Re: [Vo]:Monday Update to Release Information on Self Sustain Mode

[Michel Jullian]

Dear Jones,

While trying to do some catching up in my huge Vortex backlog, I
noticed you were kind enough to mention my sphincter effect. Thanks
for making it remain forever in the annals.

Michel

2011/1/23 Jones Beene :
...
> Well, it’s almost humorous - but one of the ways to accelerate protons
> inside a nanopowder would be using near-fields of the containment - and
> something like, dare I say it: Michel’s “sphincter effect”
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg22625.html

Re: [Vo]:Semi-off-topic: Economic cognitive dissonance

[Michel Jullian]

Hoyt,

I see no explanation for cars costing less than freight, but regarding
the multifunction printer, what they make money on is replacement ink
cartridges. Razor and blade business model.

Michel

2010/10/3, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. :
>
>   Summary:  I should be able to buy a reasonably luxurious automobile from
> China for
>   only the Chinese cost of raw materials, I'd guess <$2000.00.
>
>   It seems the Chinese want to give away their manufactured goods for less
> than the cost of
>   shipping alone!  This is quite astounding to me.  Hey, if they want to
> give away stuff, I'm happy to receive it.
>
>   I was able to build up a fairly well equipped machine shop to build my
> second helicopter
>   for very little money.  There's no way I could have afforded all these
> tools and materials before
>   Harbor Freight Tools opened their stores.
>
>   As I have previously posted, my color laser printer failed which cost
> ~$500 a few years ago
>   and I dismantled it.  If the military had ordered one of these, it would
> have cost millions.
>
>   I replaced it with an HP color laser printer which cost <$250.00, and it's
> better and more complicated.
>
>   Then my 17 year old thermal fax machine failed.  I found a new Brother
> color fax machine for <$60.00 !
>   It includes a scanner, printer, copier also!  In  '70's dollars, the price
> would have been about $10.00 since
>   the dollar is so lowly valued these days.
>
>   If this trend keeps up, I should be able to buy a personal superconducting
> supercollider for a few thousand
>   dollars soon.
>
>   Something just "doesn't compute" about all this"
>
>
>   Hoyt Stearns
>   Scottsdale, Arizona US
>   http://HoytStearns.com
>

Re: [Vo]:Interactions of charged particles on surfaces

[Michel Jullian]

Dear all,

In my understanding, even though I haven't seen it expressed this way
elsewhere, dielectric breakdown is what happens to the so-called
Helmholtz double layer capacitor's insulator (the water monolayer
separating the cathode's surface electron layer from the first layer
of electrolyte dissolved positive charged deuterons attracted to the
cathode) when deuterons reach the palladium surface in PF experiments,
whether to get adsorbed, absorbed, or simply discharged and then
evolved.

That water monolayer is an excellent insulator BTW: it requires a
voltage of ~1V between the electrolyte and the cathode to break down,
which considering its extremely low thickness (~1 angstrom),
corresponds to a huge breakdown field of ~10 million V/mm, to be
compared e.g. with that of air, which is "only" ~3 thousand V/mm.

I haven't read the paper, but I have long believed, and expressed here
on Vortex and also on CMNS, that a good QM understanding of the
interactions of charged particles on surfaces is the key to
understanding LENRs, and that the phenomenon known as "image charge",
a collective effect of the surface-crawling excess electrons which
makes an incident D+ perceive an attractive negative mirror image of
itself on the other side of the cathode, is a key part of the process.

Some here may remember my own hypothesis for  the process (DIESECF,
Desorbing vs Incident Excess Surface Electrons Catalyzed Fusion),
expressed here a few years ago, which was the first suggestion ever
AFAIK that head-on positive deuteron flows meeting at the negatively
charged cathode surface had to be what interacted nuclearly in PF
experiments. It still seems pretty obvious to me that this must be the
case, as two low energy (a few eVs at most) deuterons on the same side
of the cathode surface, _whether inside or outside_, have only an
infinitesimal chance to meet due to their almost unimpeded mutual
repulsion as is well known.

Irrespective of my hypothesis being correct or not, let's indeed all
focus on the surface, as discussed recently there is no proof
whatsoever that LENRs occur elsewhere in a PF cold fusion cell. Let's
be superficial ! ;-)

Michel

2010/7/4  :
> Dear Professor,
>
> Having just read your paper, I am left wondering what the likelihood is of
> dielectric breakdown where the density of charged particles attains a maximum?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:electron slit diffraction

[Michel Jullian]

Youtube - Single electron double slit wave experiment (1mn video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ-0PBRuthc

http://www.hitachi.com/rd/research/em/doubleslit.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#When_observed_emission_by_emission

http://l-esperimento-piu-bello-della-fisica.bo.imm.cnr.it/Resources/Rosa-PhilSci_Archive-Jan2008.pdf

The latter article features a fairly complete bibliography for those
experiments. The Hitachi experiment seems the most well-known.

Tonomura, A., Endo, J., Matsuda, T., Kawasaki, T., and Ezawa, H.
[1989]: `Demonstration
of Single-Electron Buildup of an Interference Pattern', American Journal of
Physics, 57, pp. 117–120.

Michel


2010/6/24 Alexander Hollins :
> Hey all, a friend on a more bio based list is asking about electron
> slit diffraction experiments.  Anyone have links or sources on some
> good ones to pass on, in particular where the experimenter did their
> math completely?
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Secret of Cold Fusion

[Michel Jullian]

 2010/5/16 Jones Beene 
>
> Curiously, they call this phone Nexus and despite Nexis having been around a 
> lot longer – google got their version into my spell-checker somehow.

Either that, or your spell-checker knows more words than you do ;-)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nexus

Main Entry: nex·us
Pronunciation: \ˈnek-səs\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural nex·us·es  \-sə-səz\ or nex·us \-səs, -ˌsüs\
Etymology: Latin, from nectere to bind
Date: 1663
1 : connection, link; also : a causal link
2 : a connected group or series
3 : center, focus

Michel

[Vo]:Electrochemical compression and craters (was Re: Shanahan...)

[Michel Jullian]

2010/5/10 Jones Beene :
> Michel,
>
> Can you cite the reference for this kind of bursting tube, due to internal
> pressurization, having being actually performed?

Some electrolytic compressor literature:

1/ Arata
-

"Method of producing ultrahigh pressure gas" (US pat. 5647970, 1997,
based on a JP patent filed in 1994):
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5647970.html

<>

2 - Celani et al


"ELECTROCHEMICAL COMPRESSION OF HYDROGEN INSIDE A PD-AG THIN WALL
TUBE, BY ALCOHOL-WATER ELECTROLYTE" (JCF7 invited paper, Apr 2006):
http://www.lnf.infn.it/sis/preprint/detail.php?id=4994

<>

Talking about this bursting hollow cathode phenomenon, it just
occurred to me that it may well be responsible for the microscopic
post-electrolysis craters which have been observed: in the course of
long electrolysis runs hydrogen pressure builds up in sub surface
voids until their thinnest wall bursts inescapably. Craters may thus
not be evidence for LENRs occurring some distance below the surface,
contrary to what Horace suggested in a recent post (CC-ing him).

Michel

Re: [Vo]:Shanahan is proposing the cigarette lighter hypothesis

[Michel Jullian]

No Abd, Shanahan may be wrong on many points but the "equivalent to
many atmospheres of hydrogen gas pressure exposure" assertion is
correct, it is even a gross understatement, in the P&F original paper
they computed something like 10^26 atm IIRC. That's electrolytic
compression: if you use a hollow Pd cathode, the pressure inside will
rise to tens of thousands of atmospheres, until the palladium envelope
bursts. It has been done.

Michel

2010/5/8 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax :
> The kicker is this "equivalent to many
> atmospheres of hydrogen gas pressure exposure." No, the D2 pressure at the
> cathode is roughly one atmosphere through the whole experiment.

Re: [Vo]:Shanahan paper and Krivit's response

[Michel Jullian]

2010/5/7 Jed Rothwell :
> I wrote:
>
>>> Wait a minute.  Why should I care about two people, who are both
>>> wrong . . .
>>
>> Who said I care? . . .
>
> Seriously, let us grant that Krivit is right in this instance. Shanahan is
> smart but he went off the rails a long time ago, with an idée fixe (French,
> meaning "a complete meal of several courses, sometimes with choices
> permitted, offered by a restaurant at a fixed price").

Only in US French then!

Michel

Re: [Vo]:Berkeley Scientists discover inexpensive metal catalyst for generating hydrogen from water news

[Michel Jullian]

If I understand correctly, the role of such a catalyst is to reduce
activation energy, thus bringing the reaction's energy consumption
closer to its theoretical minimum, see e.g. :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrocatalyst

<<
An electrocatalyst is a catalyst that participates in electrochemical
reaction. Catalyst materials modify and increase the rate of chemical
reactions without being consumed in the process. Electrocatalysts are
a specific form of catalysts that function at electrode surfaces or
may be the electrode surface itself.
...
One of the greatest drawbacks to galvanic cells like fuel cells and
various forms of electrolytic cells is that they can suffer from high
activation barriers. The energy diverted to overcome these activation
barriers is transformed into heat. In most exothermic combustion
reactions this heat would simply propagate the reaction catalytically.
In a redox reaction, this heat is a useless byproduct lost to the
system. The extra energy required to overcome kinetic barriers is
usually described in terms of low faradayic efficiency and high
overpotentials.
...
Like other catalysts, an electrocatalyst lowers the activation energy
for a reaction without altering the reaction equilibrium.
Electrocatalysts go a step further then other catalysts by lowering
the excess energy consumed by a redox reaction's activation barriers.
>>

Michel

2010/5/6  :
...
> BTW the most important part of the article is the phrase:
>
> "to further facilitate electrical charge-driven as well as light-driven
> catalytic processes."
>
> IOW the Hydrogen is obtained either through electrolysis or via the action of
> sunlight directly, which means that the energy still has to come from 
> somewhere.
>
> However a further interesting point is that Mo is also a Mills catalyst, which
> may go some way toward explaining why it is so active in this role.
>
> Perhaps if they do careful measurements they will discover that they are 
> getting
> more Hydrogen produced than can be accounted for by the energy input.

Re: [Vo]:McKubre paper re-OCRed with ClearScan

[Michel Jullian]

9.0

2010/5/5 Jed Rothwell :
> Michel Jullian wrote:
>
>> To change D20 in D2O use the standard method to
>> edit ClearScan text, I just tried it and it worked for me: using the
>> touchup text tool select the "0" in D20, right click, select
>> properties, change the special font to a system font e.g. Arial bold,
>> close the dialog box and then type "O". You can also change other
>> properties such as the font size, baseline offset etc...
>
> Let me try that. What version of Acrobat are you using?
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:McKubre paper re-OCRed with ClearScan

[Michel Jullian]

Hi Jed,

It looks great indeed! To change D20 in D2O use the standard method to
edit ClearScan text, I just tried it and it worked for me: using the
touchup text tool select the "0" in D20, right click, select
properties, change the special font to a system font e.g. Arial bold,
close the dialog box and then type "O". You can also change other
properties such as the font size, baseline offset etc...

I noticed that text searching is very slow in this large pdf, when
you're done with your corrections save the file and try this (from the
AA9 help file):
<<
Add an index to a PDF
With the document open in Acrobat, choose Advanced > Document
Processing > Manage Embedded Index.
In the Manage Embedded Index dialog box, click Embed Index.
Read the messages that appear, and click OK.
>>

Michel

2010/5/4 Jed Rothwell :

> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHdevelopmen.pdf
...

> you cannot find "D2O"; it thinks all appearances are "D20"
> (D-twenty). You are supposed to be able to correct that but I just spent 2
> hours trying every method

Re: [Vo]:"Clearscan" in Adobe Acrobat 9

[Michel Jullian]

I believe the original images were the same as these (page 18-11 was
missing too, I had to rescan it from my print version):
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13252808/Feynman-Lectures-on-Physics-Volume-3

FYI, there is an annoying bug in AA9, which occurs on some pages of
ClearScan OCRd pdfs when using the text touch up tool, preventing you
to do corrections. It's described here, with a work around:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/514567
In short, one must use Acrobat 8 (other programs may work too) to do
text touch up on Acrobat 9 produced Clearscan pdfs!

Also, I have found that OCR artifacts are produced on some figures,
sometimes to the extent that the figure is unreadable. That's very
rare (one in several hundred in the Feynman books), but unless one is
prepared to check every image in a large file (and then "declare" the
mangled ones as images on the original file before re_OCRing, I
believe that's possible in Acrobat) maybe it's safer to stick to the
less glamorous but more faithful "searchable image" format for now.

Michel

2010/4/11 Jed Rothwell :
> Michel Jullian wrote:
>>
>> Jed, it seems the way it performs depends on the original document's
>> characteristics (resolution, fonts, multiplicity of fonts maybe?).
>
> Yes. There is remarkable variability between different kinds of documents
> and different versions of Acrobat. I cannot figure out what all of the
> controlling parameters are. It also depends a lot on the number and size of
> the figures, and the amount of noise in the scan (extraneous dots).
>
>>
>> In the case of the Feynman Lectures on Physics, volume 3 (quantum
>> mechanics), of which I made a searchable backup of my print version
>> from an image format pdf found on scribd :
>>
>>
>> 1/ The ClearScan'd pdf file size was several times *smaller* than the
>> original image-only pdf found on the web
>
> What is the URL of that file? I will run it through a variety of different
> Acrobat programs. If ClearScan reduced the size I expect the original was
> made a long time ago with an early version of Acrobat.
>
>>
>> 3/ The OCR quality is much better than what you got with your EPRI
>> document, without any "touching up" I got, for page 1-1 :
>
> That's probably a function of the quality of scan. A good quality scan of
> cleanly printed text without a skew and without much noise will OCR far
> better than an old one like the EPRI document.
> - Jed
>

Re: [Vo]:"Clearscan" in Adobe Acrobat 9

[Michel Jullian]

Jed, it seems the way it performs depends on the original document's
characteristics (resolution, fonts, multiplicity of fonts maybe?). In
the case of the Feynman Lectures on Physics, volume 3 (quantum
mechanics), of which I made a searchable backup of my print version
from an image format pdf found on scribd :

1/ The ClearScan'd pdf file size was several times *smaller* than the
original image-only pdf found on the web

2/ Haven't tried printing but it does look better on screen, even
without zooming in

3/ The OCR quality is much better than what you got with your EPRI
document, without any "touching up" I got, for page 1-1 :
<<
1
Quantum Behavior
1-1 Atomic mechanics
"Quantum mechanics" is the description of the behavior of matter and light
in all its details and, in particular, of the happenings on an atomic
scale. Things
on a very small scale behave like nothing that you have any direct experience
about . They do not behave like waves, they do not behave like
particles, they do
not behave like clouds, or billiard balls, or weights on springs, or
like anything
that you have ever seen.
Newton thought that light was made up of particles, but then it was discovered
that it behaves like a wave. Later, however (in the beginning of the twentieth
century), it was found that light did indeed sometimes behave like a particle.
Historically, the electron, for example, was thought to behave like a
particle, and
then it was found that in many respects it behaved like a wave. So it
really behaves
like neither. Now we have given up. We say : "It is like neither. "
There is one lucky break, however-electrons behave just like light. The
quantum behavior of atomic objects (electrons, protons, neutrons, photons, and
so on) is the same for all, they are all "particle waves," or whatever
you want to
call them. So what we learn about the properties of electrons (which
we shall use
for our examples) will apply also to all "particles," including
photons of light.
The gradual accumulation of information about atomic and small-scale behavior
during the first quarter of this century, which gave some indications about
how small things do behave, produced an increasing confusion which was finally
resolved in 1 926 and 1 927 by Schrodinger, Heisenberg, and Born. They finally
obtained a consistent description of the behavior of matter on a small scale. We
take up the main features of that description in this chapter.
Because atomic behavior is so unlike ordinary experience, it is very difficult
to gel used to, and it appears peculiar and mysterious to everyone-both to the
novice and to the experienced physicist. Even the experts do not understand it
the way they would like to, and it is perfectly reasonable that they should not,
because all of direct, human experience and of human intuition applies to large
objects. We know how large objects will act, but things on a small scale just do
not act that way. So we have to learn about them in a sort of abstract
or imaginative
fashion and not by connection with our direct experience.
In this chapter we shall tackle immediately the basic element of the mysterious
behavior in its most strange form . We choose to examine a phenomenon which is
impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way,
and which has
in it the heart of quantum mechanics. I n reality, it contains the only mystery.
We cannot make the mystery go away by "explaining" how it works. We will just
tell you how it works. In telling you how it works we will have told
you about the
basic peculiarities of all quantum mechanics.
1-2 An experiment with bullets
To try to understand the quantum behavior of electrons, we shall compare
and contrast their behavior, in a particular experimental setup, with the more
familiar behavior of particles like bullets, and with the behavior of waves like
water waves. We consider first the behavior of bullets in the experimental setup
shown diagrammatically in Fig. 1 - 1 . We have a machine gun that
shoots a stream
of bullets. It is not a very good gun, in that it sprays the bullets
(randomly) over a
fairly large angular spread, as i ndicated i n the figure. I n front
of the gun we have
1-1
1-1 Atomic mechanics
1-2 An experiment with bullets
1-3 An experiment with waves
1-4 An experiment with electrons
1-5 The interference of electron
waves
1-6 Watching the electrons
1-7 First principles of quantum
mechanics
1-8 The uncertainty principle
Note : This chapter is almost exactly
the same as Chapter 37 of Volume I .
>>

I can spot only 4 broken words in the whole page: three "i n" and one
"i ndicated", but why it  makes such silly errors is beyond me, doen't
it use a dictionary?

Michel

2010/4/9 Jed Rothwell :
> I got the latest version of Adobe Acrobat 9 and I am testing this
> "clearscan" OCR option. It looks great in high resolution but unfortunately
> it has some problems:
>
> 1. It makes the files ~3 times bigger.
>
> 2. It does not look any different when printed.
>
> 3. The OCR 

Re: [Vo]:why is this object glowing?

[Michel Jullian]

2010/4/9 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax :
...
> I.e., radioactive decay. Come to think of that, isn't
> this LENR? After all, nuclear, and takes place at low temperatures

Good point.

> (I've never seen anyone use LENR to refer to radioactive decay, mostly
> because something that happens with a single nucleus isn't thought of as a
> "reaction," i.e., something with more than one particle to start, something
> happens between them, they "react" or or with each other.)

So you don't think of H2O -> H2 + 0.5 O2 as a reaction? ;-)

No, you're right that LENR isn't restrictive enough. Come to think of
it there is probably no better term than Cold Fusion for Cold Fusion.

Michel

Inexpensive convincing Cold Fusion generated helium (was Re: [Vo]:Krivit comments...)

[Michel Jullian]

Ok, Jed and Abd, you have convinced me that a helium free environment,
or a highly helium impermeable cell, would be difficult to get, and
more importantly that it would be disputable.

Then how about letting a not-so-impermeable (e.g. sealed plastic)
closed PF cell, with recombiner inside, run in ambient air for a
sufficiently long duration for helium to build up to an indisputable
*above ambient* concentration? Jed says this has never been done.

A single current source could drive hundreds of identical test cells
at a time (in series arrangement) for weeks or even months. Finding
helium above ambient in only a single cell among those hundreds would
be an indisputable proof of LENRs wouldn't it?

Such an experiment, where only helium would be looked for, would be
IMHO several orders of magnitude cheaper, faster, and, importantly,
*more sensitive* than doing calorimetry and input energy measurement
on the same number of cells. And, even more importantly, it could be
easily analyzed or even run in a skeptic's lab.

