Fundamental Forces of Nature and the Weak Force

Of the four fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear
force and weak nuclear force), the “weak force” is the most enigmatic.
Whereas the other three forces act through attraction/repulsion mechanisms,
the weak force is responsible for transmutations – changing one element
into another – and incremental shifts between mass and energy at the
nuclear level.

Simply put, the weak force is the way Nature seeks stability.  Stability at
the nuclear level permits elements to form, which make up all of the
familiar stuff of our world.  Without the stabilizing action of the weak
force, the material world, including our physical bodies, would not exist.
The weak force is responsible for the radioactive decay of heavy
(radioactive) elements into their lighter, more stable forms.  But the weak
force is also at work in the formation of the lightest of elements,
hydrogen and helium, and all the elements in between.

A good way to understand the weak force is in comparison with the actions
of the other forces at work in the center of the Sun.  The Sun, although
extraordinarily hot (10 million degrees), is cool enough for the
constituent parts of matter, quarks, to clump together to form protons.  A
proton is necessary to form an element, which occurs when it attracts an
electron – the simplest case being hydrogen, which is composed of a single
proton and a single electron.  By the force of gravity, protons are pulled
together until two of them touch – but because of the electrostatic
repulsion of their two positive charges, their total energy becomes
unstable and one of the protons undergoes a form of radioactive decay,
turning it into a neutron and emitting a positron (the antiparticle of an
electron) and a neutrino.  This action forms a deuteron (one proton and one
neutron), which is more stable than the two repelling protons.  This
transmutation of proton into neutron plus beta particles is mediated by the
weak force.

Related article: Nuclear Fusion – Possible at Last?
A neutron is slightly heavier, and therefore less stable, than a proton.
So the normal action of the weak force causes a neutron to decay into a
proton, an electron and a neutrino.  At any rate, at the center of the Sun,
once a deuteron is formed, it will fuse with another free proton to form
helium-3 (one neutron and two protons), releasing tremendous amounts of
energy.  These helium-3 atoms then fuse to form helium-4 and releasing two
more protons and more energy.  The release of energy in these fusion
reactions from the strong force is what powers the Sun.  But the entire
process is set in motion by the weak force.

Enter “Cold Fusion”

When in 1989 Pons and Fleishman stunned the world by reporting nuclear
reaction signatures at room temperatures, physicists were understandably
baffled and skeptical.  Given that virtually all nuclear physicists at the
time were trained in the powerful energies of the strong force, table top
fusion made no sense.  The fact that the phenomenon was dubbed “cold
fusion” was unfortunate and likely contributed to almost universal
rejection by the scientific community.  Standard theoretical models were
not able to explain how cold fusion might even be possible and unless it
could be understood it was pointless and a waste of time.  A comment
attributed to Wolfgang Pauli describes the reaction of most physicists at
the time: “it’s not right; it’s not even wrong”.  Without a coherent theory
to explain it, it wasn’t even science at all.

This all changed in 2006 with the publication of a paper in the
peer-reviewed

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:
>
>
> 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.

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:36 AM, Joshua Cude  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 wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Joshua Cude  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

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:42 AM, Joshua Cude  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

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Joshua Cude  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  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>>
>>
>>>  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 P&F 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

[Kevin O'Malley]

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  wrote:

> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>>
>>>>  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 wrote:
>>>
>>> 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

[Kevin O'Malley]

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  wrote:

> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Kevin O'Malley 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

[Kevin O'Malley]

   On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:

> 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

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:57 AM, Joshua Cude  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]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Kevin O'Malley]

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  wrote:

> On Thu, 9 May 2013 14:20:42 -0700
> "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:57 AM, Joshua Cude 
> 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

[Kevin O'Malley]

Going back to my corner of LENR, if it were not credible then the
replication of Dr. Arata's work would not have been published in Physics
Letters A.

You are not credible.


On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 4:48 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>>  Mainstream does not believe the evidence for cold fusion. Therefore, it
>> is not credible.
>> ***What a ridiculous line of reasoning.
>>
>
>
>
> It's what the words mean. Credible means believable. If something is not
> believed, then it is not credible.
>
>
> It can be credible to some and not others, but in the main, it is not
> credible.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:14 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

>
>>
>
> Who can deny that some of those photos are not explained? Therefore they
> are images of an unknown physical entity.
>
>
>
***You're trying to twist the original dispute, which is that National
Instruments could have gone out on a limb and said such a thing about
bigfoot, but they didn't.  They DID say it about cold fusion.


>
>
>
>> Note that National Instruments DID NOT go out on a limb to say what you
>> just did over bigfoot,
>>
>
>
> Like I said. They didn't have to. It's self-evident.
>
>
>
***Then it is self-evident that National Instruments considers the evidence
for Cold Fusion to be more compelling than for bigfoot.  I see you've
dropped the argument that such people are not intelligent.

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:17 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

>
>>>
>>
>
> Sue me. I'm an anti-semantic.
>
>
> I'm not saying cold fusion is bad because it's pathological.
>
> I call it pathological because it's bad.
>
***Now you're back to your own Humpty Dumpty definitions.  On top of that,
you're being semantic.



> Labels provide a shorthand,
>
***Humpty Dumpty definition



>
>
>
> I subscribe to a descriptive grammar,
>
***Humpty Dumpty definition.  Of course it's going to fit your Humpty
Dumpty definition.

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Kevin O'Malley]

In order to see things the way you do, you ask that 2 of the most careful
electrochemists made fundamentally careless measurements.  That the
physicists who tried the experiments and had no colorimetry experience were
able to be more careful than these 2 careful dudes.  And that the effect
has not been replicated 14,700 times as reported by another careful
scientist.

You're deluded.



On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>> So, Pons & Fleischmann were careless researchers, eh?
>>
>
> Yes, sadly.
>
>
>> Then how is it that their findings have been replicated 14,700 times?
>>
>
> They weren't
>
>
>
>> How did they become 2 of the most preeminent electrochemists of their day
>> before they took on this anomaly?
>>
>
> Pons wan't, but Fleischmann was. Smart people can be careless, especially
> when they are also clueless about nuclear physics, and the potential prize
> is huge.
>
>

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:‘Pathological Science’ is not Scientific Misconduct (nor is it pathological)

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:
Hume said: "A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence".

***Hume also wrote the following, which applies to Joshua Cude, who
absurdly claims that Pons & Fleischmann were not careful electrochemical
experimenters and that the P-F effect has not been replicated 14,700 times
as reported by the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Where men are the most sure and arrogant, they are commonly the most
mistaken, and have there given reins to passion, without that proper
deliberation and suspense, which can alone secure them from the grossest
absurdities.

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
To the Japanese in 1941, Americans seemed outlandish. To the skeptics who
agree with Cude or Close, we are the ones disconnected from reality. We are
illogical and even mentally ill thinking that we can "fuse hydrogen in a
mason jar."  I do not think it does any good getting angry at such people.
It is important that you understand their mindset.
***Okay, Jed.  What we need as a group is a minimum set of facts that we
agree are incontrovertible.  I would think it is that Pons & Fleischmann
were careful electrochemists, the preeminent of their day.  That the
physicists who chose to debunk their findings were far from careful due to
inexperience in electrochemistry and this led to their negative findings.
That there have been 14,700 replications of the P-F anomolous heat effect.
If not, then how many?  180, as per Storms and National Instruments?