Michel

2010/4/2 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax :
> At 05:02 AM 4/2/2010, Michel Jullian wrote:
>>
>> Re Stephen's argument that it can be argued that He can leak in in
>> spite of positive pressure, we could easily bathe the cell in a He
>> free environment, or simply make the cell He impermeable (metal or
>> metal coated cell casing).
>
> Uh, how do you get an He free environment? Mind you, it's done, but this
> begs the question. If your experiment depends on the environment being
> helium free, the suspicion of contamination can remain. Contamination can
> occur anywhere in the system, from contamination of materials (say the
> palladium contains dissolved helium, which it will ordinarily) to
> contamination of any of the equipment.
>
> Indeed, with care, plenty of experiments have shown helium, but the way we
> really know that a particular experiment was accurate with respect to helium
> is by comparing the helium production with another sign of the reaction
> having taken place, and the major marker, by far, is excess heat. And the
> quantitative relationship simultaneously starts to tell us something more
> about the nature of the reaction.
>
> Remember, the original sign that something was happening was excess heat,
> but it was mysteriously missing the expected markers of fusion. Helium is,
> by expectation, a truly minor marker. That helium is appearing in amounts
> roughly commensurate with the expected value for d-d fusion is a huge clue
> to what's going on, that the fuel is deuterium and the ash is helium. Not
> exclusively, necessarily, but, at least, in bulk.
>
> Remember, as well, what Huizenga wrote about this, when he commented, in his
> later edition, on Miles' work. He recognized the importance, but rejected
> the report because it was unconfirmed, and the blinders of his "d-d fusion"
> knee-jerk theory kept before him all the reasons why "d-d fusion" was
> impossible. He knew that if helium was confirmed, he'd have a breakfast
> before which he'd need to accept that *some kind* of deuterium fusion was
> probably taking place; if not that, then some other nuclear process. Miles'
> work confirms helium production in a way that can't be matched by mere
> findings of small amounts of helium.
>
> Sure, in a sane world, the helium reports could be enough. But if you are
> getting helium, you are getting nuclear reactions, and the obvious question
> will be "what were your controls?" The controls in Miles' work are all the
> experimental cells that were otherwise identical but that did not generate
> excess heat. This turns a lemon (unreliable cold fusion cells) into
> lemonade! There are quite a few early experiments that looked for heat and
> helium, and found neither. This all become extended control experiments!
>
>> Re Abd's argument that no "sizable" amount of He can be produced, it
>> seems to me that since a _measurable_ concentration has been found in
>> spite of high dilution in the gaseous output of open cells, then a
>> fortiori we should be able to accumulate a _sizable_ concentration in
>> the head space of a closed cell. Plus, it is easier to measure excess
>> heat accurately in a closed cell, for those who insist that heat
>> should be measured too.
>
> Michel, this work is extremely difficult to do. It's been done, but because
> of the difficulty, there are only a few reports.
>
> It's not necessary, in fact. Long-running cells with accurate calorimetry,
> and, more importantly, with measures taken for full recovery of the helium,
> will be important. The highest-output methods also tend to be unreliable, so
> one must run many cells to get some th

Re: [Vo]:Krivit comments on his annoying trick

[Michel Jullian]

2010/4/1 Jed Rothwell :
> Michel Jullian wrote:
...
>> What we need is an indisputable proof of He production. All right it leaks
>> through glass, so how about a closed cell kept under positive pressure?
>> Surely, after a few days it would accumulate a sizable amount of He, which
>> couldn't possibly come from the atmosphere because of the positive pressure.
>
> McKubre et al. did this with the Case experiment. Passel et al. published a
> short paper that described a possible error in this, but I they were wrong.

Thanks Jed, the refs would be nice.

Re Stephen's argument that it can be argued that He can leak in in
spite of positive pressure, we could easily bathe the cell in a He
free environment, or simply make the cell He impermeable (metal or
metal coated cell casing).

Re Abd's argument that no "sizable" amount of He can be produced, it
seems to me that since a _measurable_ concentration has been found in
spite of high dilution in the gaseous output of open cells, then a
fortiori we should be able to accumulate a _sizable_ concentration in
the head space of a closed cell. Plus, it is easier to measure excess
heat accurately in a closed cell, for those who insist that heat
should be measured too.

Michel

Re: [Vo]:Krivit comments on his annoying trick

[Michel Jullian]

2010/3/31 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax :
> Sent from my iPhone

Not a valid excuse ;-)

> On Mar 31, 2010, at 10:56 AM, Michel Jullian  wrote:
>
>> In fact, I was wondering, who cares about the heat, helium production
>> alone is an indisputable proof of LENRs, isn't it?
>
> A familiarity with the history of the dispute, and even of very recent
> comments here about this, would reveal how incorrect this is.

My comment had nothing to do with the dispute, thanks for your
description of it though.

 I was just stating the obvious: if there is He *production* in a low
energy environment, then obviously there are LENRs.
...
> Helium is difficult to measure. It will diffuse through glass. The levels
> are very low and in most results, are below ambient. It is very easy to
> remain skeptical on helium measurements alone.
...
> But when the helium findings
> correlate with excess heat, it all changes. The results confirm each other.

Too much proof makes people doubt. What we need is an indisputable
proof of He production. All right it leaks through glass, so how about
a closed cell kept under positive pressure? Surely, after a few days
it would accumulate a sizable amount of He, which couldn't possibly
come from the atmosphere because of the positive pressure.

Michel

Re: [Vo]:Krivit comments on his annoying trick

[Michel Jullian]

Friends,

I object to the heavy Krivit bashing, it is not called for, even if
the evidence for the 24MeV heat/He was solid enough which I don't
think it is. And he is free to present his graphs as he pleases in his
slides, especially if he directs the reader to a more complete graph
elsewhere.

In fact, I was wondering, who cares about the heat, helium production
alone is an indisputable proof of LENRs, isn't it?

Michel

2010/3/31 Jed Rothwell :
> Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>
>> I don't agree with Rothwell that a truncated graph is never acceptable,
>> but using it to create an exaggerated impression is indeed reprehensible.
>
> If you truncate the graph, you should say so: "graph is truncated from
> original." Also, never remove the numbers from the axes.
>
> Even if you do not intend to create an exaggerated impression, people like
> me will assume that is your intention. You have made a naive mistake. So
> don't do it without a good reason, and state your reason.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Stimulus Suspension Would Put 85,000 Wind Jobs at Risk

[Michel Jullian]

2010/3/27 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax :
> At 07:39 AM 3/26/2010, Michel Jullian wrote:
>>
>> No wonder, the cold fusion experimenters say "my cell makes excess
>> heat" but they won't let skeptics see it with their own calorimeter.
>
> I intend to fix that, you know.

Good. Obviously, common sense starts at IQ 159 in CF researchers ;-)

> Except the first cells won't be
> calorimeter-ready, they might not generate anough heat, that would take a
> different, and more expensive design, I suspect.I'm just looking for
> neutrons. I know, boring. Who can solve the energy crisis with a few
> neutrons? Part of the point about CF is that it doesn't generate neutrons.
>
> Well, usually not.

Usually not, or usually not many?

> Isn't it the exceptions to the rule that are fascinating?
>
> If I had a cell that was capable of serious heat generation, I'm not sure
> I'd turn it over to a "skeptic." I'd try to find someone reasonably neutral.
> (i.e., someone *normally* skeptical but dedicated to fairness and honesty
> and careful work.)

That's what I had in mind, skeptics in the noble sense of the word.
Dishonest skeptics will never see the excess heat, not until the field
will have entered mainstream.

Michel

Re: [Vo]:Mizuno couldn't get to ACS

[Michel Jullian]

2010/3/26 Jed Rothwell :
> Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>
>> Are there any published works showing nuclear phenomena such as excess
>> heat, correlated with deuterium percentage? I'm starting with 99.9% D2O
>>  (atom percent D). What would be the difference I should expect with 98%
>> D2O, which is substantially cheaper? I've seen rumors that ordinary water
>> "poisons" the reaction. If so, at what level?
>
> With solid Pd in the conventional FP configuration, even a little light
> water poisons the reaction. I think even 1 or 2% but I do not recall. Storms
> says that with electrolysis the Pd preferentially absorbs the H atoms so the
> concentration of H in the lattice is soon higher than in the starting
> liquid.

Interesting. If this is true, it must be a purely electrochemical
effect, probably related to the lower thermoneutral potential (1.48V
for H2O vs 1.54V for D2O) as D is, unintuitively, both more soluble
and more diffusive than H in Pd.

Michel

> Heavy water is hygroscopic. (Try saying that word three times in a row!)
> Meaning it readily absorbs ordinary water from the air. You might say it
> wants to get back to its natural ratio of 1:6,700 atoms. Anyway, people
> sometimes leave bottles of heavy water open to the air during experiments,
> and this ruins them by reducing purity. To prevent this with open-cell
> experiments, Bockris recommended putting the heavy water reservoir in a
> plastic IV bag with an IV tube leading down to the cell, with one of those
> itty-bitty stopcocks at the top of the cell. You exclude air the whole way.
> You dump and throw away the first small amount of little heavy water that
> comes through the empty tube. Bockris also thought that CO2 poisons the
> reaction. Or any kind of carbon.
>
> Storms also used an IV bag in some tritium studies, I assume for the same
> reason:
>
> http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEastudyofel.pdf
>
> Those bags are clean and airtight and made to high standards, since air or
> contamination might harm the patient.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Stimulus Suspension Would Put 85,000 Wind Jobs at Risk

[Michel Jullian]

I am just stating a fact, not judging the validity of anybody's
claims.There would be no airplanes today if the Wright brothers hadn't
allowed skeptics to judge their claims with their own instruments
(=own eyes in their case). Luckily, they were not that stupid.

Michel

2010/3/26 Jed Rothwell :
> Michel Jullian wrote:
>
>> Duncan didn't bring in his own measurement system so he didn't see the
>> excess heat for himself.
>
> Oh give me a break.
>
> That's ridiculous. The technique was replicated as SRI and ENEA. CBS sent
> one of the world top experts in calorimetry to confirm it. What more do you
> want? Do you seriously think that Scott Little with his MOAC would provide
> better confirmation than this?
>
> Are you suggesting that Duncan can't recognize when an instrument is
> malfunctioning? Or that they might have fooled him with fake instruments?
> That is like suggesting that you could fool me into thinking someone is
> speaking Japanese when they are speaking gibberish. I can tell. It is my
> second language. Rob Duncan speaks calorimetry the way Edward Seidensticker
> spoke Japanese.
>
> You come up with such improbable reasons to disbelieve these results! You
> are grasping at straws, the way Dieter Britz does. One day you imagine that
> Rossi has somehow crammed $60 million of plutonium into his cell, and the
> next you tell us that the world's top expert in calorimetry may be so
> incompetent he doesn't know amps from volts. How else can someone mistake
> 0.8 W for 20 W?
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Stimulus Suspension Would Put 85,000 Wind Jobs at Risk

[Michel Jullian]

2010/3/26 Jed Rothwell :
> Michel Jullian wrote:
>
>> > So, you would not believe the Wright brothers unless they let you fly
>> > their
>> > airplane?
>>
>> A better analogy is that I would not believe them unless I saw them
>> flying it with my own eyes.
>
> If that is what you want, you should be satisfied with Rob Duncan going out
> to see the calorimeter at Energetics Technology. He is an expert, much
> better at determining whether it is working than you or I would be.

Eyes stand for calorimeter (or more exactly energy balance measurement
system) in my analogy . Duncan didn't bring in his own measurement
system so he didn't see the excess heat for himself.

Michel

Re: [Vo]:Triumph looks in the mirror

[Michel Jullian]

Why would a micron thin layer evaporate if it's plated on a heat
conducting metal ?? 100W/cm2 is not that much really, it's roughly
what the tip of my soldering iron dissipates happily, even though it's
in air rather than in water.

An example of a thin Pd layer that works? I coudn't even give you an
example of a thick one that works with certainty!

Michel

2010/3/26 Peter Gluck :
> Thank you for calling CF a surface effect, perhaps we have to add that it is
> a local effect,
> only separate point like active sites generate the heat.
> Unfortunately micron thin layers evaoprate immediately- can you imagine how
> much is 100W.sq.cm? And can you tell me a single real example of heat excess
> obtained with such layers in the Pd/D2O system? I have not lied when I was
> alive, should strat do it now? Should I give non-usable examples, advices
>  to my grandson???
>
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Michel Jullian 
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Peter-in-the-grave :) Since CF is a surface effect, how about
>> plating just a few microns of Pd onto some cheaper metal?
>>
>> 2010/3/26 Peter Gluck :
>> > Nice to hear from you, Terry. The trouble is that 0.1 mm is too thin, Pd
>> > overheats, melts- losses, problems etc. Can you calculate the surface
>> > temperature of the metal at a heat release of 100 Watts per square
>> > centimenter?
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Peter Gluck 
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> A bit of realistic sci-fi..
>> >> January 6, 2028- my grandson who was educated in the spirit
>> >> of new energy, cold fusion is wonderful - has succeeded to
>> >> work out the perfectly reproducible energy generating method.
>> >> In the frame of a Pd - D2O system.
>> >> He is a respected citizen and as it is almost compulsory in
>> >> the New Moneytheistic society- a billionaire. He calls the
>> >> Chief Economist of his company:
>> >> "Mark, please buy the reserves of palladium any gram you
>> >> can we are going to conquer the world of energy, to replace
>> >> any dirty fossil fuel.. you see itis winter and it is so warm...
>> >> In two weeks the economist succeeds to buy 150 tonnes
>> >> of palladium. a real wizard.
>> >> My grandson's system releases 100 W per 1 sq.cm
>> >> of palladium, which is in the form of a thin layer of
>> >> 0.2 millimetres i.e 1 x 0.02 x 12 = 0.24 grams.
>> >> It is now simple to calculate that if
>> >> 0.24 g. give a power of 100 W, 200,000,000 g.
>> >> will give- 8.4 10 exp 10 W or  8.4 10 exp 7 kW. in a
>> >> more pragmatical language 84 millions of kWatts
>> >> Or 84,000 MWatts. (US consumes now appr.
>> >> 270,000 MWatts electricity)
>> >> Next step- how many kWatts is Mankind consuming.
>> >> Oh not so much, we are clever and are back at the value
>> >> of 2008. But this value is a bit greater-than what can CF give
>> >> He concludes:
>> >> the CF system can contribute but cannot conquer the market
>> >> of energy.
>> >> He visits my grave and has a long imaginary discussion
>> >> with me. I ask him to do better mathematics and
>> >> use the best data. Can you help him? Thanks!
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Stimulus Suspension Would Put 85,000 Wind Jobs at Risk

[Michel Jullian]

2010/3/26 Jed Rothwell :
> Michel Jullian wrote:
>
>> No wonder, the cold fusion experimenters say "my cell makes excess
>> heat" but they won't let skeptics see it with their own calorimeter.
>
> So, you would not believe the Wright brothers unless they let you fly their
> airplane?

A better analogy is that I would not believe them unless I saw them
flying it with my own eyes.

> Actually, for most experiments, this demand makes no sense. Look at the
> schematics from SRI, China Lake or Energetics Technology. The cell and the
> calorimeter are the same thing. They are one and the same object. One
> calorimeter cannot "be" or "replace" another, any more than you can take a
> marble statue out of the statue and put it in another piece of marble. Or
> than you can take the 7x magnification out of a pair of binoculars and put
> it into a I-pod to test it out. The calorimetry is a function of how the
> cell operates.
>
> Some of the experiments Ed Storms has run use a small cell placed in a
> Seebeck calorimeter, where the two are separate objects.

That's a more sensible way to do things IMHO.

> It might be
> possible to move something like this into the EarthTech MOAC,

This would be so nice, I am sure it would make Scott's day to witness
excess heat at last!

> but I still
> doubt it would work.

Why?

Michel

Re: [Vo]:Triumph looks in the mirror

[Michel Jullian]

Hi, Peter-in-the-grave :) Since CF is a surface effect, how about
plating just a few microns of Pd onto some cheaper metal?

2010/3/26 Peter Gluck :
> Nice to hear from you, Terry. The trouble is that 0.1 mm is too thin, Pd
> overheats, melts- losses, problems etc. Can you calculate the surface
> temperature of the metal at a heat release of 100 Watts per square
> centimenter?
>
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Peter Gluck  wrote:
>>
>> A bit of realistic sci-fi..
>> January 6, 2028- my grandson who was educated in the spirit
>> of new energy, cold fusion is wonderful - has succeeded to
>> work out the perfectly reproducible energy generating method.
>> In the frame of a Pd - D2O system.
>> He is a respected citizen and as it is almost compulsory in
>> the New Moneytheistic society- a billionaire. He calls the
>> Chief Economist of his company:
>> "Mark, please buy the reserves of palladium any gram you
>> can we are going to conquer the world of energy, to replace
>> any dirty fossil fuel.. you see itis winter and it is so warm...
>> In two weeks the economist succeeds to buy 150 tonnes
>> of palladium. a real wizard.
>> My grandson's system releases 100 W per 1 sq.cm
>> of palladium, which is in the form of a thin layer of
>> 0.2 millimetres i.e 1 x 0.02 x 12 = 0.24 grams.
>> It is now simple to calculate that if
>> 0.24 g. give a power of 100 W, 200,000,000 g.
>> will give- 8.4 10 exp 10 W or  8.4 10 exp 7 kW. in a
>> more pragmatical language 84 millions of kWatts
>> Or 84,000 MWatts. (US consumes now appr.
>> 270,000 MWatts electricity)
>> Next step- how many kWatts is Mankind consuming.
>> Oh not so much, we are clever and are back at the value
>> of 2008. But this value is a bit greater-than what can CF give
>> He concludes:
>> the CF system can contribute but cannot conquer the market
>> of energy.
>> He visits my grave and has a long imaginary discussion
>> with me. I ask him to do better mathematics and
>> use the best data. Can you help him? Thanks!
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Stimulus Suspension Would Put 85,000 Wind Jobs at Risk

[Michel Jullian]

No wonder, the cold fusion experimenters say "my cell makes excess
heat" but they won't let skeptics see it with their own calorimeter.

Michel

2010/3/25 Jed Rothwell :
> I should have added --
>
> Nothing like what I have described has happened so far because no one in the
> energy business realizes that cold fusion exists.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Krivit again uses annoying trick

[Michel Jullian]

I'll remind, just in case it isn't clear for everybody, that for every
two Ds which will have disappeared and every He which will have
appeared, 24 MeV of energy will have been released in any case,
_whatever the intermediary or concurrent reactions if any_.

The energy released by a nuclear reaction is path-independent and
depends only on the reactants and products, just like in a chemical
reaction.

Michel

2010/3/25 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson :
> From Abd:
>
> ...
>
>> With all those caveats, and wondering why you'd ask *me*, since I'd
>> really ask someone else, like Dr. Storms, if I cared all that much
>> about it, ...
>
> My previous comments were not exclusively addressed to you alone. I opened
> my query up to comments coming from anyone who wishes to add their two
> cents.
>
>> ... my *impression* is that the energy not from deuterium to
>> helium is not more than maybe 20%, and could be much less. And may
>> vary quite a bit with exact experimental conditions.
>
> Thanks for your impression. Again, this is just speculation that I am asking
> for. At the stage of the game who really knows what the actual ratios might
> be.
>
> Regards,
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> www.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Krivit again uses annoying trick

[Michel Jullian]

Fits with your 159 IQ.

Back on topic, I understand why you are mad at Steve krivit for
pushing his POV that the heat/helium = 24 MeV/He is bogus, that's
because that correlation is what made you believe CF might well be
real. You don't want to doubt again.

Michel

2010/3/24 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax :
> At 11:56 AM 3/24/2010, Horace Heffner wrote:
>
>> On Mar 24, 2010, at 7:34 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I was ten in 1954, and I think I read the book before I was
>>> in high school, and it made a strong impression on me.
>>
>> If you were ten in 1954 you must have been 17 and 18 when you
>> attended the two year Feynman lecture series for freshmen and
>> sophomores at CIT?
>
> Lucky guess! I had skipped a grade and a half back in elementary school
> (they wanted me to skip more, but my father declined it, though it would not
> be socially beneficial), so I graduated high school in 1961, just having
> turned 17. So I was 17 the first year and 18 the next, just as you wrote.
> I'm impressed, somebody is paying attention.
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi

[Michel Jullian]

Dear peter,

I did get your original posting, about 11 hours ago. I had similar
problems of not getting my own posts, which were solved by adding
myself to my gmail contacts.

I agree with you that Jed's assertion that we know enough on what
makes a CF cell work to enable independent replication is hogwash.

Michel

2010/3/24 Peter Gluck :
> I have sent this once but it seems it has not arrived= communication
> problems?
> "Dear Cousin Jed,
> You are right in principle, we have many elements of know what and know
> how re the cells.
> We know the critical parameters but we cannot always achieve them. We
> definitely have noknow why because we do not have first class theories that
> predict, we also do not have
> second class theories that prohibit only third class that explain, and don't
> explain clearly.
> Do you have a favorite theory?
> And we are unable to explain miraculous results as Mizuno's unquenchable
> cathode or Energetics' cathode no 64- such events are unique and cannot be
> understood yet.
> And only these are good for a technology, not those asking for sensitive
> calorimeters.
> . And we do not have examples of solid reproductbility. We perhaps know, but
> we can not as much as we know.
> My guess is that this situation si due to the poisoning- in an uncontrolable
> way of the active sites (Ed Storm' NAE) with S, C, N trace compounds from
> air- the same that are causing climate change. In order to try to get
> coontrollable LENR these poisons have to be removed from the system. Nobody
> believes me, and I have no lab to try myself..
> Perhaps we know what makes the cells work, but it is equally important to
> know what makes the cells to NOT work. Unfortunately the cells know this too
> Peter"
>
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>>
>> Michel Jullian wrote:
>>
>>> It is less independent than using a fresh cathode and
>>> > your own cell.
>>>
>>> Which, since you don't really know what makes the original cell work,
>>> is even harder than moving the original cell.
>>
>> We know what makes the cells work. With bulk Pd the control parameters are
>> well known: high loading, stimulation and so on. They are difficult to
>> achieve, but we know what they are.
>>
>> If you mean that we need to know what makes the cell work on theoretical
>> basis, that's just plain incorrect. Look carefully and ask enough questions
>> and you we will find that people do not know the theoretical basis for
>> anything, not even the formation of ice from liquid water.
>>
>>
>>> Anyway, I said "independent measurement", not independent replication.
>>
>> It is almost as difficult to do an independent measurement as a
>> replication, unless you are visiting the lab and using the experimenter's
>> own equipment.
>>
>>
>>> I am sure it would convince many on the contrary. What would you think
>>> of someone telling you he can fly to the moon by flapping his arms, to
>>> use your analogy, and never letting anyone watch for 20 years?
>>
>> That's silly. Energetic Technology welcomed Rob Duncan. McKubre has had
>> hundreds of visitors, such as Richard Garwin. Garwin wrote a report saying
>> he found no error. What more do you want? Heck, even I've been to plenty of
>> labs.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi

[Michel Jullian]

2010/3/23 Jed Rothwell :
> Michel Jullian wrote:
>
>> If I was the inventor, I would take my cold fusion cell, *as a black
>> box to preserve my secrets*, to whatever authority accepts to test it
>
> I do not think there is any chance that would work. I have never seen a cold
> fusion experiment that did require disassembling the cell. As McKubre put
> it, "a wire always breaks."

I guess you meant didn't. So what, I would take the cell to my hotel
room nearby, disassemble it, fix the wire or whatever has broken, and
come back. Or I would have a replacement cell handy if I was lucky
enough to have two working cells.

> Also, why would you want to preserve secrets?
> Just file for a patent and you are covered.

I might have secrets to preserve, e.g. before I file a patent.

My point is that one can have one's CF cell's excess heat certified
without revealing any secrets.

So why hasn't this be done in 21 years? Am I the only one to think
that failure to do so, i.e. failure to make reality of cold fusion
indisputable, seriously harms the researcher himself,  the field at
large, and mankind at large?

Michel

Re: [Vo]:Rossi

[Michel Jullian]

Dear Peter,

If I was the inventor, I would take my cold fusion cell, *as a black
box to preserve my secrets*, to whatever authority accepts to test it
(Earthtech is willing, if NIST is willing let it be NIST, good idea),
to get the excess heat certified.

Why, you ask? To make it considerably easier and faster for me to get
funding to do the important things you mentioned, scale up etc. And to
take the field out of the ghetto it's been sitting in for 21 years,
which accessorily would save the planet from boiling itself to death.

Michel

2010/3/23 Peter Gluck :
> Dear Michel,
> I am, modesty apart, quite good in empathy. I can put myself in the place of
> the inventor.
> Why, for God's sake should he take his device to Earthtech's lab and make
> measurments
> to demonstrate that they get excess heat? Is Earthtech legally such a great
> authority
> in calorimetry recognized worldwide? Based on what achievemnts? Cui
> prodest?"
> For such measurements perhaps you can go to NIST or some famous University
> lab.
> Do you think they are NOT certain about excess heat?
> As for Cold fusion/LENR excess heat is the aim, up to levels where you get
> certainty even with primitive calorimetry. At 21 years you are "major
> citizen" even in the most conservative countries.
> But it is more important for them to work on development, scale-up,
> intensification, safety, cost and price, quality, control, fast methods to
> stop heat release, increase of the active life of a generator and many other
> things from the realm of engineering.
>
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Michel Jullian 
> wrote:
>>
>> 2010/3/23 Peter Gluck :
>> > Dear Michel,
>> > Yes it is based on trust, I could not visit these labs- but I will try
>> > to,
>> > this summer.
>> > But this trust is based on knowing the history of the system and its
>> > father.
>> > I have not missed any point re Scott Little. I don't believe he or
>> > anybody
>> > else will be
>> > able to reproduce the working system of this process without knowing how
>> > to
>> > make it work.
>>
>> The know-how, good point. Then how about, if you were the inventor,
>> taking the device to Earthtech, making it work there yourself, and
>> leaving just the energy balance measurement to them? Wouldn't this be
>> a good compromise?
>>
>> > Why does he (Scott) not try based on everything we know- Piantelli et al
>> > papers, an old patent, now not more valid, the new Focardi Rossi patent
>> > and
>> > paper? Will he be able to find out the treatments and/or additives
>> > and/or
>> > procedures that make the system work?
>>
>> Probably not, hence my suggestion above.
>>
>> > This is reseach, needs creativity,
>> > inspiration, patience and luck. He will need the help of a theorist who
>> > will
>> > try to find out what the main and the secondary reactions. And will be
>> > exposed to risks.
>> >   Have you asked Jean Louis Naudin's opinion? He is an ace in such
>> > things.
>>
>> I have stopped looking at JLN's CF work when I realized he didn't know
>> how to measure electrical power, not to mention serious defects in his
>> calorimetry. But he is indeniably very good at other things.
>>
>> > By the way, the saying is not dirty, it says persuasively that the
>> > professional principles and rules have to be respected strictly. Dura
>> > lex,
>> > sed lex in technology too
>>
>> Oh, I get it now! Quite true!
>>
>> Michel
>>
>> > Peter.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Michel Jullian 
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Dear Peter,
>> >>
>> >> Let me see if I understand, you believe the Rossi Focardi claims
>> >> because you believe Piantelli when he _says_ he too has 100%
>> >> reproducible intense excess heat with Ni-H. It's all based on trust,
>> >> right?
>> >>
>> >> You missed my point about Scott/Earthtech, which is not that they have
>> >> a more sensitive calorimeter (which for kW level power is irrelevant I
>> >> agree), but that they can perform an _independent_ measurement of the
>> >> device. NOT of a replicated device which would imply divulgating all
>> >> known details, and even so it might not work, but of the working
>> >> device itself.
>> >>
>> >> Would you yourself, if you had an excess heat device in your lab,
>> >> 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi

[Michel Jullian]

2010/3/23 Jed Rothwell :
> Michel Jullian wrote:
>
>> You missed my point about Scott/Earthtech, which is not that they have a
>> more sensitive calorimeter (which for kW level power is irrelevant I agree),
>> but that they can perform an _independent_ measurement of the device.

>  as a
> practical matter, actually moving an experiment from one calorimeter to
> another, and especially from one lab to another, is a lot harder than it
> sounds, and I don't see much point to it. It does not seem particularly
> "independent" to me. It is less independent than using a fresh cathode and
> your own cell.

Which, since you don't really know what makes the original cell work,
is even harder than moving the original cell. Anyway, I said
"independent measurement", not independent replication.

> I doubt it would convince any skeptics, if that is your goal.

I am sure it would convince many on the contrary. What would you think
of someone telling you he can fly to the moon by flapping his arms, to
use your analogy, and never letting anyone watch for 20 years?
Wouldn't you be less skeptic if you witnessed the feat yourself? Or
would you insist that the guy teaches you how to fly this way before
believing him?

> Also, I do not think the MOAC is of better quality or better suited to these
> experiments than the instruments at SRI, Energetics Technology, or Storms'
> lab.

Even if it wasn't, the aim is confirmation, not better measurement.

Michel

Re: [Vo]:Rossi

[Michel Jullian]

2010/3/23 Peter Gluck :
> Dear Michel,
> Yes it is based on trust, I could not visit these labs- but I will try to,
> this summer.
> But this trust is based on knowing the history of the system and its father.
> I have not missed any point re Scott Little. I don't believe he or anybody
> else will be
> able to reproduce the working system of this process without knowing how to
> make it work.

The know-how, good point. Then how about, if you were the inventor,
taking the device to Earthtech, making it work there yourself, and
leaving just the energy balance measurement to them? Wouldn't this be
a good compromise?

> Why does he (Scott) not try based on everything we know- Piantelli et al
> papers, an old patent, now not more valid, the new Focardi Rossi patent and
> paper? Will he be able to find out the treatments and/or additives and/or
> procedures that make the system work?

Probably not, hence my suggestion above.

> This is reseach, needs creativity,
> inspiration, patience and luck. He will need the help of a theorist who will
> try to find out what the main and the secondary reactions. And will be
> exposed to risks.
>   Have you asked Jean Louis Naudin's opinion? He is an ace in such things.

I have stopped looking at JLN's CF work when I realized he didn't know
how to measure electrical power, not to mention serious defects in his
calorimetry. But he is indeniably very good at other things.

> By the way, the saying is not dirty, it says persuasively that the
> professional principles and rules have to be respected strictly. Dura lex,
> sed lex in technology too

Oh, I get it now! Quite true!

Michel

> Peter.
>
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Michel Jullian 
> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Peter,
>>
>> Let me see if I understand, you believe the Rossi Focardi claims
>> because you believe Piantelli when he _says_ he too has 100%
>> reproducible intense excess heat with Ni-H. It's all based on trust,
>> right?
>>
>> You missed my point about Scott/Earthtech, which is not that they have
>> a more sensitive calorimeter (which for kW level power is irrelevant I
>> agree), but that they can perform an _independent_ measurement of the
>> device. NOT of a replicated device which would imply divulgating all
>> known details, and even so it might not work, but of the working
>> device itself.
>>
>> Would you yourself, if you had an excess heat device in your lab,
>> whatever the power level, not take advantage of an offer of free
>> independent measurement by nice competent people?
>>
>> Michel
>>
>> PS There are all sorts of dirty sayings in French too, but none that I
>> know about technology!
>>
>> 2010/3/23 Peter Gluck :
>> > Dear Michel,
>> > I believe the claims because I know the history of the system invented
>> > by
>> > Piantelli, I admire Piantelli and trust him. And he says the system is
>> > 100%
>> > reproducible and the heat release is intense. And you have to take great
>> > care with scale-up. I have no idea how Focardi who was a collaborator of
>> > Piantelli and Andrea Rossi who is an inventor,  came to work seemimgly
>> > separately from Piantelli.. It is possible the two groups have
>> > discovered
>> > separate means to get reproducibility and go on the way to scale-up.
>> > Buut I
>> > don't know.
>> > Piantelli has his lab for scale-up, Rossi has one in Italy and one in
>> > the
>> > US.
>> > Re Scott Little_ I believe he has a good calorimeter, but so has Ed
>> > Storms
>> > (I had the honor to see it in Ed's house in Santa Fe). They Ed, Jed et
>> > al.
>> > say they have good calorimeters
>> > for the simple reason they really have good calorimeters. But if you
>> > need a
>> > very sensitive
>> > and precise calorimeter to demonstrate heat excess, than you are in a
>> > bad
>> > situation. After 21 years of history, this is not more interesting.
>> > Piantelli and Focardi Rossi say they are in the 100-1000 W and more zone
>> > excess heat, what use of a say 0.001 W sensivity?
>> > Science is wonderful, but technology - in this case too is useful.
>> > Say you get such a device, but you don't know what makes it
>> > reproducible,
>> > then any validation test will be a disappointment and sophisticated
>> > measurement just can make the situation worse. An indecent Hungarian
>> > proverb
>> > say "you cannot XXX out with technology!" that means you need the know
>> > how
>> &g

Re: [Vo]:Rossi

[Michel Jullian]

2010/3/23 Jed Rothwell :
> Michel Jullian wrote:
>
>> > You need not worry about that sort of thing.
>> > I have been in contact with
>> > both parties,
>> > and they have already taken apart the cells.
>>
>> Which parties?
>
> Please ask me again in 3 months.

I thought you didn't want to know any CF information that you could
not divulgate ;-)

Prospective investors presumably, good luck to them.

>> 6 or 7 kg would be the weight of a complete 1kW device, and the US is
>> not the only source of radioisotopes.
>
> Only one radioisotope can do this without killing the observers:
> plutonium-238.

I don't see why, it seems to me it's only a matter of shielding.

> As I said, you need $60 million worth of the stuff. I doubt
> Rossi has that kind of money. Russia has Pu-238 as well, but as I doubt
> either government will sell any of it to anyone.

I wasn't thinking about official government sales.

But as I said such a source could not be turned off, so you're right
that we need not worry about that sort of thing. Unless the device
under test cannot be turned off either, of course.

>> I agree with your cousin Peter that it can't be a problem of bad
>> English.
>
> In my experience, a language gap can cause extensive problems.

Sure, but not in the present case. In the present case it is clear
that they claim kW level excess heat, they could say this in Italian
or in Chinese it wouldn't change a thing.

Michel

Re: [Vo]:Rossi

[Michel Jullian]

Dear Peter,

Let me see if I understand, you believe the Rossi Focardi claims
because you believe Piantelli when he _says_ he too has 100%
reproducible intense excess heat with Ni-H. It's all based on trust,
right?

You missed my point about Scott/Earthtech, which is not that they have
a more sensitive calorimeter (which for kW level power is irrelevant I
agree), but that they can perform an _independent_ measurement of the
device. NOT of a replicated device which would imply divulgating all
known details, and even so it might not work, but of the working
device itself.

Would you yourself, if you had an excess heat device in your lab,
whatever the power level, not take advantage of an offer of free
independent measurement by nice competent people?

Michel

PS There are all sorts of dirty sayings in French too, but none that I
know about technology!

2010/3/23 Peter Gluck :
> Dear Michel,
> I believe the claims because I know the history of the system invented by
> Piantelli, I admire Piantelli and trust him. And he says the system is 100%
> reproducible and the heat release is intense. And you have to take great
> care with scale-up. I have no idea how Focardi who was a collaborator of
> Piantelli and Andrea Rossi who is an inventor,  came to work seemimgly
> separately from Piantelli.. It is possible the two groups have discovered
> separate means to get reproducibility and go on the way to scale-up. Buut I
> don't know.
> Piantelli has his lab for scale-up, Rossi has one in Italy and one in the
> US.
> Re Scott Little_ I believe he has a good calorimeter, but so has Ed Storms
> (I had the honor to see it in Ed's house in Santa Fe). They Ed, Jed et al.
> say they have good calorimeters
> for the simple reason they really have good calorimeters. But if you need a
> very sensitive
> and precise calorimeter to demonstrate heat excess, than you are in a bad
> situation. After 21 years of history, this is not more interesting.
> Piantelli and Focardi Rossi say they are in the 100-1000 W and more zone
> excess heat, what use of a say 0.001 W sensivity?
> Science is wonderful, but technology - in this case too is useful.
> Say you get such a device, but you don't know what makes it reproducible,
> then any validation test will be a disappointment and sophisticated
> measurement just can make the situation worse. An indecent Hungarian proverb
> say "you cannot XXX out with technology!" that means you need the know how
> elements, you have to respect the rules.. Is there a French ~equivalent for
> that?
>
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Michel Jullian 
> wrote:
>>
>> 2010/3/21 Peter Gluck :
>> > Merci beaucoup, Michel...
>> > My interest is in technology and this resurrection or rejuvenation of
>> > the
>> > Piantelli system
>> > is the first really interesting event after many years. It is a great
>> > mystery what has happened between 1994 and 2008, it is crucial to know
>> > when
>> > (and how) was total  reproducibility achieved. Piantelli who is the
>> > Father
>> > of this system advices for a careful, stepwise scale up- due to serious
>> > risks as sudden uncontrolable heat release and radiation. The system is
>> > in a
>> > pre-commercial phase and has a very promising future.
>>
>> So you believe the claims? On what grounds? And why isn't Piantelli
>> involved?
>>
>> > Patents are interesting bu their reliabilty is low (to quote myself "the
>> > study of patents give you the mythology NOT the history of a process"
>> > For
>> > products it is better. The value of a patent without a critical know-how
>> > feature is low.
>> > I would not bother much with good English papers either, I think the
>> > setup
>> > is already described in the very first Piantelli- Focardi- Habel paper.
>> > In
>> > the Focardi Rossi paperthe results- if true are esential.
>> > Without the secret ingredient, recipe, surface treatment or magic spell
>> > it
>> > will be quite  difficult to perform any independent validation. With or
>> > without Scott's Wundercalorimeter.
>> > Metrologomania- obsession with very sensitive measurement has
>> > disfocussed
>> > the research in the field. A means became an aim.
>>
>> It's nice to have cool headed persons like Scott Little in the field.
>> Again, I don't understand the rationale for not having one's claims
>> confirmed by them for free, the MOAC offer has been open for 5 years
>> now! The "my calorimeter is as good as theirs" reason invoked by Ed
>> and Jed is of course not re

Re: [Vo]:Rossi

[Michel Jullian]

2010/3/21 Peter Gluck :
> Merci beaucoup, Michel...
> My interest is in technology and this resurrection or rejuvenation of the
> Piantelli system
> is the first really interesting event after many years. It is a great
> mystery what has happened between 1994 and 2008, it is crucial to know when
> (and how) was total  reproducibility achieved. Piantelli who is the Father
> of this system advices for a careful, stepwise scale up- due to serious
> risks as sudden uncontrolable heat release and radiation. The system is in a
> pre-commercial phase and has a very promising future.