What are the base minimum set of facts that we all agree on?


>

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

[Kevin O'Malley]

By 'we' I mean Vortex minus debunkers.  Small 's' skeptics are welcome, but
debunkers are not.  We need to know where to draw the line.  Which facts do
we consider so obvious that when someone denies them, they're a debunker
rather than small 's' skeptic.

Vortex rules:

http://amasci.com/weird/vmore.html

Note that "small-s skepticism" of the openminded sort is perfectly
acceptable on Vortex-L. We crackpots don't want to be *completely*
self-deluding. :) The ban here is aimed at Debunkers; at "certain
disbeleif" and its self-superior and archly hostile results, and at the
sort of "Skeptic" who angrily disbelieves all that is not solidly proved
true, while carefully rejecting all new data and observations which
conflict with the widely accepted theories of the time.




On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
>
>
>>  To the Japanese in 1941, Americans seemed outlandish. To the skeptics
>> who agree with Cude or Close, we are the ones disconnected from reality. We
>> are illogical and even mentally ill thinking that we can "fuse hydrogen in
>> a mason jar."  I do not think it does any good getting angry at such
>> people. It is important that you understand their mindset.
>>
>
>
>> ***Okay, Jed.  What we need as a group is a minimum set of facts that we
>> agree are incontrovertible.
>>
>
> Sure, but we cannot expect people like Cude to agree with any of them. A
> person can always find a reason to dismiss something. Cude says that the
> tritium results may all be mistakes or fraud. Jones Beene accused him of
> being intellectually dishonest, but I assume Cude is sincere. Bockris
> tallied up tritium reports and said that over 100 labs detected it. If I
> were Cude, this would give me pause. I find it impossible to imagine there
> are so so many incompetent scientists, I cannot think of why scientists
> would publish fake data that triggers attacks on their reputation by the
> Washington Post. What would be the motive? But I am sure that Cude, and
> Park, and the others sincerely believe that scientists are deliberately
> trashing their own reputations by publishing fake data.
>
>
>
>>   I would think it is that Pons & Fleischmann were careful
>> electrochemists, the preeminent of their day.
>>
>
> Of course they were, but no skeptic will agree. Fleischmann was the
> president of the Electrochemical Society and a Fellow of the Royal Society,
> but Cude and the others are convinced he was a sloppy, mentally ill
> criminal. That's what they say, and I do not think they would say it if
> they did not believe it.
>
>
>
>>   That the physicists who chose to debunk their findings were far from
>> careful due to inexperience in electrochemistry and this led to their
>> negative findings.
>>
>
> There were many reasons experiments failed in 1989. Some of the failed
> experiments were carefully done, but they used the wrong diagnostics. Most
> of them looked for neutrons instead of heat.
>
>
>
>>   That there have been 14,700 replications of the P-F anomolous heat
>> effect.  If not, then how many?  180, as per Storms and National
>> Instruments?
>>
>
> Those are two different tallies. The 14,700 is the number of individual
> positive runs reported in the literature for all techniques, including glow
> discharge. 180 is the number of laboratories reporting success. Some of
> those labs saw excess heat many times. If 180 labs measure excess heat 10
> times each, that would be 1,800 positive runs in the Chinese tally.
>
> I do not know where the Chinese got their data. Presumably from published
> papers. I have not gone through papers counting up positive and negative
> runs.
>
>
>
>> What are the base minimum set of facts that we all agree on?
>>
>
> If "we" include the skeptics there is not a single fact we all agree on.
> Not one. Cude looks at Fig. 1 in the McKubre paper and says the peak at 94%
> loading means nothing. I think he says it is the result of random effects
> or cherry-picked data. I look at it and say it proves there is a
> controlling parameter (loading) that cannot possibly cause artifactual
> excess heat, so this proves the effect is real. I say that even if only 20%
> achieve high loading, the other 80% are not relevant. Even if only one in a
> million achieved high loading this would still prove the effect is real.
> Cude looks at the preponderance of cells that do not achieve high loading
> and he concludes that they prove this graph is meaningless noise. There is
> absolutely no reconciling our points of view.
>
> From my point of vi

Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: J. Cude, extensive Rule 2 violations

[Kevin O'Malley]

We need to know where to draw the line. Which facts do we consider so
obvious that when someone denies them, they're a debunker rather than small
's' skeptic.


On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> By 'we' I mean Vortex minus debunkers. Small 's' skeptics are welcome, but
> debunkers are not. We need to know where to draw the line. Which facts do
> we consider so obvious that when someone denies them, they're a debunker
> rather than small 's' skeptic.
> Vortex rules:
> http://amasci.com/weird/vmore.html
> Note that "small-s skepticism" of the openminded sort is perfectly
> acceptable on Vortex-L. We crackpots don't want to be *completely*
> self-deluding. :) The ban here is aimed at Debunkers; at "certain
> disbeleif" and its self-superior and archly hostile results, and at the
> sort of "Skeptic" who angrily disbelieves all that is not solidly proved
> true, while carefully rejecting all new data and observations which
> conflict with the widely accepted theories of the time.
>
>
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
>>
>> To the Japanese in 1941, Americans seemed outlandish. To the skeptics who
>>> agree with Cude or Close, we are the ones disconnected from reality. We are
>>> illogical and even mentally ill thinking that we can "fuse hydrogen in a
>>> mason jar." I do not think it does any good getting angry at such people.
>>> It is important that you understand their mindset.
>>>
>> ***Okay, Jed. What we need as a group is a minimum set of facts that we
>>> agree are incontrovertible.
>>>
>>
>> Sure, but we cannot expect people like Cude to agree with any of them. A
>> person can always find a reason to dismiss something. Cude says that the
>> tritium results may all be mistakes or fraud. Jones Beene accused him of
>> being intellectually dishonest, but I assume Cude is sincere. Bockris
>> tallied up tritium reports and said that over 100 labs detected it. If I
>> were Cude, this would give me pause. I find it impossible to imagine there
>> are so so many incompetent scientists, I cannot think of why scientists
>> would publish fake data that triggers attacks on their reputation by the
>> Washington Post. What would be the motive? But I am sure that Cude, and
>> Park, and the others sincerely believe that scientists are deliberately
>> trashing their own reputations by publishing fake data.
>>
>>  I would think it is that Pons & Fleischmann were careful
>>> electrochemists, the preeminent of their day.
>>>
>>
>> Of course they were, but no skeptic will agree. Fleischmann was the
>> president of the Electrochemical Society and a Fellow of the Royal Society,
>> but Cude and the others are convinced he was a sloppy, mentally ill
>> criminal. That's what they say, and I do not think they would say it if
>> they did not believe it.
>>
>>  That the physicists who chose to debunk their findings were far from
>>> careful due to inexperience in electrochemistry and this led to their
>>> negative findings.
>>>
>>
>> There were many reasons experiments failed in 1989. Some of the failed
>> experiments were carefully done, but they used the wrong diagnostics. Most
>> of them looked for neutrons instead of heat.
>>
>>  That there have been 14,700 replications of the P-F anomolous heat
>>> effect. If not, then how many? 180, as per Storms and National Instruments?
>>>
>>
>> Those are two different tallies. The 14,700 is the number of individual
>> positive runs reported in the literature for all techniques, including glow
>> discharge. 180 is the number of laboratories reporting success. Some of
>> those labs saw excess heat many times. If 180 labs measure excess heat 10
>> times each, that would be 1,800 positive runs in the Chinese tally.
>>
>> I do not know where the Chinese got their data. Presumably from published
>> papers. I have not gone through papers counting up positive and negative
>> runs.
>>
>> What are the base minimum set of facts that we all agree on?
>>>
>>
>> If "we" include the skeptics there is not a single fact we all agree on.
>> Not one. Cude looks at Fig. 1 in the McKubre paper and says the peak at 94%
>> loading means nothing. I think he says it is the result of random effects
>> or cherry-picked data. I look at it and say it proves there is a
>> controlling parameter (loading) that cannot possibly cause artifactual
>

Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: J. Cude, extensive Rule 2 violations

[Kevin O'Malley]

So, here's two cases where Joshua Cude and Jed Rothwell concur about
evidence.
***It is this kind of common ground and base set of facts that we should
try to establish as a group.  If anyone comes along hoping to debunk it,
they can read the base set of facts and either move on or engage with us.

If I were to try to log onto a unicorn discussion group, and they were all
obviously unicorn 'believers', what is the point of trying to separate them
from their unicornian beliefs?  But if they cite genuine historical
evidence that they rely on to pursue their belief system, and we're invited
to investigate that evidence rationally, then there is some common ground
between us.  For a non-unicornian to try to impose his viewpoint that if
unicorns are real, they must be amphibians, is beyond the pale for
unicornians.   But for a rule to exist that all participants should adhere
to the belief that unicorns can fly is also beyond the pale.  The common
ground is what we need to establish.


On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Rich Murray  wrote:

> "I think many people have expressed highly skeptical view of BLP, Rossi
> and others here. I think most of this skepticism is justified!"  -- Jed
> Rothwell
>
> So, here's two cases where Joshua Cude and Jed Rothwell concur about
> evidence.
>
> The claims about Toyota's successes are indeed extraordinary evidence:
>
> " They achieved high reproducibility, routinely triggering boil offs in
> 64 cells at a time. The work culminated with cells that ran for weeks at
> boiling temperature, at 40 to 100 W. See:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RouletteTresultsofi.pdf  [ 9 pages ]
>
> This project was terminated because of politics and disputes over money
> between Toyota and other companies, not because the research itself
> failed."  -- Jed Rothwell
>
> "Roulette, T., J. Roulette, and S. Pons. Results of ICARUS 9 Experiments
> Run at IMRA Europe.
>
> in Sixth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Progress in New Hydrogen
> Energy. 1996. Lake Toya, Hokkaido, Japan: New Energy
> and Industrial Technology Development Organization, Tokyo Institute of
> Technology, Tokyo, Japan.
>
> RESULTS OF ICARUS 9 EXPERIMENTS RUN AT IMRA EUROPE
> T. Roulette, J, Roulette, and S. Pons
> IMRA Europe, S.A., Centre Scientifique
> Sophia Antipolis, 06560 Valbonne , FRANCE
>
> INTRODUCTION
>
> We describe herein the construction, testing, calibration and use of a
> high power dissipation calorimeter
> suitable for the measurements of excess enthalpy generation in Pd / Pd
> alloy cathodes during the electrolysis of heavy water electrolytes at
> temperatures up to and including the boiling point of the electrolyte.
>
> With the present design, power dissipation up to about 400W is possible.
>
> Excess power levels of up to ~250% of the input power have been observed
> with these calorimeters in some experiments. Extensions of the design to
> include recombination catalysts on open and pressurized cells will be the
> subject of a future report."
>
> 2 of 7 runs, months long, gave excess heat.
> no details about how the Pd cathodes were prepared and changed.
> no references are given.
> how qualified are T. and J. Roulette?
>
> Joshua Cude, would you comment on this on newvortex?
>
> within the fellowship of service,  Rich Murray
>
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> Jones Beene  wrote:
>>
>> There is plenty of room to be skeptical that LENR will ever get to market.
>>> Cude was correct on that point. I think that airing alternative
>>> viewpoints
>>> on the subject of what it takes for commercialization can be quite
>>> productive for the future of the field.
>>
>>
>> Exactly right. Plus there are many technical claims that are questionable
>> or not repeated yet. Host metal transmutation is not as well established
>> as, say, tritium. Iwamura has done good work and Toyota replicated him, but
>> it is still long way from the tritium results.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Many of us really resent the efforts of those who want to impugn many
>>> years
>>> of quality research at Universities, SRI, National Labs and so on - by
>>> top
>>> researchers. Sure, there is some research which is substandard, but that
>>> is
>>> not the point. The existing level of good research almost certainly
>>> proves
>>> than nuclear reactions can occur at low temperature.
>>
>>
>> Yup, I resent that!
>>
>>
>> To be in denial of that
>>> evidence by skeptics is no more than intellectual dishonesty.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe it is with some people. But I think the debate is reasonably fair.
>> Most supporters and skeptics who are wrong (wrong in my opinion) are making
>> honest mistakes, or they are ignorant, or they interpret the data wrong.
>> Cude strikes me as honest in his opinions. I think he sincerely believes
>> that McKubre Fig. 1 has no significance, because most cells do not achieve
>> the high loading shown there. That is a mistake, not dishonest. He does not
>> understand the point of this graph.
>>
>> Perhaps h

Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: J. Cude, extensive Rule 2 violations

[Kevin O'Malley]

It is a judgement call.
***Then, since this is Bill Beaty's forum, it is up to him to come up with
the set of facts that we consider to be the watershed between debunkers and
small-s skeptics.  I have posted what I consider to be the base set and
will proceed from it until Bill weighs in.  Others can characterize my
approach as churlish all they want, but I don't see them putting in a base
set of facts.  Sneering against vorts IS against the rules, but being
'churlish' when someone blithely walks over a base set of facts is not
against the rules.