So you believe the claims? On what grounds? And why isn't Piantelli involved?

> Patents are interesting bu their reliabilty is low (to quote myself "the
> study of patents give you the mythology NOT the history of a process" For
> products it is better. The value of a patent without a critical know-how
> feature is low.
> I would not bother much with good English papers either, I think the setup
> is already described in the very first Piantelli- Focardi- Habel paper. In
> the Focardi Rossi paperthe results- if true are esential.
> Without the secret ingredient, recipe, surface treatment or magic spell it
> will be quite  difficult to perform any independent validation. With or
> without Scott's Wundercalorimeter.
> Metrologomania- obsession with very sensitive measurement has disfocussed
> the research in the field. A means became an aim.

It's nice to have cool headed persons like Scott Little in the field.
Again, I don't understand the rationale for not having one's claims
confirmed by them for free, the MOAC offer has been open for 5 years
now! The "my calorimeter is as good as theirs" reason invoked by Ed
and Jed is of course not receivable, it simply amounts to saying "I
don't want to have my excess heat claim to be independently
confirmed". Proprietary secrets one doesn't want to divulge? Simply
make the cell a black box which can produce controllable or at least
non constant excess heat. Anyone can think of a good reason not to
take up the Earthtech offer?

> There is only one proof- a commercial heater and a firts factory of such
> heaters leading to a new branch of industry. We have waited 21 years for
> this, and as our Italian friends would say: Basta! I hope you will agree too
> cousin Jed, and this will be our line of thinking and action.

I agree a commercial heater would be an indisputable proof, even a
prototype would do, but in what way is this a line of action? Is
anyone on the verge of producing one?

Michel

Re: [Vo]:Rossi

[Michel Jullian]

2010/3/21 Jed Rothwell :
> Michel Jullian wrote:
>
>>
>> Such an evaluation is not foolproof, as even if the experimental setup is
>> made fully open to the experts and they find nothing wrong with it (heating
>> resistor current as advertised etc), there is no way to be sure there isn't
>> a mundane source of heat such as a some radioisotope hidden in the cell
>> itself, unless Rossi lets them take it apart which is unlikely.
>
> You need not worry about that sort of thing.
> I have been in contact with
> both parties,
> and they have already taken apart the cells.

Which parties?

> These people are
> not fools, and Rossi is clearly not trying to scam anyone.

If he was, would it be so obvious?

> Also, as cousin
> Peter points out, you would need ~7 kg of plutonium-238
> to do this without
> killing the observers, and I do not think Uncle Sam would lend it to you.

6 or 7 kg would be the weight of a complete 1kW device, and the US is
not the only source of radioisotopes. But anyway as I said it's easy
to discriminate between a constant heat source and one that can be
turned off. It can be turned off, right?

> As I said about Mills, the only thing that is absolutely foolproof is a
> fully independent replication.

Yes. The next best thing is an independent measurement of the excess
heat, which can't be very difficult to do at this magnitude, just drop
the cylinder in a bucket of water and use a thermometer like you did
with the Paterson cell.

> But an independent evaluation is pretty darn
> good, and better than what we have now. Rossi knows that.
> You may get a bad impression of Rossi because of the patent and paper. I
> certainly did. Ed Storms said -- with considerable justification -- that the
> paper proves nothing. Okay, so please suspend judgement and wait for a paper
> from people who write in English better than he does. If it never appears,
> draw your own conclusions.

I agree with your cousin Peter that it can't be a problem of bad
English. Where exactly do you think there might be a translation error
in the paper 
(http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf
), in "1-1.5 hours", or in "165 kWh" ? (line 2 of table 1)

Michel

Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram

[Michel Jullian]

So the voltage which rises after disconnection of the battery is that
of the single capacitor shown on the diagram, which was initially in
parallel with the battery?

2010/3/22 Harry Veeder :
> The capacitor is on the input side.
> A pick up coil was added later to see if it is possible to close the loop and 
> generate OU.
>
> He tried in test 10 but didn't succeed:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7CsBr7ouPE
>
> harry
>
>
>
> - Original Message 
>> From: Stephen A. Lawrence 
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Sent: Sun, March 21, 2010 2:51:23 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram
>>
>> Harry will need to confirm this, but I believe the diagram in question
> is
>> only for the "input" side.  The "output" side, which isn't
>> shown,
> consists of a pickup coil, some related circuitry, and
>> the
> aforementioned capacitors.
>
> If I'm wrong, then I'm confused (no
>> great surprise there).
>
>
>
> On 03/21/2010 11:56 AM, Michel Jullian
>> wrote:
>> Wait a minute, I see no cap attached to the output on Harry's
>> diagram
>> "photo 2"discussed here (haven't followed the other
>> discussions), only
>> one capacitor on the input side, in parallel with the
>> battery until
>> the latter is disconnected, which BTW isn't explained on
>> the diagram.
>> Is the diagram not complete?
>>
>>
>>
>> 2010/3/21 Stephen A. Lawrence <
>> href="mailto:sa...@pobox.com";>sa...@pobox.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> On 03/21/2010 09:55 AM, Michel Jullian wrote:
>>>> Which
>> voltage?
>>>
>>> Volts on the caps attached to the output --
>> right, Harry?
>>>
>>> But the signal generator is still hooked
>> up, and it's coupled to the
>>> output (at least) through the gate
>> capacitance of the FET and the linked
>>> inductors of the
>> "transformer", and the signal generator's output power
>>> hasn't been
>> measured or even estimated.  So, there's no reason to
>>> believe
>> this rig is doing anything other than transforming and
>>> rectifying
>> the output of the SG.
>>>
>>> As I've already said a boringly
>> large number of times, this is the same
>>> general sort of system as
>> Stiffler's circuit, where he had a signal
>>> generator capacitively
>> coupled to the system, and it was driving a
>>> handful of LEDs.
>> The main innovation here comes from Naudin, and it's
>>> the use of a
>> toroidal coil as the primary with a neo magnet on the
>>> outside of the
>> coil which "twists" the core's field to allow the
>>> toroidal coil to
>> "couple" to the pickup
>> coil.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> 2010/3/20, Harry Veeder <
>> href="mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com";>hlvee...@yahoo.com>:
>>>>>
>> yes.
>>>>> You are aware that the the voltage keeps rises even
>> after the battery is
>>>>> disconnected.
>>
>>
>
>
>      __
> Connect with friends from any web browser - no download required. Try the new 
> Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA at 
> http://ca.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi

[Michel Jullian]

Hi Peter, nice to see you here!

2010/3/21 Peter Gluck :
> A quantitative evaluation- see please the claims in the Focardi Rossi paper-
> is foolproof
> I think. Heat from radioactive stuff at ths magnitudes is very dangerous, I
> think.

Not really, there are "off the shelf" radioisotope heat sources of
this kind of power magnitude which are quite safe even though they are
quite compact (~6 Kg per kW) see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Purpose_Heat_Source

<>

But it occurs to me that there would be an easy way to discriminate
between such a constant heat source and a controllable one, which
presumably a genuine LENR cell would be: turn the heat off. If this
can be done, and full access is granted to the cell's environment to
check for an external hidden power source (AC current in the cell's
heater resistor  monitored by a DC ammeter, hidden heater in the water
cooling circuit, microwaves, IR beam, witricity, whatever), then yes
such an evaluation can be foolproof. If the experts are good at
detecting trickery that is, i.e. they can never be fooled by a
magician.

A much more foolproof evaluation, for this or any other device
claiming excess heat, would be to take it to Earthtech's lab. They
will test it for free(*), and a positive evaluation from them would be
worth billions for the device's inventor, and zillions for the entire
field.

Why people like Ed Storms or Mike McKubre don't take up Earthtech's
offer, which I am told is still open, is beyond me. Any idea why
Peter?

Michel

(*) http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2005/NET12.shtml#earthtech

<>

> Next week we will celebrate the 21st anniversary of our field- and only the
> Patterson
> system in its day of glory was comparable to these claims- if I remember
> correctly.
> Is some other breakthrough of this type hidden somewhere?
>
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Michel Jullian 
> wrote:
>>
>> 2010/3/21 Jed Rothwell :
>> > Someone asked me what I mean by "independent evaluations of the claims."
>> > I
>> > mean that outside experts plan to go into the lab and observe the
>> > experiments, the way Rob Duncan looked at Energetics Technologies.
>>
>> Such an evaluation is not foolproof, as even if the experimental setup
>> is made fully open to the experts and they find nothing wrong with it
>> (heating resistor current as advertised etc), there is no way to be
>> sure there isn't a mundane source of heat such as a some radioisotope
>> hidden in the cell itself, unless Rossi lets them take it apart which
>> is unlikely.
>>
>> Michel
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi

[Michel Jullian]

2010/3/21 Jed Rothwell :
> Someone asked me what I mean by "independent evaluations of the claims." I
> mean that outside experts plan to go into the lab and observe the
> experiments, the way Rob Duncan looked at Energetics Technologies.

Such an evaluation is not foolproof, as even if the experimental setup
is made fully open to the experts and they find nothing wrong with it
(heating resistor current as advertised etc), there is no way to be
sure there isn't a mundane source of heat such as a some radioisotope
hidden in the cell itself, unless Rossi lets them take it apart which
is unlikely.

Michel

Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram

[Michel Jullian]

Wait a minute, I see no cap attached to the output on Harry's diagram
"photo 2"discussed here (haven't followed the other discussions), only
one capacitor on the input side, in parallel with the battery until
the latter is disconnected, which BTW isn't explained on the diagram.
Is the diagram not complete?


2010/3/21 Stephen A. Lawrence :
>
>
> On 03/21/2010 09:55 AM, Michel Jullian wrote:
>> Which voltage?
>
> Volts on the caps attached to the output -- right, Harry?
>
> But the signal generator is still hooked up, and it's coupled to the
> output (at least) through the gate capacitance of the FET and the linked
> inductors of the "transformer", and the signal generator's output power
> hasn't been measured or even estimated.  So, there's no reason to
> believe this rig is doing anything other than transforming and
> rectifying the output of the SG.
>
> As I've already said a boringly large number of times, this is the same
> general sort of system as Stiffler's circuit, where he had a signal
> generator capacitively coupled to the system, and it was driving a
> handful of LEDs.  The main innovation here comes from Naudin, and it's
> the use of a toroidal coil as the primary with a neo magnet on the
> outside of the coil which "twists" the core's field to allow the
> toroidal coil to "couple" to the pickup coil.
>
>
>
>>
>> 2010/3/20, Harry Veeder :
>>> yes.
>>> You are aware that the the voltage keeps rises even after the battery is
>>> disconnected.

Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram

[Michel Jullian]

Which voltage?

2010/3/20, Harry Veeder :
> yes.
> You are aware that the the voltage keeps rises even after the battery is
> disconnected.
>
> harry
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message 
>> From: Michel Jullian 
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Sent: Sat, March 20, 2010 3:59:08 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram
>>
>> What do you mean, the inductor (10 turns of wire on a core)
>> is
> connected between the positive end of the supply and one end of
>> the
> switch (drain of the MOSFET) isn't it?
>
> 2010/3/20 Harry Veeder
>> <
>> href="mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com";>hlvee...@yahoo.com>:
>> The toroid
>> is also wired in differently from the inductor in the wiki diagram, but I
>> suppose that doesn't matter either?
>>
>>
>>
>> harry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message
>> 
>>> From: Michel Jullian <
>> ymailto="mailto:michelj...@gmail.com";
>> href="mailto:michelj...@gmail.com";>michelj...@gmail.com>
>>> To:
>>
>> href="mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com";>vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>> Sent: Fri,
>> March 19, 2010 1:42:52 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit
>> diagram
>>>
>>> The capacitor on your photo 2 is in parallel
>> with the battery so it's
>> part of
>>> the converter's input
>> supply. The capacitor in the operating
>> principles
>>> diagram of
>> the wikipedia article is the converter's output
>> capacitor,
>> which
>>> might as well not be there in steady state is there
>> is
>> no load (once charged
>>> it just stays charged at a high voltage,
>> and
>> the Boost's diode never
>>> conducts-- so the diode might as
>> well not be
>> there either). So everything to
>>> the right of the
>> switch in the boost
>> converter diagram could be removed in no
>>>
>> load condition, that's why I
>> say the circuit operates like a Boost
>> converter
>>> without a load. Which
>> explains why it steps up the
>> input voltage, that's what
>>> Boost
>> converters
>> do.
>>
>> Michel
>>
>> 2010/3/19 Harry Veeder
>> <
>>> ymailto="mailto:
>> href="mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com";>hlvee...@yahoo.com"
>>>
>> href="mailto:
>> href="mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com";>hlvee...@yahoo.com">
>> ymailto="mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com";
>> href="mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com";>hlvee...@yahoo.com>:
>>> I'll
>> pass
>>> that along.
>>> But the capacitor looks like it is in
>> the wrong place to be
>>> a booster
>>> converter with or
>> without a load.
>>> compare photo
>>> 2:
>>>
>>>
>> >
>> >http://tinyurl.com/ycw4xm4
>>>
>>> with
>> operating
>>> principles
>>>
>>> target=_blank >
>> href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter"; target=_blank
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Harry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> - Original Message
>>> 
>>>> From: Michel Jullian
>> <
>>> ymailto="mailto:
>> href="mailto:michelj...@gmail.com";>michelj...@gmail.com"
>>>
>> href="mailto:
>> href="mailto:michelj...@gmail.com";>michelj...@gmail.com">
>> ymailto="mailto:michelj...@gmail.com";
>> href="mailto:michelj...@gmail.com";>michelj...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>> To:
>>>
>>> href="mailto:
>> href="mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com";>vortex-l@eskimo.com">
>> ymailto="mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com";
>> href="mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com";>vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>>> Sent:
>> Fri,
>>> March 19, 2010 4:54:02 AM
>>>> Subject: Re:
>> [Vo]:circuit
>>> diagram
>>>>
>>>> 2010/3/19 Harry
>> Veeder <
>>>>
>>> href="mailto:
>>>
>> href="mailto:
>> href="mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com";>hlvee...@yahoo.com">
>> ymailto="mailto:hlvee...

Re: [Vo]:New book with a chapter on cold fusion

[Michel Jullian]

Abd, it's not being a jerk to be wrong, it's being a jerk to write
authoritatively, as the book title implies, on a subject one is so
blatantly ignorant about.

Whether he is positive or not, or undecided, is not the problem. I
myself obviously feel the field is worth researching but I am still
not 100% convinced that CF is real, for lack of a single unambiguous
experiment proving it is. There are scientists who know much more
about the field than I do who are still undecided. Dieter Britz is in
this case, even though he is probably the most CF learned person in
the world.

Michel

2010/3/20 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax :
> At 02:00 PM 3/19/2010, Michel Jullian wrote:
>>
>> What a jerk. On that page alone, he says one loads palladium into
>> deuterium, and platinum too, and he professes that excess heat is the
>> "bad kind" of cold fusion!
>
> You know, he points out that it is not fraud to be wrong, and I'll point out
> that it is also not being a jerk to be wrong. That error shows that this
> wasn't well-considered. I.e., the error about "loading of palladium and
> platinum into deuterium."
>
> He's also trying to support his friend Scaramuzzi with a comment that the
> loading (i.e., of deuterium into palladium, it doesn't load into platinum)
> is respectable, with only a "tangential connection to cold fusion." Yeah,
> that's right! "Anomalous heat" or "unexpected helium" or whatever. Cold
> fusion? No. Maybe its a low-energy nuclear reaction, but fusion? No, we
> don't mention fusion around here, it makes the natives restless. We are
> researching anomalous heat in the palladium deuteride system, you got a
> problem with that?
>
> I think you are being a little harsh, Michel. This reads to me like an essay
> or even a speech or something dictated off-the-cuff, it's certainly not
> well-edited and researched. But the basic message is actually positive.
>
> What did "bad kind" of cold fusion mean? Read the context and the time. At
> that point, there was muon-catalyzed fusion on the table, or the possibility
> that there was a very-low level form of other cold fusion, i.e., what Jones
> was reporting. That would be the "good kind." Not so horribly controversial.
> But Fleischmann was reporting levels of heat that could only be from much
> higher levels of reaction. He's describing his distress at heating that his
> friend was involved in this nonsense. "Bad kind" is what he thought then.
>
> He then, next page, says that he has looked over the results carefully, and
> they are "pretty impressive." Go back and read this again! He's complaining
> that the normal process of science isn't happening. If there are all these
> positive results, there should be people pouring over them to try to "prove
> them wrong."
>
> Note the very obvious implication. Cold fusion has not been proven wrong.
> And in this he is 100% correct. He underreports the positive evidence,
> that's all. Scaramuzzi is only a small part of it.
>

Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram

[Michel Jullian]

What do you mean, the inductor (10 turns of wire on a core)  is
connected between the positive end of the supply and one end of the
switch (drain of the MOSFET) isn't it?

2010/3/20 Harry Veeder :
> The toroid is also wired in differently from the inductor in the wiki 
> diagram, but I suppose that doesn't matter either?
>
>
> harry
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message 
>> From: Michel Jullian 
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Sent: Fri, March 19, 2010 1:42:52 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram
>>
>> The capacitor on your photo 2 is in parallel with the battery so it's
> part of
>> the converter's input supply. The capacitor in the operating
> principles
>> diagram of the wikipedia article is the converter's output
> capacitor, which
>> might as well not be there in steady state is there
> is no load (once charged
>> it just stays charged at a high voltage, and
> the Boost's diode never
>> conducts-- so the diode might as well not be
> there either). So everything to
>> the right of the switch in the boost
> converter diagram could be removed in no
>> load condition, that's why I
> say the circuit operates like a Boost converter
>> without a load. Which
> explains why it steps up the input voltage, that's what
>> Boost
> converters do.
>
> Michel
>
> 2010/3/19 Harry Veeder <
>> ymailto="mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com";
>> href="mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com";>hlvee...@yahoo.com>:
>> I'll pass
>> that along.
>> But the capacitor looks like it is in the wrong place to be
>> a booster
>> converter with or without a load.
>> compare photo
>> 2:
>>
>> >http://tinyurl.com/ycw4xm4
>>
>> with operating
>> principles
>>
>> target=_blank >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter
>>
>>
>> Harry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message
>> 
>>> From: Michel Jullian <
>> ymailto="mailto:michelj...@gmail.com";
>> href="mailto:michelj...@gmail.com";>michelj...@gmail.com>
>>> To:
>>
>> href="mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com";>vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>> Sent: Fri,
>> March 19, 2010 4:54:02 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit
>> diagram
>>>
>>> 2010/3/19 Harry Veeder <
>>>
>> href="mailto:
>> href="mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com";>hlvee...@yahoo.com">
>> ymailto="mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com";
>> href="mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com";>hlvee...@yahoo.com>:
>>> Here is
>> a
>>> reply from Magluvin who is also a member of
>> overunity.com:
>>> "This is not
>>> a boost
>> converter
>>
>> I said it was a boost converter _without a
>>>
>> load_.
>>
>>> as none of them will recharge the input
>>>
>> source(cap)
>>> while being operated. Ive tried.
>>
>> This is
>> because he hasn't tried removing
>>> the load. If you do, in the
>>
>> course of one oscillation cycle, the input source
>>> first
>> sources
>> current, and then sinks current. Note there is a
>> hidden
>>> component in
>> the circuit which is important to
>> understand where the
>>> inductor's
>> current flows to and from in
>> this no load operation, that's
>>> the
>> MOSFET's output
>> capacitance. The IRF640's antiparallel diode
>>> is
>> another
>> hidden component which plays an important role, it prevents
>>
>> the
>>> drain voltage from going below zero.
>>
>>
>> Michel
>>
>>> And you wont find
>>> any
>>> dc/dc
>> converters with magnets on the coil core.
>> ;]"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Harry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  __
>>
>> Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
>>
>>
>> href="http://www.flickr.com/gift/"; target=_blank
>> >http://www.flickr.com/gift/
>>
>>
>
>
>      __
> Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
>
> http://www.flickr.com/gift/
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New book with a chapter on cold fusion

[Michel Jullian]

What a jerk. On that page alone, he says one loads palladium into
deuterium, and platinum too, and he professes that excess heat is the
"bad kind" of cold fusion!

2010/3/19 Jed Rothwell :
> D. Goodstein, "On Fact and Fraud: Cautionary Tales from the Front Lines of
> Science"
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Fact-Fraud-Cautionary-Tales-Science/dp/0691139660/
>
> This is complete & utter ignorant, infuriating bullshit. (Strong letter to
> follow.) Look inside the book on p. 94 to see what I mean. The author claims
> that coldl fusion is irreproducible and that "very little has changed"
> sinced 1989.
>
> - Jed
>

Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram

[Michel Jullian]

The capacitor on your photo 2 is in parallel with the battery so it's
part of the converter's input supply. The capacitor in the operating
principles diagram of the wikipedia article is the converter's output
capacitor, which might as well not be there in steady state is there
is no load (once charged it just stays charged at a high voltage, and
the Boost's diode never conducts-- so the diode might as well not be
there either). So everything to the right of the switch in the boost
converter diagram could be removed in no load condition, that's why I
say the circuit operates like a Boost converter without a load. Which
explains why it steps up the input voltage, that's what Boost
converters do.

Michel

2010/3/19 Harry Veeder :
> I'll pass that along.
> But the capacitor looks like it is in the wrong place to be a booster
> converter with or without a load.
> compare photo 2:
> http://tinyurl.com/ycw4xm4
>
> with operating principles
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message 
>> From: Michel Jullian 
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Sent: Fri, March 19, 2010 4:54:02 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram
>>
>> 2010/3/19 Harry Veeder <
>> href="mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com";>hlvee...@yahoo.com>:
>> Here is a
>> reply from Magluvin who is also a member of overunity.com:
>> "This is not
>> a boost converter
>
> I said it was a boost converter _without a
>> load_.
>
>> as none of them will recharge the input
>> source(cap)
>> while being operated. Ive tried.
>
> This is because he hasn't tried removing
>> the load. If you do, in the
> course of one oscillation cycle, the input source
>> first sources
> current, and then sinks current. Note there is a hidden
>> component in
> the circuit which is important to understand where the
>> inductor's
> current flows to and from in this no load operation, that's
>> the
> MOSFET's output capacitance. The IRF640's antiparallel diode
>> is
> another hidden component which plays an important role, it prevents
> the
>> drain voltage from going below zero.
>
> Michel
>
>> And you wont find
>> any
>> dc/dc converters with magnets on the coil core. ;]"
>>
>>
>> Harry
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>      __
> Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
>
> http://www.flickr.com/gift/
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Neat new OCR technology

[Michel Jullian]

2010/3/19 Michel Jullian :
... if you convert a
> clearscan pdf back to image format in higher resolution e.g. 600 dpi
> (this can be set in edit>preferences>convert from pdf>TIFF>edit
> settings), make a new pdf from that, and re-do an OCR on it,
> interestingly the recognition accuracy is improved,

Let me retract this, after experimenting on a few more pages it turns
out the 2nd OCR pass makes roughly the same number of recognition
errors as the 1st pass on average, what fooled me is that it doesn't
do them on the same words. So there is no point really in going
through the complexity and hard work of a 2nd pass.

There is another use however, useful this time, of the trick of saving
as tiff and re-pdf-ing before OCRing: it circumvents the "Acrobat
could not perform recognition (OCR) on this page because: This page
contains renderable text." error you get on some documents, which
annoyingly aborts the whole OCR process. If anyone knows of a simpler
way, I am interested.

Last point, I see they have integrated the "OCR multiple files"
feature to the main menu in version 9, so one doesn't have to go
through the batch processing procedure to OCR a large collection of
documents. Much more convenient.

Michel

Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram

[Michel Jullian]

2010/3/19 Harry Veeder :
> Here is a reply from Magluvin who is also a member of overunity.com:
> "This is not a boost converter

I said it was a boost converter _without a load_.

> as none of them will recharge the input
> source(cap) while being operated. Ive tried.

This is because he hasn't tried removing the load. If you do, in the
course of one oscillation cycle, the input source first sources
current, and then sinks current. Note there is a hidden component in
the circuit which is important to understand where the inductor's
current flows to and from in this no load operation, that's the
MOSFET's output capacitance. The IRF640's antiparallel diode is
another hidden component which plays an important role, it prevents
the drain voltage from going below zero.

Michel

> And you wont find any
> dc/dc converters with magnets on the coil core. ;]"
>
> Harry
>
>
>
> - Original Message 
>> From: Harry Veeder 
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Sent: Thu, March 18, 2010 10:46:19 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram
>>
>> Ok, I gave him the wiki reference.
> Harry
>
>
>
> - Original
>> Message 
>> From: Michel Jullian <
>> ymailto="mailto:michelj...@gmail.com";
>> href="mailto:michelj...@gmail.com";>michelj...@gmail.com>
>> To:
>> ymailto="mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com";
>> href="mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com";>vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Sent: Thu,
>> March 18, 2010 7:34:49 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram
>>
>>
>> Nothing mysterious about this circuit, it's a silly boost
>> converter
> without a
>> load. See:
>
>
>> target=_blank >
>> href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter"; target=_blank
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter
>
> 2010/3/18
>>
>> Harry Veeder <
>> href="mailto:
>> href="mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com";>hlvee...@yahoo.com">
>> ymailto="mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com";
>> href="mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com";>hlvee...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message 
>>> From: Jed Rothwell <
>>
>> ymailto="mailto:
>> href="mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com";>jedrothw...@gmail.com"
>>
>> href="mailto:
>> href="mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com";>jedrothw...@gmail.com">
>> ymailto="mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com";
>> href="mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com";>jedrothw...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>
>> To:
>> href="mailto:
>> href="mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com";>vortex-l@eskimo.com">
>> ymailto="mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com";
>> href="mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com";>vortex-l@eskimo.com;
>>
>> ymailto="mailto:
>> href="mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com";>vortex-l@eskimo.com"
>>
>> href="mailto:
>> href="mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com";>vortex-l@eskimo.com">
>> ymailto="mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com";
>> href="mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com";>vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>> Sent: Thu,
>>
>> March 18, 2010 5:22:20 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit
>>
>> diagram
>>>
>>> Stephen A. Lawrence
>> wrote:
>>
>>>By
>> the way, I should say "Thanks!"
>> for
>>> taking the time to post all
>>
>> these
>>>here.  It's interesting, even if I
>>> don't
>> believe
>> for a minute that it's OU.
>>
>> Someone should
>> communicate
>> the
>>> gist of the comments here to the
>>
>> author of the video.
>> Tell him to invest in
>>> an ammeter, for
>> crying out
>> loud.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>> I am ignorant
>> about electronics but
>> I don't see what the fuss
>> is about since
>> it is all DC current. If you
>> know the resistance and the voltage can't
>> you safely infer that as the voltage
>> rises and falls
>> so does
>> the current?
>
> No, V=R*I works only on a
>> pure resistor. An
>> inductor or a capacitor
> obey different laws.
>
>> I
>> still
>> think that in certain "simple" circuits voltage measurements can serve as
>>
>> a pretty good indicator of current and power.
>
> Not
>>
>> here.
>
> Michel
>
>
>
>> __
> Ask a
>> question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers 
>> and
>> share what you know at
>> >http://ca.answers.yahoo.com
>
>
>      __
> Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your 
> favourite sites. Download it now
> http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Neat new OCR technology

[Michel Jullian]

One can download Acrobat 9 from their web site and try it for a month for free.

Disappointingly, the accuracy of the recognition itself is not better
with this clearscan option, it's just the look. However, thanks to the
zoomable (vector) nature of the clearscan characters, if you convert a
clearscan pdf back to image format in higher resolution e.g. 600 dpi
(this can be set in edit>preferences>convert from pdf>TIFF>edit
settings), make a new pdf from that, and re-do an OCR on it,
interestingly the recognition accuracy is improved, at least it seemed
to be in the couple trials I have done. If this is confirmed,
hopefully they will realize this and automate the two pass OCR in
version 10.

Michel

2010/3/18 Jed Rothwell :
> That is impressive!
>
> I hate Adobe's user interface and documentation, but I might get this
> product anyway.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram

[Michel Jullian]

Nothing mysterious about this circuit, it's a silly boost converter
without a load. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter

2010/3/18 Harry Veeder :
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message 
>> From: Jed Rothwell 
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Sent: Thu, March 18, 2010 5:22:20 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:circuit diagram
>>
>> Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
>
>>By the way, I should say "Thanks!" for
>> taking the time to post all these
>>here.  It's interesting, even if I
>> don't believe for a minute that it's OU.
>
> Someone should communicate the
>> gist of the comments here to the
> author of the video. Tell him to invest in
>> an ammeter, for crying out loud.
>
> - Jed
>
> I am ignorant about electronics but I don't see what the fuss
> is about since it is all DC current. If you know the resistance and the 
> voltage can't you safely infer that as the voltage rises and falls
> so does the current?

No, V=R*I works only on a pure resistor. An inductor or a capacitor
obey different laws.

> I still think that in certain "simple" circuits voltage measurements can 
> serve as a pretty good indicator of current and power.

Not here.

Michel

Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi patent

[Michel Jullian]

Are you sure of the gender?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea
"In Italy and Albania, Andrea is a masculine name, the equivalent of Andrew."

Michel

2010/3/16 Jed Rothwell :
...
> As I mentioned, Rossi told me they are working hard on new publications and
> they plan to divulge more information in the near future. She seems gung ho
> and she was very courteous, which is a good sign.
...

[Vo]:Neat new OCR technology

[Michel Jullian]

Jed, have you tried the "clearscan" setting in Adobe Acrobat 9 OCR?
Very impressive.

They explain their clever (and "obvious", in retrospect) trick in this
demo video: http://my.adobe.acrobat.com/p28891758/

Michel

Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper

[Michel Jullian]

If they have equal shares in this work, why isn't Focardi on the patent?

Michel

2010/3/15, Jed Rothwell :
> Michel Jullian wrote:
>
>
>> Then it can't be a Ni-H research discrediting operation can it?
>
>
> No. The authors are aware of this paper. It is really their work.
>
>
>
>> Or one would have to imagine that Focardi himself has been conned. Note
>> that multi-kW excess heat must be quite easy to fake in this
>> particular device, with its built-in heating resistor. For example, add
>> AC current of a higher frequency than the meter's bandwidth.
>>
>
> I do not think this method could make 80 W look like 3,000 W. Most meter
> have high bandwidth; I have never heard of high frequency AC adding more
> than a fraction of 1% to the total. You would have to design and build
> specialized equipment to put 97% of the electricity into the cell with high
> frequency AC. And as a practical matter, how would you do this? Sneak some
> equipment into the lab at night? Bribe a lab assistant? How would you keep
> Focardi from doing some elementary cross checking to find out? This sounds
> like something from a made-for-TV thriller.
>
> If there is a con involved, Focardi must be part of it.
>
> - Jed
>

Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper

[Michel Jullian]

2010/3/14 Steven Krivit :
> At 02:35 AM 3/14/2010, you wrote:
>
> Interesting, but why would Focardi discredit his own work?
>
> I don't think he would want to.

Then it can't be a Ni-H research discrediting operation can it? Or one
would have to imagine that Focardi himself has been conned. Note that
multi-kW excess heat must be quite easy to fake in this particular
device, with its built-in heating resistor. For example, add AC
current of a higher frequency than the meter's bandwidth.

> Is there any support on this research such as a published paper or a
> conference presentation or is it just this blog site that is made to look
> like a journal?

Not that I know, apart from the patent application which of course
isn't valid support either.

Michel

Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper

[Michel Jullian]

Interesting, but why would Focardi discredit his own work?

2010/3/14, Steven Krivit :
> Ladies and gentlemen,
>
> The truth is, I plead, to a large degree, ignorance of this Focardi&Rossi
> matter.
>
> It had been originally brought to my attention as a patent, and then I
> pointed out to the person it was merely a patent application and I said,
> "So what, don't bother me."
>
> Even granted patents don't mean that the devices work as stated. Just look
> at Seth Putterman's patent for sonofusion.
>
> So here's my question for all you science hounds: Have Focardi&Rossi
> actually published a real paper or presented one at a science conference?
>
> Has the Focardi&Rossi paper/work been vetted, in any way, in the formal
> science channel or has it just been hyped up on some bogus Web site that is
> masquerading as some sort of Journal?
>
> "Journal or Nuclear Physics"? Really??? Can someone please tell me
> something about this?
> http://whois.domaintools.com/journal-of-nuclear-physics.com
>
> And can someone please explain why the good Dr. Melich, allegedly
> representing the entire "DoD", is involved with this?
> http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?page_id=2
>
> And isn't there some mention in the paper of this having to do with the
> "DoD" yet the paper provides no details?
>
> And a "Board of Advisers" comprising the key authors of this "paper?" Is
> this a con or what?
>
> Will somebody puhleeze tell me that someone is not running a false flag to
> discredit Ni-H work.
>
> Will somebody puhleeze tell me that someone did not go to Focardi and Rossi
> and represent himself as the "DoD" and thereby test and validate inflated
> claims to set them up for a fall.
>
> Steve
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper

[Michel Jullian]

Rouge, red, rosso/rossi, thought it was a multilingual pun ;)

2010/3/13, Jed Rothwell :
> I wrote -- and I mean typed, not dictated:
>
>
>> These rouge researchers don't make it any easier to trust them, do they?
>>
>
> Also the rogue ones.
>
> A rouge researcher would be one who wears lipstick I suppose, like Sara
> Palin, who imagines herself going rogue.
>
> There is not much benefit to the complex orthography of English or Japanese,
> but it does make for hilarious mistakes!
>
> - Jed
>

Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper

[Michel Jullian]

Hi Jones,

Thanks for the interesting story. According to Google the document you
quoted from is this DOD report:

http://dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil/library_items/Thermo(2004).pdf

The link doesn't seem to be working right now, but the text remains
available via Google's cache:

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:aXtJ7qjancgJ:dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil/library_items/Thermo(2004).pdf

The conclusion of the report is in fact quite positive about Rossi's
TE technology :

<<1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Thermoelectric (TE) power generation results from electricity that is
induced in particular materials by a temperature differential. This is
known as the “Seebeck Effect.” Historically, the cost of
thermoelectric power generation has been high due to limitations in
material knowledge and associated processing issues. Recent technology
developments, based on advances in material science and advanced
manufacturing techniques, have demonstrated a high potential for
reduced production costs.

Leonardo Technologies Inc. (LTI) has demonstrated their thermoelectric
innovation as a cost-effective energy-producing alternative that is
efficient and environmentally benign. Initial testing of LTI’s
innovations demonstrate an approximate three-fold in-crease in energy
conversion and potentially a ten-fold decrease in fabrication cost per
kW of electrical generation capacity. It is projected that under mass
production, the cost per kW of thermoelectric devices could approach
that of combined-cycle gas central power plants, the least expensive
power generation alternative, at about $500/kW – with the added
economic benefit of no fuel costs.
...
The results of this study will assist the development of a
demonstration of LTI’s TE technology at a defense facility...>>

...so it's not clear to me that it affects the credibility of his
fusion report that badly. What affects it more in my mind is his
statement that he won't demonstrate anything publicly until he has a 1
MW device, why wait if he really has an Earth shattering 10 kW working
device?

In any case his claim that the DOD and DOE have looked at the
technology is supported by the composition of the Board of Advisers of
his strange self published online journal:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?page_id=2

<>

BTW I agree with you that the patent is very poorly written, have you
noted "isothermal" instead of "exothermal" in claim 1? And it doesn't
reveal anything that might be novel, hence the well deserved "X" rated
prior art in the international search report (an Arata patent). What
purpose can such a patent application serve?

Michel

2010/3/11 Jones Beene :
> FWIW:
>
> One more comment on Leonardo Technologies, Inc. and the past history of Dr
> Andrea Rossi. This is important only in that it may affect the credibility
> of the fusion report. Obviously, if the fusion R&D were true in the apparent
> COP, it would be an earth-shaking discovery. It is far better than any prior
> NiH system which has been reported, but apparently there is a history here
> which cannot be ignored.
>
> LTI was incorporated as a response to the thermoelectric power generation
> research (and patent) by Dr. Rossi. Dr. Rossi indicated that his devices
> would produce 20 percent efficiencies, a vast increase from the current
> science of 4 percent conversion of waste heat to electrical power.
>
> Dr. Rossi believed that he could increase the physical size of the TE
> Devices and maintain superior power generation. In furtherance of his
> research, in early 2000, LTI had tests conducted at the University of New
> Hampshire (UNH), Durham, NH, using a small scale LTI TEG Device.
>
> Over a period of 7 days, the UNH power plant staff recorded voltage and
> amperage readings every 1/2 hr. The TE Device produced approximately 100
> volts and 1 ampere of current, providing 100 watts of power. After this
> initial success, and a fire that destroyed his Manchester, NH location, Dr.
> Rossi returned to Italy to continue the manufacture of the TE Devices.
>
> In Italy, Dr. Rossi believed that LTI could manufacture more cost-effective
> TE generating devices with lower labor and assembly costs. Accordingly, Dr.
> Rossi engaged a subcontractor to fulfill the requirements of manufacturing
> and assembly. Unfortunately, the Italian subcontractor was unable to provide
> second-generation TE Devices with satisfactory power generation.
>
> Nineteen of 27 TE Devices shipped to CTC, Johnstown, PA, were incapable of
> generating electricity for a variety of reasons, from mechanical failure to
> poor workmanship. The remaining eight produced less than 1 watt of power
> each, significantly less than the expected 800-1000 watts each.
>
> End or quote. Make of it what you will. It is clear that had the TEG
> performed as expected, then Rossi would be as wealthy as ...? ... not Gates
> anymore, but Slim :)
>
> In the aftermath of the second generation TEG failure, it appears that Rossi
> moved on into LENR instead of t

Re: [Vo]:Test

[Michel Jullian]

2010/3/10, Jed Rothwell :
> Alexander Hollins, who also uses Gmail, wrote:
>
>>No, I did not see that particular email. [the Teller paper in HTML format]

I saw it, even though I use gmail too. I wonder if this because I have
your email address in my gmail contacts. Do you? Does Alexander?

> Ha! I'll bet it is caught in your Spam filter. I don't know why that
> should be. Maybe Gmail's artificial intelligence has it in for the
> father of the hydrogen bomb. Anyway, look in the spam filter for a
> message titled: "How to see the text in image-over-text Acrobat files."
>
> It is not important. You can read the paper here:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EPRInsfepriwor.pdf
>
> I uploaded the HTML version only to demonstrate how well the
> underlying OCR text conversion worked. It is impressive, given how
> fuzzy the original text is.

Yep, impressive indeed! Sufficient for searchability and
copy-pastability in any case, without betraying the original image
since that's what one sees in the image over text format. Less work
for you, it's a win-win situation!