How many replications does it take to ensure an effect is real? 
Somewhere between 10 replications and 180, it becomes irrational to deny
the effect is real. Is that number 15? 20? 50?
***We can proceed with the same probability math I used upthread.  If one
considers it to be 1/3 chance of generating a false-positive excess heat
event, then you take that 1/3 to the power of how many replications are on
record. That's the probability of it being an artifact, and it will be far
less than the mathematically designed probability of 10^-50 regardless of
what number of replications are settled upon.Let's say it's 30 labs and
they've replicated it 10 times per lab (It's highly doubtful that 30 labs
would replicate it only once each lab).  Then it's (1/3)^300.  Joshua Cude
thought it was better than 5/6 chance of false-positive, which has never
happened in the history of science and would be a great phenomenon to
investigate in and of itself.  Also,  he never gives a figure of how many
replications have made it under the wire, because then he would have to
admit that this is not really a pathological science.  So all we really
need is for Bill to weigh in on how many replications are considered
"obvious".   And what the chances of generating false-positives are.  From
my readings, the number of true false positives appears to be far less than
1/100.  Perhaps Ed can shed some light on this.

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
>
> We need to know where to draw the line. Which facts do we consider so
>> obvious that when someone denies them, they're a debunker rather than small
>> 's' skeptic.
>>
>
> It is a judgement call.
>
> Science is objective, yet at the finest level of detail, it is a judgement
> call. It has a strange duality. The key question has always been:
>
> How many replications does it take to ensure an effect is real?
>
> Everyone will have a different answer. A knowledgeable person will want to
> look at the papers, and evaluate the skills of the researchers, the choice
> of instruments, the signal to noise ratios and so on. For an experimental
> finding as surprising as cold fusion, I think most people will demand 5 or
> 10 "quality" replications from professional labs. What constitutes
> "quality" is partly matter of opinion.
>
> Somewhere between 10 replications and 180, it becomes irrational to deny
> the effect is real. Is that number 15? 20? 50? Only you can decide, but I
> would say that by 1990 there were so many replications of heat and tritium
> that any continued doubts were irrational.
>
> A Bayesian analysis sheds some light on this. (See Johnson and Melich).
> Still, deciding exactly where you draw the line becomes a little like
> Mandelbrot's question: "how long is the coast of England?" The closer you
> look, the fuzzier it becomes.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: J. Cude, extensive Rule 2 violations

[Kevin O'Malley]

What it represents is the probability that ALL of the replications were the
result of error.  It is exceedingly small.  Far below the mathematical
definition of impossible, which is 10^-50.

That is what Joshua Cude thinks is the case.


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> ***We can proceed with the same probability math I used upthread.  If
>>> one considers it to be 1/3 chance of generating a false-positive excess
>>> heat event, then you take that 1/3 to the power of how many replications
>>> are on record.
>>>
>>
>> That is a form of Bayesian analysis, I think.
>>
>>
> No it's not. It's just ordinary probability theory, and it's not even
> right. That calculation gives the probability of getting N *consecutive*
> replications. The probability of rolling 6 on an ordinary die is 1/6, but
> it's easy to get N sixes (on average) just by throwing the die 6N times.
>
> It is the need for these sorts of arguments and Bayesian analysis that
> emphasizes the absence of a single experiment that will give an expected
> result.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...

[Kevin O'Malley]

Interesting paper.  Here's why 'experts' reject cold fusion after reading
the paper:  the last sentence.


While the type of nuclear reactions resulting in the observed tritium is as
yet unknown, cold fusion of deuterium atoms in the Pd lattice has to be
ruled out due to the observation of a very small neutron signal.12

Basically, experts are pretty lazy, they'll read the intro and conclusion
and if it sounds good, they'll read the rest.  A sentence like that stops
them dead in their tracks.






On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Alain Sepeda  wrote:
>
> Beyond that evident fact, that clearly established existence of one event
>> is enough to prove it is possible, and that replication is only a
>> human-factor redundence (against errors, frauds, incompetence, artifacts),
>> there is a huge question ?
>>
>> how supposed serious scientist can use that stupid arguments ?
>>
>
> That is not a stupid argument. In industrial chemistry, they seldom demand
> a replication before they believe something because the results are usually
> clear-cut and the method well documented. It is engineering, not science.
>
> To take an extreme example of clear test, when the first atomic bomb was
> tested, everyone knew it was real. There was no need to explode another
> one. However, in the years after 1945 the U.S. exploded hundreds of bombs.
> The purpose was to improve the technology, not to prove that nuclear bombs
> are possible. We need many tests of cold fusion devices for the same
> reason: to improve reproducibility, to develop a theory, and to work toward
> commercialization.
>
> To put it another way, anyone who is not already convinced by the work of
> Fritz Will or Storms will not be convinced by a thousand other labs
> replicating ten-thousand times each. There is no point to piling up more
> and more replications of the same thing.
>
> The powered flights by the Wright brothers was another example of
> something that only had to be done once to prove they really had mastered
> controlled, powered flight. The only reason doubts lingered from 1903 to
> 1908 was because people did not believe the written accounts, photos and
> affidavits from witnesses. They thought the Wrights were lying. When
> experts in France saw a flight, they were convinced within seconds. One
> flight was enough. If there had been a panel of aviation experts at Kitty
> Hawk on Dec. 17, 1903, every single expert in the world would have been
> convinced that afternoon. If we could get a panel of experts into SRI to
> observe a test they would all be convinced. I have never heard of an
> educated expert who visited SRI and was not convinced. (Garwin is kidding
> -- he was actually convinced.)
>
> For that matter, most genuine experts are convinced just by reading papers
> at LENR-CANR.org. People who are not convinced are fruitcakes. It is a good
> litmus test. Here is a paper by Will:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGtritiumgen.pdf
>
> The only expert I know who read this and was not convinced is Dieter
> Britz, and even he has to admit this is pretty good evidence. He has to
> dance around the issue and make up dozens of absurd excuses to avoid
> admitting this is real. He does this because even though he is a good
> electrochemist, he is also a flake. He is in denial. He cannot bring
> himself to admit he has been wrong all these years. Everyone else who reads
> Will and has doubts is either ignorant or a flake.
>
> You can substitute any paper by Storms, Miles or McKubre for this litmus
> test. People who turn purple reveal their own nature, not anything about
> the content or nature of the research.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...

[Kevin O'Malley]

In ruling out d+d fusion due to a lack of neutrons, our expert has placed
theory above evidence.
***That's what many experts do, and it is what they did.


On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>> While the type of nuclear reactions resulting in the observed tritium is
>> as yet unknown, cold fusion of deuterium atoms in the Pd lattice has to be
>> ruled out due to the observation of a very small neutron signal.12
>>
>> Basically, experts are pretty lazy, they'll read the intro and conclusion
>> and if it sounds good, they'll read the rest.  A sentence like that stops
>> them dead in their tracks.
>>
> That would be a silly thing to do. The expert is no doubt thinking that
> any d+d fusion, if present, would entail 50 percent d+d→3He+n reactions,
> producing a large and dangerous neutron flux.  In this instance the expert
> has failed to think laterally and is not aware of this possibility, to give
> one example:
>
> d+d+Pd → 4He+Pd
>
> In ruling out d+d fusion due to a lack of neutrons, our expert has placed
> theory above evidence. What he or she should do before ruling d+d fusion
> out is look closely at the levels of helium over time.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

>
> Statistics are fun because, as Kevin O'Malley memorably put it: "It's not
> that often that one can engage with someone who is demonstrably off by 4400
> orders of magnitude."
>
> Fun, except he did the math wrong. If you want to make simple arguments,
> at least get the math right.
>
>

As I wrote, it represents  the probability that ALL of the replications
were the result of error. It is exceedingly small. Far, far, far  below the
mathematical definition of impossible, which is 10^-50.
That is what Joshua Cude thinks is the case.

Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: J. Cude, extensive Rule 2 violations

[Kevin O'Malley]

No, you got it wrong again.  To use your dice analogy, it is as if someone
went ahead and rolled the dice 6*14,720 times and they yielded 14,720
hits.   But along comes a skeptic who says that all of those hits were
misreads.  The chance of those misreads is 1/3 (If you want to establish
that the chance is higher, then make the case for it -- but it has never
happened, ever before, in the history of science).  So in order for all
those 14,720 hits to be errors, it would be (1/3)^14720, which is the
figure that puts you off by 5000 orders of magnitude.


When you make insipid arguments based on unjustifiable assumptions, you
should at least try to get the math right.
***You are the one with insipid arguments and your math is wrong.  By
thousands of orders of magnitude.  Also, you're engaging in debunking and
sneering, which are against the rules.  You haven't got anything right.



On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>> What it represents is the probability that ALL of the replications were
>> the result of error.  It is exceedingly small.
>>
>
> No. That would be the result if there were no negative results in between.
> If you throw N dice, the chance they all come up 6 is (1/6)^N.
>
> But if you throw 6N dice, on average N will come up 6.
>
> So, if the chance is 1/3 that you get a false positive excess heat, and
> 1/3 of cold fusion experiments show heat, then they could all be by chance,
> no matter how big N is.
>
> When you make insipid arguments based on unjustifiable assumptions, you
> should at least try to get the math right.
>
>
>
>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ***We can proceed with the same probability math I used upthread.  If
>>>>> one considers it to be 1/3 chance of generating a false-positive excess
>>>>> heat event, then you take that 1/3 to the power of how many replications
>>>>> are on record.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is a form of Bayesian analysis, I think.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No it's not. It's just ordinary probability theory, and it's not even
>>> right. That calculation gives the probability of getting N *consecutive*
>>> replications. The probability of rolling 6 on an ordinary die is 1/6, but
>>> it's easy to get N sixes (on average) just by throwing the die 6N times.
>>>
>>> It is the need for these sorts of arguments and Bayesian analysis that
>>> emphasizes the absence of a single experiment that will give an expected
>>> result.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...

[Kevin O'Malley]

No, you got it wrong again. To use your dice analogy from the other thread,
it is as if someone went ahead and rolled the dice 6*14,720 times and they
yielded 14,720 hits. But along comes a skeptic who says that all of those
hits were misreads. The chance of those misreads is 1/3 (If you want to
establish that the chance is higher, then make the case for it -- but it
has never happened, ever before, in the history of science). So in order
for all those 14,720 hits to be errors, it would be (1/3)^14720, which is
the figure that puts you off by 5000 orders of magnitude.


On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Statistics are fun because, as Kevin O'Malley memorably put it: "It's
>>> not that often that one can engage with someone who is demonstrably off by
>>> 4400 orders of magnitude."
>>>
>>> Fun, except he did the math wrong. If you want to make simple arguments,
>>> at least get the math right.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> As I wrote, it represents  the probability that ALL of the replications
>> were the result of error.
>>
>
> No it doesn't. That is true only if all the attempts give replications.
> Look up the binomial distribution, and find someone to explain it to you.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...

[Kevin O'Malley]

oops, I meant to say thousands of orders of magnitude




On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> No, you got it wrong again. To use your dice analogy from the other
> thread, it is as if someone went ahead and rolled the dice 6*14,720 times
> and they yielded 14,720 hits. But along comes a skeptic who says that all
> of those hits were misreads. The chance of those misreads is 1/3 (If you
> want to establish that the chance is higher, then make the case for it --
> but it has never happened, ever before, in the history of science). So in
> order for all those 14,720 hits to be errors, it would be (1/3)^14720,
> which is the figure that puts you off by 5000 orders of magnitude.
>
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Statistics are fun because, as Kevin O'Malley memorably put it: "It's
>>>> not that often that one can engage with someone who is demonstrably off by
>>>> 4400 orders of magnitude."
>>>>
>>>> Fun, except he did the math wrong. If you want to make simple
>>>> arguments, at least get the math right.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> As I wrote, it represents  the probability that ALL of the replications
>>> were the result of error.
>>>
>>
>> No it doesn't. That is true only if all the attempts give replications.
>> Look up the binomial distribution, and find someone to explain it to you.
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...

[Kevin O'Malley]

As usual, the skeptopath reads it completely wrong so that he can hold
onto his belief system:  I explicitly wrote
" rolled the dice 6*14,720 times "  and then the yield.

Joshua Cude is here to sneer and debunk, even when he's completely
proven wrong.



On 5/16/13, Joshua Cude  wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>> No, you got it wrong again. To use your dice analogy from the other
>> thread, it is as if someone went ahead and rolled the dice 6*14,720 times
>> and they yielded 14,720 hits. But along comes a skeptic who says that all
>> of those hits were misreads. The chance of those misreads is 1/3 (If you
>> want to establish that the chance is higher, then make the case for it --
>> but it has never happened, ever before, in the history of science). So in
>> order for all those 14,720 hits to be errors, it would be (1/3)^14720,
>> which is the figure that puts you off by 5000 orders of magnitude.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> No, man. You're doing it wrong. The chance you're calculating is if they
> made exactly 14720 experiments, and all of them hit.
>
> If they made 3*1470 experiments, and the chance of a misread is 1/3, then
> you would *expect* something close to 1470 hits.
>

Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...

[Kevin O'Malley]

> You, on the other hand, are saying there may be an artifact that causes
> problems with instruments perfected in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
> Instruments which have been used in millions of experiments and real world
> applications. You are saying this artifact has never been observed in any
> other experiment, and yet on 17,000 occasions in this field only it
> suddenly occurred so that *every single case* of excess heat is an
> artifact. It has to be every one. If even one is real, that makes cold
> fusion real.
***Such an artifact is well worth investigating.  That in itself makes
this area of interest not pathological science.



On 5/16/13, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Joshua Cude  wrote:
>
> Elsewhere I have argued that it is much more likely that an artifact
>> mistaken as excess heat is correlated with high loading, or the
>> conditions
>> that produce high loading, than that nuclear reactions are so correlated.
>> And while I can't identify such an artifact, neither can you identify a
>> nuclear reaction that fits the claims.
>>
>
> I do not need to identify the reaction. The tritium and helium proves it is
> a nuclear reaction. The precise nature of it is irreverent.
>
> You, on the other hand, are saying there may be an artifact that causes
> problems with instruments perfected in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
> Instruments which have been used in millions of experiments and real world
> applications. You are saying this artifact has never been observed in any
> other experiment, and yet on 17,000 occasions in this field only it
> suddenly occurred so that *every single case* of excess heat is an
> artifact. It has to be every one. If even one is real, that makes cold
> fusion real.
>
> You are saying that you cannot identify this artifact. That means your
> claim is not falsifiable, so it is not scientific.
>
> Also you are saying that causality can run backward in time.
>
> The burden of proof on your end is insurmountable.
>
> - Jed
>

Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...