Michel

Re: [Vo]:Will upload ICCF-3 and ICCF-5

[Michel Jullian]

Hi Jed, many thanks for this, but aren't there many other ICCF
proceedings missing? According to your "special collections" page at
http://www.lenr-canr.org/Collections/Introduction.htm

you only have ICCF-10, ICCF-11 and ICCF-12 complete, and selected
papers of ICCF-9

Michel

2010/2/27 Jed Rothwell :
> After I finish these two books, I do not think there are many important old
> papers left that would benefit readers, so this will pretty much wrap up the
> LENR-CANR project.

Re: [Vo]:Extraordinary Error -- no electric field exists inside a conducting liquid in an insulated box with two external charged metal plates, re work by SPAWAR on cold fusion since 2002 -- also ho

[Michel Jullian]

Hi Horace,

Another typo: Frick instead of Fick.

All these macroscopic phenomena you discuss regarding the motion of
ions in an electrolyte boil down, at the atomic scale, to the electric
force, don't you agree?

In any case, in a dense conductor, whether liquid or solid or even a
dense gas such as atmospheric air, if you have a _steady_ current of
charged particles, then there exists a net DC electric field provoking
it, and in the absence of a magnetic field each charged particle does
a random walk whose average is the electric field line. Proof: the
average velocity (drift velocity) of each charged particle is equal to
its mobility times the local electric field, see e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_mobility for the case of
electrons, or look up "drift velocity" in the Feynman Lectures on
Physics. The electric field between the anode and cathode interfaces
of an electrolytic cell may be very small (it's indeed immensely
larger in the interface regions), but it explains entirely the steady
cell current.

Michel

2010/2/24 Horace Heffner :
>
> On Feb 23, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
>
>>
>> Consider Frick's first law of steady state diffusion, which states the
>> flow vector J_i for species i is proportional to the concentration vector (d
>> c_i)/( d x) in typical cell conditions, i.e., one dimensionally speaking:
>>
>>  J_i = - D (d c_i)/( d x)
>>
>> where D is called the diffusion coefficient.
>
> I accidentally left out a word above:  "concentration vector" above should
> say "concentration gradient vector".
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Horace Heffner
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Extraordinary Error -- no electric field exists inside a conducting liquid in an insulated box with two external charged metal plates, re work by SPAWAR on cold fusion since 2002 -- also ho

[Michel Jullian]

2010/2/23, Horace Heffner :
...
>Therefore ion motion in the electrolyte proper is mostly
> due to random walk and concentration gradients.
...
The ion motion is due to a force, what kind of force do you think, the
"concentration gradient force"? It's of course an electric force,
entirely due to an electric field. Ultimately, that's what it is. Same
thing for electrons in a metal.

Michel

Re: [Vo]:Extraordinary Error -- no electric field exists inside a conducting liquid in an insulated box with two external charged metal plates, re work by SPAWAR on cold fusion since 2002 -- also ho

[Michel Jullian]

But Rich, like others who mentioned this before (as I recall Mike
Carrell did), is right that the component of the internal field due to
the *externally* applied DC Electric field in some SPAWAR experiments,
through insulating walls, should rapidly reach zero in the electrolyte
and stay there.

I suggested at the time that what might be operative in modifying the
cauliflower like structure of the deposits was the AC component of the
field due to the HV supply's unavoidable ripple voltage at its
switching frequency (typically 20 kHz), however small it may be. A
simple way to test this hypothesis would be to use a high voltage
capacitor instead of a HV supply.

Michel

2010/2/23 Stephen A. Lawrence :
>
>
> On 02/22/2010 10:32 PM, Rich Murray wrote:
>>
>> Extraordinary Error -- no electric field exists inside a conducting liquid
>> in an insulated box with two external charged metal plates, re work by
>> SPAWAR on cold fusion since 2002 -- also hot spots from H and O
>> microbubbles: Rich Murray 2010.02.22
>> http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2010_02_01_archive.htm
>> Monday, February 22, 2010
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/astrodeep/message/42
>> _
>>
>>
>>
>> Each charged plate attracts enough ions of the opposite charge right to
>> the side of the conducting electrolyte against its insulating wall, until
>> the
>> charge on the plate is exactly balanced -- thus each side is a separate
>> charged capacitor, connected by the "wire" of the liquid.
>>
>> All the electric field exists only in the insulating walls of the two
>> capacitors -- no electric field exists inside the liquid.
>
> This is true only so long as no current is flowing through the liquid.
>
> Just as in the case of a wire, if there's current flowing in a
> conducting liquid, then there's an electric field in the liquid, as
> well.  (Otherwise, what do you think makes the ions move?)
>
> It's a common *approximation* to say there's no E field in a conductor
> but it's not generally true, save in electrostatics.
>
> My general impression is that electrolytic cells used in CF experiments
> do indeed have a current flowing through them.  Therefore there is also
> an electric field present throughout the region of the electrolyte
> between the electrodes.  :-)
>
> If the experiments were done with a superconducting electrolyte the
> story would be different, of course.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:"Pycnodeuterium" response from Muhlenberg HSG FORUM

[Michel Jullian]

The authors might be well placed to answer that, you'll find their
email addresses on the paper:

http://eprints.iisc.ernet.in/12432/1/Lochon_Catalyzed_D-D_Fusion.pdf

2010/2/17 Jones Beene 
>
> Enquiring minds want to know:
>
> 1) How does a Lochon differ from a Cooper pair ?
> 2) Is the formation of Lochons enhanced at cryogenic temperatures ?
> 3) Is the Lochon "deflated" ?
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jones Beene
>
> Meulenberg's paper can be download online.
>
>
> Lochon Catalyzed D-D Fusion in Deuterated Palladium in the Solid State
>
> By K. P. Sinha and A. Meulenberg
>
> Abstract
>
> Lochons (local charged bosons or local electron pairs) can form on D+ to
> give D- (bosonic ions) in Palladium Deuteride in the solid state.
>
> Such entities will occur at special sites or in a linear channel owing to
> strong electron-phonon interaction or due to potential inversion on metallic
> electrodes.
>
> These lochons can catalyze D - D fusion as a consequence of internal
> conversion leading to the formation of He plus production of energy (Q =
> 23.8 MeV) which is carried by the alpha particle and the ejected
> electron-pair. reaction rate for this fusion process is calculated.
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:IBM Trumps Nanosolar

[Michel Jullian]

2010/2/16 Terry Blanton :
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Michel Jullian  wrote:
>
>
>> Only at the sample stage, and "printed" in pure nitrogen rather than
>> air, but nice!
>
> Air is already 70% nitrogen.  All we need do is remove the impurities.  :-)

78% actually, even less impurities to remove!

Re: [Vo]:IBM Trumps Nanosolar

[Michel Jullian]

2010/2/14 Terry Blanton :
> With a printable cell which does not use tellurium nor indium:
>
> http://www.physorg.com/news185093054.html

Only at the sample stage, and "printed" in pure nitrogen rather than
air, but nice! They had the good idea to make the technical paper
freely accessible:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123276375/PDFSTART?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Quote:
<40% higher than
previous record devices prepared using vacuum-based
methods.[7]>>

Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times continues the drama. Comment.

[Michel Jullian]

Nice post Abd. Just a terminology detail, I don't think "Q factor" is
adequate for the heat released by a reaction. "Q factor" is a
dimensionless factor used in resonance phenomena. I think you really
mean "Q value".

Michel

2010/2/11 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax :
> In a mail sent out, apparently, to NET subscribers, Steve Krivit continues
> his campaign about heat and helium. I did make an additional reply on his
> blog that he did not publish; it was published here when it did not show up
> there after a day. I don't know if it got lost somehow or he elected not to
> publish it, but other criticism contained in the other response that he
> *did* publish, besides the obvious error of imagining that 10 x 10^15 and 1
> x 10^16 were different by an "order of magnitude," was edited out by him.
>
> So, instead of submitting this response to NET, I'm putting it here, and I'm
> granting Krivit permission to publish this or non-misleading excerpts from
> this, according to his editorial judgment, provided that he provides a link
> to the original on the Vortex list.
>
>> "Cold Fusion" (but not LENR) Claims Questioned
>> Follow-up to New Energy Times Issue 34
>> Feb. 9, 2010
>>
>> Dear Readers,
>>
>> We published Issue 34 of New Energy Times on Jan. 31. In it,
>> we reveal how scientists at SRI International and MIT, claiming
>> evidence for the theory of "cold fusion," have misled the public,
>> their peers, the Department of Energy and the reviewers of the
>> 2004 DoE LENR review.
>
> That's a big claim. Was there any evidence provided that they actually
> "misled" anyone? What I've seen is that Krivit misinterprets what they've
> written, and then argues strongly against his own misinterpretation. The
> error he made where he imagined that a change between 10 x 10^15 and 1 X
> 10^15 represented a "change" in Violante's data (see below) revealed how
> much he was searching for inconsistencies and how little he was paying
> attention to what Violante was actually telling him.
>
> Since NET34 published, we have received no response, let alone
> corrections, from any of the principal subjects of the story,
> Michael McKubre (SRI International), Peter Hagelstein (MIT
> and Naval Postgraduate School) and Vittorio Violante (ENEA
> Frascati). The three are members of an informal consortium that
> has collaborated on research, publications, intellectual property
> claims and shared in federally funded LENR research.
>
> It is obvious from a careful review of the Violante report in NET that there
> was no reason for Violante to respond. He was improperly accused of
> stonewalling when, in fact, he'd answered Krivit's questions, as shown by
> Krivit's report and the original slide show and later-published conference
> paper, and then of making a huge error and of not retracting it. He'd
> already responded several times to what amounted to badgering, patiently
> explaining. The "no response" is, certainly for Violante, a non-story.
>
> As to McKubre and Hagelstein, I've examined those reports in much less
> detail, but where I have, so far, I've found that Krivit misinterprets and
> misrepresents what they actually wrote, and, I assume, by now, they are *so
> over* responding to Krivit. And that's a shame. It would be better if Krivit
> gets himself a real editorial board and listens to it. Otherwise he's likely
> to continue shooting himself in the foot, to imagine that a few people
> praising his boldness means that he's on the right track, and, in the end,
> see the collapse of NET.
>
>> 1.  "24 MeV/4He" Does Not Exist
>>        Contrary to what the public has heard and believed, the
>>        purported best evidence for the theory of low-energy nuclear
>>        reactions as a "cold fusion" reaction, specifically
>>        the highly promoted
>> claim
>> of ~24 MeV/4He, does not exist.
>
> With this, Krivit does effectively dismiss the strongest evidence for LENR
> (not for "cold fusion," a much more complex subject that I will address as
> well). The evidence is not a claim of 24 MeV. It is correlation between
> excess heat as measured and excess helium as measured, at a Q value that is
> "consistent with" D-D fusion (which would ostensibly produce, if gamma
> emission is absent or other radiation where significant energy would escape
> measurement, 23.8 MeV/He-4, if helium is formed. Which Krivit correctly
> points out is "not expected." However, helium *is* formed, it is correlated
> with excess energy, and the ratio of energy to helium is such that the
> conversion of deuterium to helium, by whatever process, would predict energy
> that is roughly the same as found. And this is multiply confirmed, many
> research groups, and not just Hagelstein and McKubre and Violante.
>
> That the ratio is in the right range for D-D fusion does not at all prove
> that the reaction is D-D fusion,

Re: [Vo]:comment on Violante data as covered by Steve Krivit

[Michel Jullian]

Hi Horace, sorry for the late response, my comments below.

2010/2/7 Horace Heffner :
>
> On Feb 7, 2010, at 4:42 AM, Michel Jullian wrote:
>
>> 2010/2/7 Horace Heffner :
>>>
>>> Two things to consider: (1) reversing the current *does* "dissolve" the
>>> Pd
>>> surface,
>>
>> True, but extremely slowly I believe. A Pd anode is known to dissolve
>> relatively fast in acidic electrolytes such as D2SO4, but I don't
>> think that's what they used. It is doubtful whether they reverted the
>> current long enough to dissolve more than a few atomic layers.
>
> I think the experimenters were competent. They knew what they were doing.
>
> Using a Faraday constant of 96,485 C/mol, and (conservatively) a valence of
> 4,  n for moles produced, I for current = .2 A, t for time = 1 s, we get:
>
>   n = I * t / (96,485 C/mol * 4)
>
>   n = (0.2 A)*(1 sec) / (385940 C/mol) = 5.182x10^-7 mol
>
> This means that at 200 mA/cm^2, 5.182x10^-7 mol/s is removed, or 3.12x10^17
> atoms per second.
>
> We also have for Pd: (12.38 g/cm^3)/(106.42 g/mol) = 0.1163 mol/cm^3 =
> 7.006x10^22 atoms/cm^3. The atomic volume is 1.427x10^-23 cm^3, and the
> atomic dimension is 2.426x10^-8 cm.  The amount of Pd removed per second is
> (3.12x10^17 atoms per second) * (1.427x10^-23 cm^3 per atom) = 4.45x10^-6
> cm/s, or 445 angstroms per second.  The number of layers of atoms removed is
> (4.45x10^-6 cm/s)/(2.426x10^-8 cm) = 183/s.
>
> If this is correct (highly suspect! 8^), then at a current density of 200
> mA/cm^2 we have a thickness of 183 atoms removed per second, or 445
> angstroms per second.

This would be correct if palladium, when driven as an anode, did
dissolve in an alkaline electrolyte (they classically used LiOD in
that M4 experiment, according to their original report at
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/archives/1998epri/TR-107843-V1.PDF ,
thanks to Steve Krivit for the link), which it doesn't, see the Pd/H2O
Pourbaix diagram at
http://www.platinummetalsreview.com/jmpgm/data/datasheet.do?record=532&database=cesdatabase
which shows that such corrosion only occurs in an acidic electrolyte (pH <3).

>>> and (2) previous work has shown that helium production takes place
>>> near but below the surface (order of microns),
>>> while tritium production
>>> tends to take place on or very close to the surface (within a few atomic
>>> widths).
>>
>> I guess you mean they are *found* there, couldn't they be both
>> produced on the surface, only with more kinetic energy in the helium
>> nuclei (alphas) than in the tritium nuclei for some reason, so that
>> the helium is implanted more deeply? I find the idea of two different
>> nuclear reaction sites producing different products a bit unlikely.
>
> No, most of the 4He reactions occur sub-surface.  What do you think produces
> a "volcano"?  A surface reaction?

The "volcanos" you mention could also be "impact craters" produced by
a local chain reaction on the surface.

>  The typical 4He produced by CF does not
> have MeV kinetic energy, and is not surface produced.  If it were there
> would be massive alpha counts. There is not sufficient kinetic energy to
> push alphas that deep into the Pd.

You may well have a point here. A ref for those deep alphas would be
welcome BTW.

>>> This has been a classic problem with CF, converting the process
>>> into a bulk effect instead of a surface effect for all practical
>>> purposes.
>>
>> Maybe it's just not possible, because you can't make large D fluxes
>> collide head-on
>
> Head on collisions, i.e. kinetics, can not possibly account for cold fusion.

Not alone I agree, it's more subtle than that, but the Ds do have to
meet don't they? I submit that the Ds following/pushing each other
down the lattice corridors like fish in a fish swarm have no reasons
to experience frequent close encounters.

>> in the bulk, this can only happen at a significant
>> scale on the surface (desorbing vs incident fluxes). In the bulk, it
>> seems to me the deuterons just push and follow each other down the
>> lattice's concentration gradients, and never really collide hard.
>>
>> Also, if Bose Einstein Condensates are involved, they requires cold
>> bosons for their formation. Head-on collisions may be a plausible
>> mechanism for deuteron kinetic energy removal.
>
> This would only be the case if the collisions were almost all totally
> inelastic.

Good point, although the combined effect of their respective
"colleagues" pushing from behind could conceivably result in many of
the collisions being inelastic.

In an

Re: [Vo]:comment on Violante data as covered by Steve Krivit

[Michel Jullian]

2010/2/7 Horace Heffner :
> Two things to consider: (1) reversing the current *does* "dissolve" the Pd
> surface,

True, but extremely slowly I believe. A Pd anode is known to dissolve
relatively fast in acidic electrolytes such as D2SO4, but I don't
think that's what they used. It is doubtful whether they reverted the
current long enough to dissolve more than a few atomic layers.

> and (2) previous work has shown that helium production takes place
> near but below the surface (order of microns),
> while tritium production
> tends to take place on or very close to the surface (within a few atomic
> widths).

I guess you mean they are *found* there, couldn't they be both
produced on the surface, only with more kinetic energy in the helium
nuclei (alphas) than in the tritium nuclei for some reason, so that
the helium is implanted more deeply? I find the idea of two different
nuclear reaction sites producing different products a bit unlikely.

> This has been a classic problem with CF, converting the process
> into a bulk effect instead of a surface effect for all practical purposes.

Maybe it's just not possible, because you can't make large D fluxes
collide head-on in the bulk, this can only happen at a significant
scale on the surface (desorbing vs incident fluxes). In the bulk, it
seems to me the deuterons just push and follow each other down the
lattice's concentration gradients, and never really collide hard.

Also, if Bose Einstein Condensates are involved, they requires cold
bosons for their formation. Head-on collisions may be a plausible
mechanism for deuteron kinetic energy removal.

Michel

> On Feb 7, 2010, at 2:58 AM, Michel Jullian wrote:
>
>> 2010/2/2 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax :
>> ...
>>>
>>>  A single
>>> SRI experiment has been published that made strong efforts to recover all
>>> the helium, and it came up with, as I recall, about 25 MeV.
>>
>> That experiment was discussed in the paper submitted by Hagelstein,
>> McKubre et al to the DOE in 2004:
>> http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinnewphysica.pdf
>>
>> They flushed helium out by simply desorbing and reabsorbing deuterium
>> several times, by varying the cell current, which they reversed in the
>> end to get all the D out.
>>
>> It seems to me that if they actually managed to extract all the helium
>> this way, which their resulting Q value suggests (104±10 % of 23.8
>> MeV), the reaction can't possibly happen in the bulk. Not even
>> subsurface. It has to happen exactly on the surface, with some (about
>> half) of the produced helium nuclei going slightly subsurface. If the
>> reaction itself was subsurface, surely about half of the produced
>> helium couldn't be recovered without more radical means such as the
>> one you suggested below.
>> ...
>>>
>>> 2. Recovery of *all* the helium -- except perhaps for minor and
>>> unavoidable
>>> leakage, which should, of course, be kept as small as possible. What
>>> occurs
>>> to me is to dissolve the cathode.
>>
>> This seems a good idea.
>>
>>> I forget the best acid to use, but I do
>>> know that palladium can be dissolved.
>>
>> As I recall, Aqua Regia is the best for Pd.
>>
>> Michel
>>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Horace Heffner
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:comment on Violante data as covered by Steve Krivit

[Michel Jullian]

2010/2/2 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax :
...
>  A single
> SRI experiment has been published that made strong efforts to recover all
> the helium, and it came up with, as I recall, about 25 MeV.

That experiment was discussed in the paper submitted by Hagelstein,
McKubre et al to the DOE in 2004:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinnewphysica.pdf

They flushed helium out by simply desorbing and reabsorbing deuterium
several times, by varying the cell current, which they reversed in the
end to get all the D out.

It seems to me that if they actually managed to extract all the helium
this way, which their resulting Q value suggests (104±10 % of 23.8
MeV), the reaction can't possibly happen in the bulk. Not even
subsurface. It has to happen exactly on the surface, with some (about
half) of the produced helium nuclei going slightly subsurface. If the
reaction itself was subsurface, surely about half of the produced
helium couldn't be recovered without more radical means such as the
one you suggested below.
...
> 2. Recovery of *all* the helium -- except perhaps for minor and unavoidable
> leakage, which should, of course, be kept as small as possible. What occurs
> to me is to dissolve the cathode.