[Kevin O'Malley]

Jed:  So you need only look at the positive results, and estimate the
likelihood that every one of them was caused by incompetent
researchers making mistakes.
***That is what I've been saying all along.  Note how Joshua Cude just
glides over it.  The hallmark of a skeptopath is how disingenuous they
can be.

O'Malley's calculation determines the probability of getting N hits in
N tries. It's just wrong.
***No, no no.  How many times do we need to go through this for a
skeptopath to acknowledge it?  The calculation assumes N tries and N
hits, and then proceeds to calculate the probability of those N hits
were ALL by some error or errors.



On 5/16/13, Joshua Cude  wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Joshua Cude  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>  As I wrote, it represents  the probability that ALL of the replications
 were the result of error.

>>>
>>>
>>
>>> No it doesn't. That is true only if all the attempts give replications.
>>> Look up the binomial distribution, and find someone to explain it to
>>> you.
>>>
>>
>> I believe that would only apply if success or failure was random.
>>
>
> You're not following the argument. The claim is that *If* the positive
> results are from random errors, then the number of positive hits would be
> very unlikely. But that's not true using 1/3 for the chance of a false
> positive, because that fits pretty well with the success rate reported by
> Hubler for example. If the probability of a false positive is 1/3, and you
> run N experiments, you should expect something close to N/3 false
> positives. O'Malley's calculation determines the probability of getting N
> hits in N tries. It's just wrong.
>
>
>
>
>>  When a cathode fails in a properly equipped lab, they always know why it
>> failed. They can spot the defect. When there are no defects and all
>> control
>> parameters are met, it always works. So you need only look at the
>> positive
>> results, and estimate the likelihood that every one of them was caused by
>> incompetent researchers making mistakes.
>>
>
> Storms himself says positive results depend on nature's mood. He said here:
> "Of course it's erratic… created by guided luck." If you're calculating the
> likelihood of a certain number of hits from errors, you have to consider
> all the attempts, not just the successful ones. It's elementary.
>
>
> I'm not saying Cravens' bayesian analysis is wrong, though I suspect the
> assumptions are, but O'Malleys' simplistic analysis teaches us nothing.
>

Re: [Vo]:If I want to see it for myself...

[Kevin O'Malley]

Again:
". . . it is as if someone went ahead and rolled the dice 6*14,720
times and they yielded 14,720 hits. But along comes a skeptic who says
that all of those hits were misreads."

On 5/16/13, Joshua Cude  wrote:
 > That's what I said: you're calculating the probability for all tries to be
> successful at random,  but it doesn't correspond to reality.

Re: [Vo]:skepticism versus Debunkers

[Kevin O'Malley]

Then do we ban the debunker on the 3rd time?  4th time?

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg80212.html

On 5/16/13, Eric Walker  wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Daniel Rocha 
> wrote:
>
> That's still against the rules, no matter how polite and beliefs, which are
>> against the rules.
>>
>
> I think it is ok for someone to fall once or twice into the terrible sin of
> debunking.  Debunkers are people too, and they can change their ways once
> they recognize their error and receive guidance.
>
> Eric
>

Re: [Vo]:Undiscovered error hypothesis

[Kevin O'Malley]

It must be emphasized that although cold fusion results are surprising, the
techniques are conventional and instruments are used within their design
specifications.
***This means that Cold Fusion doesn't really qualify as an extraordinary
claim requiring  extraordinary proof.  It is basically an ordinary
claim.It is skeptopaths who are generating extraordinary claims such as
EVERY instance out of 14,720 replications are errors, which has been shown
to be well past impossible by more than 4400 orders of magnitude.


On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 6:16 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Cude and other skeptics have recently brought up the undiscovered error
> hypothesis. Here is a response to that by Melich and Rothwell:
>
>
> Undiscovered error hypothesis
>
> Some skeptics claim that there might be a yet-undiscovered error in the
> experiments. [As Beaudette wrote] “if the measurements are incorrect, then
> an avid pursuit of the ‘science’ must in due course explicitly and
> particularly reveal that incorrectness.”
>
> More to the point, the claim that there might be an undiscovered error is
> not falsifiable, and it applies to every experiment ever performed. There
> might be an undiscovered error in experiments confirming Newton’s or
> Boyle’s laws, but these experiments have been done so many times that the
> likelihood they are wrong is vanishingly small. Furthermore, skeptics have
> had 20 years to expose an experimental artifact, but they have failed to do
> so. A reasonable time limit to find errors must be set, or results from
> decades or centuries ago will remain in limbo, forever disputed, and
> progress will ground to a halt. The calorimeters used by cold fusion
> researchers were developed in the late 18th and early 19th century. A
> skeptic who asserts that scientists cannot measure multiple watts of heat
> with confidence is, in effect, rejecting most textbook chemistry and
> physics from the last 130 years.
>
> As a practical matter, there is no possibility that techniques such as
> calorimetry, x-ray film autoradiography or mass spectroscopy are
> fundamentally flawed. It must be emphasized that although cold fusion
> results are surprising, the techniques are conventional and instruments are
> used within their design specifications. Cold fusion does not require
> heroic measurement techniques. Heat and tritium are not usually measured
> close to the limits of detection, although they have been in some cases,
> and helium and transmutations have been.
>
> It has been argued that even though the instruments work, the researchers
> may be making mistakes and using the instrument incorrectly. No doubt some
> of them are, but most are experienced scientists at major labs. The effect
> has been confirmed at 180 major laboratories [Storms, Table 1]. If an
> experiment could be as widely replicated as this could be mistaken, the
> experimental method itself would not work.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released

[Kevin O'Malley]

>From the report, an interesting explanation of testing delays:


The tests held in December 2012 and March 2013 are in fact subsequent to a
previous attempt in November 2012 to make accurate measurements on a
similar model of the

*E-Cat HT *on the same premises. In that experiment  the device was
destroyed in the course of the experimental run, when the steel cylinder
containing the active charge overheated and melted. The partial data
gathered before the failure, however, yielded interesting results which
warranted further in-depth investigation in future tests. Although the run
was not successful as far as obtaining complete data is concerned, it was
fruitful in that it demonstrated a huge production of excess heat, which
however could not be quantified.The device used had similar, but not
identical, features to those of the *E-Cat HT *used in the December and
March runs.


On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Brad Lowe  wrote:

> Available here:
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
>
> Press release
>
> http://ecat.com/news/3rd-party-report-shows-anomalous-heat-production-the-rossi-effect
> and direct report download:
>
>
> http://ecat.com/files/Indication-of-anomalous-heat-energy-production-in-a-reactor-device.pdf
>
>
> 29 page report... skimming it, I see a COP: 5.6 +/- 0.8
>
> Congrats to Rossi.
>
> - Brad
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released

[Kevin O'Malley]

This is one of the most important papers in the history of the field.
***I agree.  Here's the primary takeaway:

"Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the
measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than
conventional energy sources."