This seems a good idea.

> I forget the best acid to use, but I do
> know that palladium can be dissolved.

As I recall, Aqua Regia is the best for Pd.

Michel

Re: [Vo]:Doing the Bosenova

[Michel Jullian]

Rb 85 atom is 37 protons, 48 neutrons and 37 electrons (all fermions,
with spins 1/2 or -1/2), that's an even number of fermions (122) so
it's a boson atom (integer spin), even though it's nucleus is a
fermion.

However I believe I read (can't remember where) that in BECs of atoms,
the bosons are only superimposed with an atomic scale precision
(angstroms), not with a nuclear scale precision (fermis) as is the
case of BECs of nuclei (e.g. BECs of deuterons). If confirmed, this
makes nuclear reactions among Rubidium 85 atoms unlikely I think.

Michel

2010/2/5 Horace Heffner :
>
> On Feb 5, 2010, at 6:57 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
>
>> As we mentioned in previous postings, any nuclear reaction with Rb is
>> extremely unlikely, if we assume it is related in any way to a
>> thermonuclear
>> reaction.
>
> I think this is true.  OTOH, the fact that a gas, Kr, would be produced from
> a Rb Bose condensate wavefunction collapse, it is very tempting to think
> such a thing is possible. The Bosenova was created using 85Rb:
>
> http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/bosenova.htm
>
> This gives the following potential reactions to stable products:
>
>  85Rb37 + 85Rb37 --> 86Sr38 + 84Kr36 + 2.620 MeV
>  85Rb37 + 85Rb37 --> 87Sr38 + 83Kr36 + 00.527 MeV
>  85Rb37 + 85Rb37 --> 88Sr38 + 82Kr36 + 4.177 MeV
>  85Rb37 + 85Rb37 --> 89Y39 + 81Br35 + 1.342 MeV
>  85Rb37 + 85Rb37 --> 90Zr40 + 80Se34 + 2.193 MeV
>  85Rb37 + 85Rb37 --> 92Zr40 + 78Se34 + 1.145 MeV
>
> It is notable that one of the potential products is a gas, krypton, which
> might escape detection in the experiment if produced.
>
> The nucleus 85Rb has an even number of neutrons, 48, plus 37 protons and
> electrons. Provided the electrons and protons pair spins, the net spin of
> the 85 Rb atom is zero.  At one time I suggested the possibility that an
> (extrenal source provided) energetic particle could collapse the wave
> function of a Bose condensate to a point:
>
> http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/BoseHyp.pdf
>
> This would mean that both the nuclei and electrons would condense to
> (approximately) a point.  Such a collapse would create a highly negative
> energy entity, having possibly on the order of many GeV negative energy.
>  However, as the electron wavefunctions expand, the negative energy would be
> restored from the vacuum, and the nuclei would have the energy to react,
> producing nearly zero net energy reactions. The reaction that would be
> triggered first, from paired rubidium nuclei, would be:
>
>  85Rb37 + 85Rb37 --> 86Sr38 + 84Kr36 + 2.620 MeV
>
> Thus producing a large proportion of krypton gas.  The 2.620 MeV is
> otherwise irrelevant, because it is essentially consumed by the electron
> negative energy. The "explosion" would be produced with nominal energy.
>
> This is admittedly far fetched, for various reasons, one of the most obvious
> ones being this: an amount of strontium corresponding to the krypton created
> would be left behind.  Surely this strontium would have been noticed, if
> present in such a large proportion.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Horace Heffner
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Spam has been eliminated? Robin posts considered spam (was Re: OFF TOPIC "Davos predictions: predictably wrong?")

[Michel Jullian]

Robin, have you watched the Youtube video Terry linked to? Here is the
link again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE

It's the 1970 Monty Python sketch, "Spam", which is the actual origin
of the use of the word for unsolicited email, due to the high number
of times the word is repeated in the sketch, in spite of one of the
characters vehemently not wanting any Spam: "I don't like Spam!".
Absolutely hilarious :)

Michel

PS Strange how Gmail's algorithms consider some messages are spam for
some people and not for others. Personalized spam blocking!

2010/1/27  :
> In reply to  Terry Blanton's message of Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:09:31 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>>On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 4:13 PM,   wrote:
>>> SPAM - SPurious Advertising Material.
>>
>>Also SPiced hAM:
>
> That was the original definition before the advent of the Internet.
> [snip]
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
>
>

[Vo]:Spam has been eliminated? Robin posts considered spam (was Re: OFF TOPIC "Davos predictions: predictably wrong?")

[Michel Jullian]

2010/1/25 Jed Rothwell :
> By the way, I think Bill Gates (2004) was right and spam has been largely
> eliminated.

Jed, I see you use Gmail, have you checked the number of emails in
your spam folder? (the spams you have received in the last month if
you haven't deleted them manually). Mine contains more than 1400
spams, so maybe it would be more accurate to say that spam is less
problematic because big email providers do a better job at blocking
them.

Not such a good job BTW. While checking my SPAM folder I found 3
Vortex posts in it, all 3 from Robin (mixent, why mixent BTW Robin?).
I just marked them as non-spam but I, and maybe others, may have lost
other posts this way. Could other Vortexians who also use Gmail check
their Spam folders for such posts? E.g. in your search box, type:

in:spam Vo

I am curious to know if it happened to them too.

Michel

Re: [Vo]:OT: Space travel, moon colonization.

[Michel Jullian]

The elevator cable doesn't have to be electrically conductive.

Michel

2010/1/25 Alexander Hollins :
> best link ive found so far.
>
> http://www.data4science.net/essays.php?EssayID=850
> hmm, i think its the same one you are talking about.  I THOUGHT there
> was another one done, but i could be wrong.
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 01/25/2010 03:39 PM, Alexander Hollins wrote:
>>> unfortunately, space elevator research has stalled due to a lot of
>>> issues with voltage differentials in the upper atmosphere.  The last
>>> test I heard of of stretching a ribbon between the ground and leo,
>>> after it got about 5 miles long, it vaporized in a discharge, acting
>>> as a ground.  not pretty.
>>
>> I don't recall that.
>>
>> I know the tethered satellite experiment done on the Shuttle failed with
>> a burned cable, but I hadn't heard of any further work with long tethers
>> after that.
>>
>> I'd be interested in hearing more about the 5 mile cable drop-and-fry
>> from LEO, if you have a link to more info.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
 If the space elevator people succeed the rest will be easy. I would include
 the elevator advocates and experimentalists in the top ranks of those
 promoting space travel.

 I don't know how much support NSS is giving elevators but they should be a
 top priority. NASA, unfortunately, gave the elevator people the frozen boot
 years ago, in favor of retro-design rockets.

 - Jed


>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:orbo is a heat pump?

[Michel Jullian]

2010/1/25 Harry Veeder :

> If orbo were extracting heat from the air then part of the orbo would become 
> hotter than the surrounding air, but for that to happen wouldn't part of the 
> orbo have to be cooler than the surrounding air?

I guess so, isn't it the case?

Michel

Re: [Vo]:orbo is a heat pump?

[Michel Jullian]

Didn't even know this existed, thanks Jones for making me look more
learned than I am!

No, I was just saying that IF it is a heat pump, THEN of course the
surrounding air should get cooler, I had no mechanism in mind, I don't
even know what the Orbo is made of. Your magnetocaloric effect could
be the explanation for what I know.

Michel

2010/1/24 Jones Beene :
> -Original Message-
> From: Stephen A. Lawrence
>
>> Not 'of course'. No mechanism has been proposed, nor can I imagine one,
> for making the surrounding air get cooler as a result of running an Orbo
>
>
> Michel is probably referring to some kind of Magnetocaloric effect
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetocaloric_effect
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:orbo is a heat pump?

[Michel Jullian]

I suggested it could be a heat pump about a week ago, after someone
(you, I think) said that the orbo generated more heat than its
electrical energy consumption. If it's a high COP (>2) heat pump it
can be quite useful for heating purposes, although totally useless for
electrical power generation as we discussed a few years back ("loop
closed?" thread).

It being a heat pump would imply that the surrounding air gets cooler
of course. It would also imply that if the device with its surrounding
air is enclosed in a calorimeter it will not be found to be overunity!

Michel

2010/1/24 Harry Veeder :
> Orbo discussed as a heat pump:
>
> http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=62574&page=1#Item_0
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>      __
> Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
>
> http://www.flickr.com/gift/
>
>

Re: [Vo]:steorn addendum video posted on youtube

[Michel Jullian]

2010/1/21 OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson :
> From Michel:
>
>>> My point was that Mr. & Mrs. Jane & Joe Public are not the
>>> "entities" Steorn is going after. Steorn is mostly going
>>> after companies, enterprises, corporate entities (big
>>> or small) that might be interested.
>
>> I think on the contrary that the entirety of their licensing
>> revenue will be from individuals. If I understand correctly
>> their licensing model, enterprises will only pay a percentage
>> of their sales of products implementing the technology. So
>> if the technology doesn't work they won't pay a cent.
>> Individuals on the contrary pay a flat fee!
>
> Interesting point, Michel. Let me try to redeem my thoughts on the matter.
>
> Yes, indeed, I agree that anyone, including myself can purchase an
> ORBO license - a flat fee. I have no idea what an ORBO license would
> cost me, but it's probably more than I would care to spend. But why
> would I want to? What could I do with an ORBO license? Tinker away in
> my garage after work, hoping to discover an elusive improvement to
> ORBO's alleged OU?  Yeah, I suppose that's possible, and some might
> actually end up doing just that. But not too many, methinks. Ergo,
> very little profit will be generated from the selling of ORBO "flat
> fee" licenses to anyone, be it world renown corporate giants or
> indigenous garage inventors. If that is Steorn's actual profit
> strategy in regards to marketing ORBO, they would have to be dumber
> than a pot of steaming cauliflower. >8-0

Since you have no idea of the cost of the individual license, nor of
how many enthusiasts will buy it, nor of what they can be persuaded to
buy from Steorn after that (Steorn measurement instruments at a
preferential price, maybe?), how can you tell?

> Adding to peatbog's recent speculations, t seems to me that Steorn
> believes that the real profits would eventually come from the small
> percentage of the gross/net sales generated from products implementing
> their ORBO technology. If Steorn's ORBO technology is the equivalent
> of a pink energizer bunny, such small "percentage" profits would
> eventually turn out to be a floodgate of obscene riches.
>
> This premise assumes that Stoern BELIEVES their ORBO is valid
> technology... that Steorn just needs a few of those big spending
> corporate entities to buy a cheap (for them) licenses and subsequently
> work out a few minor pesky bugs!

Well not exactly, your premise assumes that the technology IS valid
(what Steorn believes is irrelevant to what will ultimately happen).
Mine assumes it isn't, but whether it is valid or not, they will make
money. I have seen dumber schemes :)

Michel

Re: [Vo]:steorn addendum video posted on youtube

[Michel Jullian]

2010/1/21 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson :
> My point was that
> Mr. & Mrs. Jane & Joe Public are not the "entities" Steorn is going after.
> Steorn is mostly going after companies, enterprises, corporate entities (big
> or small) that might be interested.

I think on the contrary that the entirety of their licensing revenue
will be from individuals. If I understand correctly their licensing
model, enterprises will only pay a percentage of their sales of
products implementing the technology. So if the technology doesn't
work they won't pay a cent. Individuals on the contrary pay a flat
fee!

Michel

Re: [Vo]:Back EMF: Sean may be right

[Michel Jullian]

2010/1/16, Mark Iverson :
> I sent one post which hasn't shown up yet... Perhaps its awaiting Bills
> scrutiny before allowing it
> thru.  It had a JPEG attachment

This is because posts above 40 KB total size are not allowed on this
Eskimo hosted list, which is one of several reasons why Bill considers
switching list hosting to e.g. Google Groups (free hosting, more
reliable delivery, several MB attachment allowance, web interface for
browsing-posting-archiving-searching)

Michel

Re: [Vo]:Capacitors for Steorn

[Michel Jullian]

Yes, good point William, that's the way to make a capacitor both large and fast.

However, if their claim is that they produce more heat than they
consume electrical power as Harry said (some form of heat pump
maybe?), then the capacitor voltage could drop even if their claim was
valid couldn't it?

Michel

2010/1/15 William Beaty :
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010, Terry Blanton wrote:
>
>> I seriously doubt it since the statement is false. IIRC, he said that
>> the capacitor was too slow in current delivery.  Actually, the
>
> Well, that's true of supercapacitors.  They take seconds to discharge during
> a direct short, not microseconds.
>
> So if a large electrolytic has too small a value, parallel it with a
> supercap.  That gives the sharp edge as well as the large value.
>
>
>
> (( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))
> William J. Beaty                            SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
> billb at amasci com                         http://amasci.com
> EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
> Seattle, WA  206-762-3818    unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura

[Michel Jullian]

Hi Jones,

Sorry for the delay, here is the ref (note it refers to hydrogen, not
deuterium, whose heat of adsorption could thus conceivably be the 2 eV
per D found by Kitamura for 5 nm particle sizes):

"JOURNAL OF CATALYSIS 104, 1-16 (1987)
Calorimetric Heat of Adsorption Measurements on Palladium
I. Influence of Crystallite Size and Support on Hydrogen Adsorption
PEN CHOU AND M. ALBERT VANNICE"

Here is the abstract (some OCR errors may have escaped my scrutiny):

<< A modified differential scanning calorimeter was used to measure
integral heats of adsorption of hydrogen, Qad, at 300 K on unsupported
Pd powder and on Pd dispersed on SiO2, SiO2-Al2O3, Al2O3, and TiO2.
The supports were found to have no significant effect on Qad, and
although reduction of Pd/TiO2 samples at 773 K sharply decreased the
amount of hydrogen chemisorbed on these samples, the Qad values
measured on these samples were comparable to the other catalysts.
In contrast, Pd crystallite size had a very pronounced effect on Qad.
On all these catalysts the heat of adsorption for hydrogen remained
constant at 15 +- 1 kcal mole^-1 as the average Pd crystallite size
decreased from 1000 to 3 nm, but it increased sharply as the size
dropped below 3 nm. The highest value, 24 kcal mole^-1, was obtained
on one of the most highly dispersed samples. Heats of formation of
bulk Pd hydride showed a similar behavior, remaining constant at 8.7
+- 1.0 kcal mole^-1 for samples with low Pd dispersions and then
increasing noticeably as the crystallite size dropped below 3 nm. Most
of this variation in Qad is attributed to changes in the electronic
properties of small Pd crystallites because the differences in Qad
values reported on single crystal surfaces are not sufficient to
explain the enhanced bond strength.>>

Michel

2009/12/30 Jones Beene :
> Michel
>
>
>
> Ø  The spread is not large for a given set of conditions. In particular
> there is one very important (IMHO) point which seems consistently
> overlooked, not just by you, which is that the binding energy is not the
> same on the surface (heat of adsorption) as it is in the bulk (heat of
> absorption). It's much higher on the surface. Interestingly, decreasing the
> Pd particle size  increases the surface binding energy (I can dig up a ref
> if anyone is interested)  which is what the Kitamura work re-discovers IMHO.
>
>
>
> By all means - we are very interested, since this is really one of the two
> important points left to be decided. And providing this reference in an
> unequivocal way (i.e. specifically wrt hydrogen and palladium) would salvage
> your other comments out of the category of “fishy”.
>
>
>
> Therefore, we eagerly await your (hopefully authoritative) reference, since
> the “much higher” surface binding attribute as you claim, is a bit
> counter-intuitive; and without it we have a compelling set of circumstances
> for expanding the importance of the putative anomaly – which as Terry
> opined, might possibly be related to nascent hydrogen.
>
>
>
> The next issue, of course, is whether or not the 2 eV per atom loading heat
> of Kitamura is accurate and reproducible by others. That is where I suspect
> the problem will be found.
>
>
>
> Side note: as many of us are aware, hydrogen comes off of bulk palladium
> easily enough that it can be, and once was, once used as a cigarette lighter
> (which presumably did not require much input to ignite – other than a spark)
> but was surely an expensive indulgence.
>
>
>
> As I recall – and a brief googling confirms, the so-called "Doebereiner
> cigarette lighter" from the 1800’s was used by early CF skeptics to explain
> away the excess heat of the P&F effect, since it apparently got quite hot
> following a hydrogen recharge.
>
>
>
> Problem is – they apparently never checked the complete thermodynamic
> balance of the Doebereiner effect … at least there is no record of that
> which I can find. Is it presumptive to suggest, given Kitamura, that the
> very same effect used by skeptics to try to disprove CF could instead point
> to another, and perhaps more usable anomaly?
>
>
>
> Nah, probably not. But it would be one great way to convert palladium into
> irony ;-)
>
>
>
> Jones
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura

[Michel Jullian]

2009/12/29 Jones Beene :
> OK, vorticians. This is could be an important paper and topic, so let me
add
> one more point of clarification to Michel Jullian's point about the "heat
of
> combustion" of hydrogen, compared to the anomalous "loading heat" of
> Kitamura's claim.
>
> Michel correctly finds that if you only look at one-half of the reaction,
> and ignore the mass of the end product, then what we have is:
>
> (294.6 / 2) / 6.02e23) * kJ = ~1.5 electron volts/amu based on hydrogen

I didn't ignore anything, I converted the energy released by the reaction of
D2O formation (all two halves of the reaction ;) from a "per D2O mole" basis
to a "per D atom" basis, the same basis Kitamura used for his 2 eV value,
and the same basis you used for your 0.5 eV value presumably, since you
compared it with Kitamura's.



> This is the energy released relative to initial hydrogen mass, but that
> might assume that oxygen is unnecessary, if you leave it out.  One should
> take the mass of O2 into consideration for the comparison with reversible
> hydride loading.
>
> ERGO. It would have been clearer back a few posts ago - if I had broken
the
> comparison down this way. The steam from hydrogen combustion will have a
> molecular wt of 18 amu per hot molecule. The heat of combustion of the two
> hydrogen atoms is ~3+ eV in total. The resultant energy per amu of the
> steam, therefore, is 3/18 or .16 eV per amu of combustion end product.
>
> When we compare that energy per mass of combustion product - with the
> Kitamura reaction of hydrogen which has been reversibly loaded into a
metal
> matrix, and then released, then we find that the amu of the end product is
> still about one since there is/was no permanent bond. The thermal energy
> released, according to Kitamura is ~2 eV, so the eV per amu is about a
*ten
> to one ratio,* when the energy of the hydride bond is deducted - compared
to
> hydrogen combustion (by mass of all non-renewable reactants).

  (those who understand French, see
http://www.linternaute.com/expression/langue-francaise/450/noyer-le-poisson/)

Come on my dear Jones, a little more work and you will find that your 0.5 eV
is correct for some thing or other I am sure ;-)

> Next big issue. What is the "real" hydride bond energy for Pd? There is a
> chart here (Fig 3):
>
>
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1742-6596/79/1/012028/jpconf7_79_012028.pdf?request-id=e4195775-a6d5-4d5f-83b9-da98912aa8c1

Interesting paper, thanks for the pointer!

> It appears that the bond energy for Pd varies between .9 eV and a negative
> value, depending of a number of variables. The bond is field influenced,
> which could be important. From the chart - an average value appears to be
> less than .5 eV. However, the indication is that it could be much lower.
> Therefore, if Kitamura were correct on the heat energy (which I am
beginning
> to doubt), then this kind of iterative recycling of hydrogen would be a
> window of opportunity for gainfulness, since the spread is very large.