That means Rossi can sell his device at 5X the cost of another device and
it will still save the user 2X.  There is a ton of room for him to
maneuver.   The snowball might be moving slowly at this moment, but in the
blink of an eye it will be rolling fast and gathering momentum & material
in its inexorable journey to change the world.




On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 6:06 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I sent a note to Andrea:
>
> "I am especially pleased to see this in an open source library. I think I
> will copy it to LENR-CANR.org. Please tell Prof. Levi I intend to to that,
> if you get a chance. Congratulations to all of you."
>
> This is one of the most important papers in the history of the field.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response

[Kevin O'Malley]

>From the report,   an interesting explanation :

The tests held in December 2012 and March 2013 are in fact subsequent to a
previous attempt in November 2012 to make accurate measurements on a
similar model of the

*E-Cat HT *on the same premises. In that experiment  the device was
destroyed in the course of the experimental run, when the steel cylinder
containing the active charge overheated and melted. The partial data
gathered before the failure, however, yielded interesting results which
warranted further in-depth investigation in future tests. Although the run
was not successful as far as obtaining complete data is concerned, it was
fruitful in that it demonstrated a huge production of excess heat, which
however could not be quantified.The device used had similar, but not
identical, features to those of the *E-Cat HT *used in the December and
March runs.



On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Mark Gibbs  wrote:

>
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Arnaud Kodeck 
> wrote:
>
>> Rossi has recently stated in JONP that local hot spots in its reactor
>> were the main issue. If a spot come to a certain upper threshold, the
>> reactor goes out of control.
>
>
> Does anyone know what happens when Rossi's reactor goes out of control?
> Does it melt down or just stop working?
>
> [mg]
>
>
>

[Vo]:H202 fake

[Kevin O'Malley]

Alan:

Why did you never address the H2O2 fake on your website?

How to Prove that the Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR is Real

Alan Fletcher
Version 3.14, April 6, 2011

http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_v314.php








On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

> Final Plot -- based on the igure in the paper
>
> http://lenr.qumbu.com/130520_ragone_01.png
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat report published

[Kevin O'Malley]

Jed, it is often grand & fascinating to read your take on history.

We will have to buy many politicians. It is a small price to pay.
***From your characterizations of Rossi, I think perhaps he is not willing
to pay this price.  He has customers, he will sell to them until it becomes
so overwhelmingly compelling for his customers' competition that they all
will need to buy from him, similar to what Bill Gates did in the early
1980's.  I hope he succeeds magnificently.


On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> James Bowery  wrote:
>
> For the essentially zero risk of putting in escrow one third of the price
>> of a 1MW system -- information worth billions of dollars in futures markets
>> alone at essentially zero cost by taking Rossi up on his offer of allowing
>> your techs full access to run whatever tests they desire.  Why, with all
>> the virtually hysterical investment in quant finance, hasn't there been a
>> stampede to exploit this offering of essentially free money?
>>
>
> Three things come to mind:
>
> 1. I suspect he has been turning down offers like this, from people he
> thinks are only interested in getting access to the data. I would turn them
> down, if I were him.
>
> 2. Who knows how many orders he has taken? It could be dozen. Or 100. . .
> . Maybe what you are describing is happening behind the scenes.
>
> 3. Read about the Transcontinental Railroad in the 1850s and early 60s,
> when T. D. Judah was trying to raise money for it. You can seldom get
> wealthy people to invest in a risky venture or a radically new idea, even
> when a few years later everyone can see it is best investment in history.
>
> Judah was asking for investments from the wealthiest people on earth: San
> Francisco gold and silver moguls. These people regularly gambled up to
> $100,000 a night ($2.5 million in 2012 dollars.)  Judah managed to sell
> only $200 in shares, and only $20 was ever paid in.
>
> Here is a description from the book "A Great & Shining Road" by J. H.
> Williams, QUOTE:
>
>
> Despite the ostentatious wealth of San Francisco and the large and varied
> investments of its denizens, as future investor Mark Hopkins remembered,
> only one sale of two hundred-dollar shares "was ever subscribed in San
> Francisco and $20 all that was paid in -- although the company had an
> office there." An itinerant Frenchman bought the two shares, but he
> wandered off in search of his destiny, never paid the balance, and his
> shares were later forfeited to the company. In a city brimful of buccaneer
> businessmen, Judah's stock certificates failed dismally, and he was deeply
> shaken. He had not reckoned on conservatism from such financial sharks as
> Darius Ogden Mills, a Croesus-rich banker soon to create the mammoth Bank
> of California and buy virtual control of the huge Comstock Lode. The
> skepticism of the business community was as nothing, however, compared with
> the outright hostility of the various interests that stood to lose from a
> successful Pacific Railroad. Shipping companies -- Wells, Fargo and other
> stage and freight companies, and rival railroaders -- all fought the
> Central Pacific from its inception. While one observer has correctly noted
> that "the project was thoroughly saturated and fairly dripping with the
> elements of adventure and romance," these were not attractive elements to
> West Coast financiers. Although somewhat naively Judah did not anticipate
> genuine opposition, he perhaps should have realized that it was a fact of
> West Coast economic life that the best local investments, with high and
> immediate returns (of up to 2 percent a month) were in mining, an industry
> that was still expanding dizzily. Still, the fact that not a single San
> Francisco businessman took his (admittedly long-range) plan seriously all
> but destroyed him.
>
> END QUOTE
>
>
> If, someday, it is revealed that Wells Fargo is still at it, fighting to
> prevent cold fusion, that will not surprise me. That is what large,
> wealthy, entrenched organizations do. They preserve the status quo. They
> prevent progress, except for predictable, incremental progress under their
> control.
>
> The Railroad took off when Lincoln decided to let Uncle Sam assume the
> risks, and fork over the capital. Uncle Sam offered gigantic loans to
> build the road. Uncle got all the money back with interest, by the way. The
> Big Four in California -- Huntington, Stanford, Crocker and Hopkins -- put
> the money to work immediately where it would do the most good. They bribed
> members of Congress with at least $20 million to grease the wheels and keep
> the project funded. (That's $290 million today.) The exact amount is not
> known because when the project was finished, they took their corporate
> accounting books outside and burned them.
>
> This will probably be necessary for cold fusion. We will have to buy many
> politicians. It is a small price to pay.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Proximate Significance of the E-Cat HT Paper

[Kevin O'Malley]

The candidate who wishes to become the next in line after Obama would be
wise to get on this bandwagon at an early stage. However, that candidate
will probably have to stand up against Big Oil, early-on - since any
expedited effort to get LENR into production will hurt hat industry
eventually but may depend on access to ultracentrifuge plants.

***Romney said this:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/992671#.UEjSSc3TlfP

I do believe in basic science. I believe in participating in space. I
believe in analysis of new sources of energy. I believe in laboratories,
looking at ways to conduct electricity with -- with cold fusion, if we can
come up with it. It was the University of Utah that solved that. We somehow
can’t figure out how to duplicate it.