The spread is not large for a given set of conditions. In particular there
is one very important (IMHO) point which seems consistently overlooked, not
just by you, which is that the binding energy is not the same on the surface
(heat of adsorption) as it is in the bulk (heat of absorption). It's much
higher on the surface. Interestingly, decreasing the Pd particle size
 increases the surface binding energy (I can dig up a ref if anyone is
interested) , which is what the Kitamura work re-discovers IMHO.

The surface binding energy is of course relevant for putative LENRs
occurring there!

Michel

Re: [Vo]:Horrace help

[Michel Jullian]

2009/12/30  :
> I liked what you did.  It gave a first approximation very good answer.
>
> Now the next thing I have been trying to get a grip on is,
>
> "What is the phonon frequency of the dissolved hydrogen in a cold fusion
> palladium electrode?"

Haven't followed his calculation closely but I think this is what
Horace (one 'r') calculated.

BTW, it would be interesting to know the adsorbed (as opposed to
absorbed) D phonon frequency too, since the surface tetrahedral sites
are probably where things happen (deeper trapping potential,
corresponding to a higher electron density, which is useful whatever
the mechanism at play: electron capture, DD fusion...

Michel

> I don't even know what the restraints are.  Does is move in a group and what
> then is M?
>
> Were is it attached and what then is K.
>
> Any ideas.
>
> Frank Z

Re: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura

[Michel Jullian]

2009/12/29 Stephen A. Lawrence :
>
>
> On 12/29/2009 11:19 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
>> Since water can be split into H2 and O2 with 1.23 volts - does it stand to
>> reason that one could get 1.5 eV in return ? That was rhetorical; and of
>> course this one of nature's built-in cases of "systemic overunity" -
>>
>
> Now you're neglecting the splitting cost of H2->2H and O2->2H.

No he isn't, that's comprised in the price (if you use the correct
value of 1.48V that is). What's the energy needed to go from water  to
the gases? 1.48V, times the charge of the transferred electrons (1
electron per hydrogen atom). Of course, you get the same energy when
going the other way.

Michel

Re: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura

[Michel Jullian]

2009/12/29 Jones Beene :
> -Original Message-
> From: Michel Jullian
>
>> - but the 2 eV available
>> from loading alone without deuterium (contrast that to about .5 eV if the
>> hydrogen were burned in air) is a huge surprise -
>
> MJ: Jones, where did you get that  .5 eV figure? I did the maths and found
> about 1.5 eV instead, here is the Google calculator result;
>
> ((294.6 / 2) / 6.02e23) * kJ = 1.52719998 electron volts
>
>
> Michel, the half-eV figure is the common 'real world' estimate based on the
> maximum average temperature of the resultant steam - but even so, it appears
> you did not first deduct the dissociation energy of O2 and H2

Their formation enthalpy is zero, by convention

> and then later
> deduct the parasitic losses of NOx, peroxides etc. and the other losses that
> are expected in actual practice, for combustion in air?

Negligible

> IOW there are lies, damn lies, and theoretical calculations ;) when trying
> to go from 'paper numbers' to actual practice. Kitamura's numbers were
> indicated to be actual practice (if they can be trusted) so it is fair to
> contrast those numbers with that which would happen if one were to actually
> burn H2 in air - and .5 eV is a fair estimate

No (see below)

> even if you discount the 80%
> of air which is nearly inert.

why would you not discount them???

> Since water can be split into H2 and O2 with 1.23 volts - does it stand to
> reason that one could get 1.5 eV in return ? That was rhetorical; and of
> course this one of nature's built-in cases of "systemic overunity" -

This was not rhetorical at all actually, I hadn't made the connexion
but yes, the combustion energy per D atom in eV should be, of course,
exactly equal to the thermoneutral electrolysis voltage... and it is,
as a matter of fact: the thermoneutral voltage for electrolysis of D2O
is 1.54V, which confirms my 1.53V calculation. And BTW, it's 1.48V for
H2O, not 1.23V.

> ... except for the damn lie that it simply does not work out that way in
> practice - but it does serve to contrast the large disparity of the "actual
> with the calculated".
>
>> Did I get it wrong?
>
> Well, let's say that you got it partly right and mostly wrong

Or rather, as it turns out, exactly right. Physics works, contrary to
your suggestions  :)
Besides, you don't have to take my word, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion
Hydrogen: 140 kJ/g, which is about 1.5eV per atom.

The important result here is that the 2 eV you get by letting an
hydrogen atom bond to the _surface_  of a Pd nanoparticle are
comparable with the chemical energy you get by letting it bond to an
oxygen atom  (starting from molecular gas phase in both cases)

Michel

Re: [Vo]:Significant Implications - Kitamura

[Michel Jullian]

2009/12/28 Jones Beene :

> - but the 2 eV available
> from loading alone without deuterium (contrast that to about .5 eV if the
> hydrogen were burned in air) is a huge surprise -

Jones, where did you get that  .5 eV figure? I did the maths and found
about 1.5 eV instead, here is the Google calculator result;

((294.6 / 2) / 6.02e23) * kJ = 1.52719998 electron volts

294.6 kJ/mol is the energy released per mole of D2O formed (=minus the
enthalpy of formation of D2O), which I divided by 2 (2 D per D2O) and
by Avogadro's number and then converted to eV to find the burning
energy in eV per D atom. Did I get it wrong?

Michel

Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Nick Palmer uploads video on Climategate

[Michel Jullian]

>  I'm asking because I can't recall anybody ever quoting documents from that
> office.

The NYTimes did (this must be the paper the French journalist refers
to in his blog and documentary):

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html

Michel

2009/12/10 Stephen A. Lawrence :
>
>
> On 12/09/2009 05:51 PM, Michel Jullian wrote:
>>
>> You're right Rick that suppression can occur even in the US:
>>
>> http://premiereslignes.blogs.nouvelobs.com/archive/2009/12/08/enfumes.html
>>
>> (in French, sorry)
>
> Intéressant, peut-etre, mais je parie que Rick ne trouverait pas ce blog
> très amusant.
>
> The example of Patrick Michaels, evil climatologist churning out dubious
> reports, would be more surprising if he hadn't been with the Cato Institute.
>  I mean, everybody already knows those guys are just a mouthpiece for the
> far right and the oil lobby, don't they?
>
> I actually had a serious (though maybe rather dumb) question, regarding the
> last part of the blog:  What was Philip Cooney's actual impact with regard
> to the reports that he allegedly watered down?  I mean, who actually sees
> the publications produced by the Environmental Quality Council of the
> Whitehouse?  Was this stuff just being given to Bush (i.e., was this a way
> of manipulating the Prez)?  Or are their reports widely published and read?
>  I'm asking because I can't recall anybody ever quoting documents from that
> office.

Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Nick Palmer uploads video on Climategate

[Michel Jullian]

You're right Rick that suppression can occur even in the US:

http://premiereslignes.blogs.nouvelobs.com/archive/2009/12/08/enfumes.html

(in French, sorry)

Michel

2009/12/9, Rick Monteverde :
> Stephen wrote:
>
> <...> I can't help but think any assertion that expressing any particular
> belief "should be ILLEGAL [in the United States]" must be nothing more than
> a personal expression of frustration, or possibly a straw man set up to
> start an argument. <...>
>
> I think what NP was referring to was for the UK, and he said or implied that
> there is precedence for such a thing there and that he was basically
> optimistic that it could happen. We First Amendment huggers (believers) here
> in the US tend to react less favorably to such moves than do the poor
> blighted furriners in Europe who have demonstrated a tendency to embrace
> true tyranny over the years. But like I said, our worst mistake would be
> thinking it can't happen here.
>
> - R.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Yomiuri reports that Toyota will sell a plug-in hybrid

[Michel Jullian]

Terry meant that one doesn't often use brakes on interstate highways,
so regenerative braking has no reason to improve mileage.

Michel

2009/12/8 Jed Rothwell :
> Terry Blanton wrote:
>
>> > Actually, this one will probably have the ~600 mile range of the regular
>> > Prius, or possibly more, because the extra batteries improve mileage in
>> > hybrid mode.
>>
>> How is this so when there is no regenerative braking? (on the interstate
>> system)
>
> Surely there is regenerative braking. There always is with a Prius. Or is
> there a Federal law against it on the interstate system?
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Journal Of Applied Science

[Michel Jullian]

Yes, good point Robin.
BTW, Google is very helpful for this kind of calculations, try Googling:
1e19 MeV per 10 s in kW
Michel

2009/12/5 
>
> In reply to  Michel Jullian's message of Sat, 5 Dec 2009 11:02:45 +0100:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >For instance, the laser
> >welding nuclear fusion used by Arata and Zhang was only
> >300 watts and generated about 1019 to 1020 particles per 10
> >seconds.
>
> ...as I believe I have pointed out previously, this has to be wrong.
> 1E19 particles / 10 sec = 1E18 / sec. which in turn represents 1E18 reactions 
> /
> sec. If we assume a very modest 1 MeV / nuclear reaction, this equates to a
> power of 160 kW, which I very strongly doubt actually happened.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
>

Re: [Vo]:Tracking the colorful Quark

[Michel Jullian]

2009/12/5 Jones Beene :

>> So, who had the foresight to envision the cross-connection?
>
> Well that remark was not phrased very well, I agree - but if you google
> [Julian Schwinger LENR] this will be the first hit:
>
> www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SchwingerJcoldfusiona.pdf

Well, Feynman would have been hard put to beat Schwinger to any
connection related to CF obviously. But had he lived longer he might
well have!

Anyway, yes, QCD is necessary to complete the story after the close
encounter. It may even have a more active role if a nuclear chain
reaction is at play!

Michel

Re: [Vo]:Tracking the colorful Quark

[Michel Jullian]

Jones,

QCD comes into play once the reacting nuclear particles are within
femtometers of each other. But first, it must be explained how they
get that close with sufficient probability, and this is purely a QED
problem if I am not mistaken.

So, who had the foresight to envision the cross-connection? (between
what and what BTW?)

Michel

2009/12/5 Jones Beene :
> The key phrase here is “triple tracks” …
>
> http://www.physorg.com/news157046734.html
>
> Because this article came ahead of (or even instigated) some of the recent
> popularization of new theories relating LENR to the likelihood of quark
> interaction (identity or ‘color’ change statistics in quarks), many
> observers … (well, at least one ;-) … were not able to ‘connect the dots’
> very well till now (today actually).
>
> Quantum chromodynamics (QCD) is the theory of the strong nuclear
> interaction, describing the interactions of the quarks and gluons making up
> all hadrons. The theory of “color-charged fermions” (quarks) is the key
> component. “Color” is probably an unfortunate descriptor here, but so be it
> – semantics be damned.
>
> QCD has become an important part of the Standard Model of particle physics,
> and it would be informative to find and credit the first theorist to make
> the connection of QCD to LENR. I suspect that sometime in the next decade,
> P&F will eventually be given the credit they deserve, along with whomever
> has made the best theoretical study of the dynamics. My bet is that it could
> be Pamela Mosier-Boss if she can jump on this bandwagon fast enough and get
> enough positive PR. Interesting connection is that Julian Schwinger shared a
> Nobel prize with Richard Feynman (for QED the predecessor of QCD) and yet
> only one of them had the foresight to envision the cross-connection. Can you
> guess which one?
>
> A huge body of experimental evidence for QCD has been gathered over the
> years, and the crowning jewel of that could well be its use to explain LENR
> in a way which leads to ultimate commercialization.
>
> Jones

Re: [Vo]:Journal Of Applied Science

[Michel Jullian]

2009/12/5 Harvey Norris 
...
> Solid State Nuclear Fusion
> http://www.wbabin.net/science/shrair3.pdf

This seems to be a very good up to date review of the field, by a
Ph.D. candidate in surface physics and electron devices. Full text:

>

Re: [Vo]:OT (sort of): 2000-2009: the 21 Century decade of Extraordinary claims?

[Michel Jullian]

LOL :)

2009/11/29 Terry Blanton :
> Followed by a large dose of lyes.
>
> Terry
>
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:10 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>> Terry Blanton wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting that, before closing the forum, they expelled all the
>>> septics.
>>
>> By flushing them into the septic tank?
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion bombs

[Michel Jullian]

Jed,

(sorry for the late reply, finding it hard to keep up with the high
volume of postings lately, could "power contributors" make attempts at
conciseness please?)

2009/11/18 Jed Rothwell :

> I forgot to mention a critical factor. Heat stimulation of cold fusion
> reactions seems to occur remarkably slowly. Fleischmann and Biberian both
> told me they used a heat pulse to trigger the boil off reaction. It worked
> something like this:
>
> Turn up electrolysis power for 3 minutes. The temperature starts to rise.
> Turn the power back down again. Temperature stabilizes, starts to fall . . .
> Wait for it . . . Wait for it . . . Minutes later the cell starts to
> self-heat, as positive feedback kicks in. It ramps up slowly, over several
> minutes, and finally reaches the "climax" boil off (as Biberian calls it).

Interesting! It may not be the heat pulse per se that triggered the
LENRs. When you turn the electrolysis power back down (to a non zero
initial value previously maintained for a long time, right?) after
having turned it up for several minutes, you get desorption don't you?

This, plus the flickering hot spots observed on the (probably
desorbing) back of the Mylar backed SPAWAR cathode discussed the other
day (if they are indeed CF effects which I see Horace disputes)... Any
additional experimental evidence of the PF effect occurring on
simultaneously desorbing and electrolyzing Pd surfaces?

Michel

Re: [Vo]:Electrolysis Looks Very Weird

[Michel Jullian]

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/33/

Hope this helps (haven't watched the vid but the lecturer, Walter
Lewin, is one of the best physics teachers of our times).

Michel

2009/11/28 Chris Zell 
>
> Ordinary things often look weird to me.  Like how do zillions of raindrops 
> create a consistent appearance of a rainbow when they are randomly falling 
> thru the air... seems like you would get a mess of mostly white light  and 
> not a neat march of apparently organized Roy G. Biv's.

Re: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable?

[Michel Jullian]

2009/11/27 Mauro Lacy :
>> Free-willing (or is it -weeling? :) friends,
>
> Hi,
> I assume you meant -wheeling.

Yes

>
>> 
>> Harry,
 When quantum mechanics appeared the spirit had to accept that there
 is a LIST of possible ways the universe could unfold. However, even if
 this list
 is infinitely long it still means that certain possibilities will be
 OFF the
 list, other wise it could not be a predictive theory!
>>
>> Yes. And interestingly, the possibilities which are off the list (zero
>> probability) can be very exactly defined in some experiments, as can
>> be seen by entering a large number e.g. 10 and hitting the "More"
>> button repeatedly in this nice double slit applet:
>>
>> http://www.ianford.com/dslit/
>>
>> Selecting, at the other extreme, one particle per shot will yield,
>> after a proportionately larger number of shots, the very same fringe
>> pattern, and that's what actually happens in experiments. And that's
>> where QM beats any classical or neoclassical theory with both hands
>> tied behind its back!
>> 
>> Jones, it's not nice to have published the blueprints of my brain ;-)
>> BTW I didn't see multiple definitions of free will in the WP article,
>> nor did I see much useful information there. Philosophy should be left
>> to scientists, as the name says and as it was in the early days!
>> 
>> Mauro, I suspect that your concept that conscience is not
>> physico-mechanical will be laughed at heartily by your desktop
>> computer in 2042, date at which it will have as many logical gates as
>> a human brain according to Moore's law  (IIRC).
>
> Well, we don't need to wait that longer. We already know that certain
> phenomena are simply not contained within the framework of classical
> mechanics, due to its stochastic nature.
> So, for computers or machines to be able to achieve conscience, they'll
> have to be built in a way which allows stochastic processes to occur in
> their circuits. That is, they'll have to be capable of non-deterministic
> behavior.

just let them run on Vista :)

Seriously, I don't think built-in randomness is required to create
conscience, sheer complexity should suffice.

> I certainly think that that is possible, and a machine like that will be
> probably made one day. That day, those machines will achieve not only
> conscience, but also free will.

Not any more than us.

> What remains to be seen is what drastic decisions they'll probably take
> when aware of their origins, reality and planned destiny.

This will be fun.

> The literature
> abounds in speculations on this subject, "2001 Space Odyssey" being one of
> the classical (and better) examples.

I love this film. Hopefully, real computers of the future will have a
better sense of humor than Hal!

Michel

Re: [Vo]:DIY electrolytic cell / fuel cell rechargeable battery

[Michel Jullian]

2009/11/27 Horace Heffner :

> I'd like to see what happens to the bubbles when the battery is
> disconnected.  If it really is a fuel cell it should be possible to bubble
> O2 and H2 (from another cell) around the separate wires and get a sustained
> current.

A very good idea, seems quite easy to implement with a couple of
tubings going from the electrolytic cell to the fuel cell, this
reminded me I had seen similar bubbling of  an external gas on an
electrode in articles on reference electrodes ( see e.g.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_hydrogen_electrode ).

Reference electrodes are probably quite relevant to the present
discussion, in that they seem capable to maintain a reference voltage
as long as you keep bubbling the gas, without any additional energy
input!

> This looks like an interesting high school science project.

Indeed, and it might even allow practical clean batteries for low power devices.

Michel

Re: [Vo]:Is Galileo's DNA still viable?

[Michel Jullian]

Free-willing (or is it -weeling? :) friends,

Harry,
>> When quantum mechanics appeared the spirit had to accept that there
>> is a LIST of possible ways the universe could unfold. However, even if this 
>> list
>> is infinitely long it still means that certain possibilities will be OFF the
>> list, other wise it could not be a predictive theory!

Yes. And interestingly, the possibilities which are off the list (zero
probability) can be very exactly defined in some experiments, as can
be seen by entering a large number e.g. 10 and hitting the "More"
button repeatedly in this nice double slit applet:

http://www.ianford.com/dslit/

Selecting, at the other extreme, one particle per shot will yield,
after a proportionately larger number of shots, the very same fringe
pattern, and that's what actually happens in experiments. And that's
where QM beats any classical or neoclassical theory with both hands
tied behind its back!

Jones, it's not nice to have published the blueprints of my brain ;-)
BTW I didn't see multiple definitions of free will in the WP article,
nor did I see much useful information there. Philosophy should be left
to scientists, as the name says and as it was in the early days!

Mauro, I suspect that your concept that conscience is not
physico-mechanical will be laughed at heartily by your desktop
computer in 2042, date at which it will have as many logical gates as
a human brain according to Moore's law  (IIRC).

Michel

Re: [Vo]:DIY electrolytic cell / fuel cell rechargeable battery

[Michel Jullian]

Horace,

2009/11/26 Horace Heffner :

> Here is the original explanation, less the garbled indicator test
> information:
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
...
> It is the presence of the high concentration of ions in
> solution that makes the residual potential when the battery is disconnected.
>  The H3O+ ions take on electrons through the wire originally releasing
> hydrogen at the site where the hydrogen was generated, the anode, thus
> making *more* hydrogen bubbles. Similarly, the OH- ions donate electrons to
> make H2O2 and *more* O2 at the site where O2 was generated prior."
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>
> Still looks right to me, despite the fact I remain dizzy!


Well no, the site where the hydrogen was generated (which was the
cathode BTW, not the anode, let's call it the negative electrode
rather, as anode and cathode names switch sides when current direction
is reverted) was surrounded by OH- ions, and the site where O2 was
generated prior (which was the anode, let's call it the positive
electrode from now on) was surrounded by H3O+ ions. Therefore it can't
be a case of "more H2 where H2 was already bubbling and more O2 where
O2 was already bubbling", agreed?

Michel