On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  ** **
>
> *From:* Alain Sepeda**
>
> The article makes the buzz worldwide, as if there was many
> lurkers entrenched and waiting for real news (would be rational). there
> is already people prepared to oil the revolution...
>
> ** **
>
> Speaking of “oil” - when you think about the big picture and look for the
> potential bottlenecks which are foreseeable, based upon what is in the
> public record – one is becoming obvious: enriching nickel in the rare
> isotope nickel-62 which is less than 4% of the natural metal. The other is
> what to do with Big Oil … to minimize obstruction.
>
> ** **
>
> BTW - the way Rossi’s patent is worded, only Ni-62 is protected. This
> points to the need for a National effort for optimized enrichment of the
> isotope, if it will really replace oil.
>
> ** **
>
> For gas centrifuge enrichment, nickel is known to form one gaseous
> molecule, which is fluoride based, so that is no problem given the
> similarity to present mature processes for U-235. In fact, there is every
> likelihood that the same plants which enrich Uranium can be converted for
> nickel enrichment. 
>
> ** **
>
> If the access to the gas centrifuge process is going to be required for
> this kind of device to succeed– then this will be a major political issue
> in the end. This is problematic, since control of politics usually get back
> to wealth, and wealth gets back to Oil. 
>
> ** **
>
> The candidate who wishes to become the next in line after Obama would be
> wise to get on this bandwagon at an early stage. However, that candidate
> will probably have to stand up against Big Oil, early-on - since any
> expedited effort to get LENR into production will hurt that industry
> eventually but may depend on access to ultracentrifuge plants.
>
> ** **
>
> May you live in interesting times… 
>
> ** **
>
> …that is going to be our collective curse, or opportunity …depending on a
> few political decisions soon to be on the horizon.
>
> ** **
>
> Jones
>

Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response

[Kevin O'Malley]

The important consideration is the business risk of the event and "melt
down" has a business risk characterized by the destruction not only of the
capital investment but substantial externalities such as radioactive
environmental pollution damages in the billions of dollars.
***Based upon what I have read here on Vortex, that risk is minimal yet it
still does exist.  Rossi got all upset at Celani for carrying a Geiger
counter and reporting that, during startup, it went off the scale.  If the
device melts down at that particular point (minimal chance, but still does
exist) then there is a large release of radioactive material.

My prediction:
So many people will get enamored with this idea of cheap nuclear energy
that they will squash any investigation into this danger.  That aspect is
not a particularly a good thing.  But it will happen.


On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 3:09 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Let's be clear then:
>
> The important consideration is the business risk of the event and "melt
> down" has a business risk characterized by the destruction not only of the
> capital investment but substantial externalities such as radioactive
> environmental pollution damages in the billions of dollars.  On that basis
> alone it is reasonable to disqualify the term "melt down" in this context.
>  In terms of the capital equipment damage, the E-Cat HT is analogous to the
> fuel element in a nuclear power plant.  Yes, the fuel element is a
> write-off but the damage to the rest of the capital equipment would be
> minimal if experience with other steam powered generation systems is
> instructive.
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>> Gibbs asked about "melt down" which has a particular meaning in the
>>> context of nuclear reactors.  Clearly, the E-Cat does not, in this meaning,
>>> melt down.
>>>
>>
>> Oh Yes It Does.
>>
>> Quite remarkable considering there is only 283 W of input power. Anyone
>> who has heated a stainless steel object of this size with that much power,
>> such an electric frying pan, will know that you cannot possibly melt it
>> with 283 W. You cannot even fry an egg. It does does not become
>> incandescent. Assuming the power measurements are right to within an order
>> of magnitude, there is no way this thing could be incandescent.
>>
>> That should give Mary Yugo nightmares, if she pauses to think about it,
>> which she will not.
>>
>> Several cold fusion devices have melted, vaporized or exploded. I know of
>> 6. Informed sources tell several others in China did that, but the Chinese
>> do not wish to discuss the matter.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response

[Kevin O'Malley]

No one knows, because the only guy with the data (Rossi) is so secretive.
And all of us can understand why.

The best available evidence suggests that there is a danger of radioactive
release.  But that will be stepped over like the local republican Roman
children who complained when Julius Caesar cross the Rubicon river.


On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Mark Gibbs  wrote:

> So, in run away mode the reactor can do/always does emit radiation (of
> what type? X-rays and/or gamma?) is it possible that the casing of the
> reactor and the other components would not become radioactive? Is there any
> information as to what type of detector Celani used? If the spectators at
> the demo were unharmed yet radiation was detected, what does that tell us
> about the type and intensity of the radiation?
>
> [mg]
>
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>> Gibbs asked about "melt down" which has a particular meaning in the
>>> context of nuclear reactors.  Clearly, the E-Cat does not, in this meaning,
>>> melt down.
>>>
>>
>> Oh Yes It Does.
>>
>> Quite remarkable considering there is only 283 W of input power. Anyone
>> who has heated a stainless steel object of this size with that much power,
>> such an electric frying pan, will know that you cannot possibly melt it
>> with 283 W. You cannot even fry an egg. It does does not become
>> incandescent. Assuming the power measurements are right to within an order
>> of magnitude, there is no way this thing could be incandescent.
>>
>> That should give Mary Yugo nightmares, if she pauses to think about it,
>> which she will not.
>>
>> Several cold fusion devices have melted, vaporized or exploded. I know of
>> 6. Informed sources tell several others in China did that, but the Chinese
>> do not wish to discuss the matter.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]: ECAT Time Domain Response

[Kevin O'Malley]

Not necessarily during runaway mode, but startup mode.

I predict that as COP increases, this effect will increase.  It is a
double-edged sword.


On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Mark Gibbs  wrote:

> So, in run away mode the reactor can do/always does emit radiation (of
> what type? X-rays and/or gamma?) is it possible that the casing of the
> reactor and the other components would not become radioactive? Is there any
> information as to what type of detector Celani used? If the spectators at
> the demo were unharmed yet radiation was detected, what does that tell us
> about the type and intensity of the radiation?
>
> [mg]
>
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> James Bowery  wrote:
>>
>> Gibbs asked about "melt down" which has a particular meaning in the
>>> context of nuclear reactors.  Clearly, the E-Cat does not, in this meaning,
>>> melt down.
>>>
>>
>> Oh Yes It Does.
>>
>> Quite remarkable considering there is only 283 W of input power. Anyone
>> who has heated a stainless steel object of this size with that much power,
>> such an electric frying pan, will know that you cannot possibly melt it
>> with 283 W. You cannot even fry an egg. It does does not become
>> incandescent. Assuming the power measurements are right to within an order
>> of magnitude, there is no way this thing could be incandescent.
>>
>> That should give Mary Yugo nightmares, if she pauses to think about it,
>> which she will not.
>>
>> Several cold fusion devices have melted, vaporized or exploded. I know of
>> 6. Informed sources tell several others in China did that, but the Chinese
>> do not wish to discuss the matter.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>