Re: [Vo]:Preparing for the Defkalion demos of 22 and 23 July
The people who found the e-cat 3rd party test unconvincing will also find this demonstration unconvincing. On the forums the naysayers are already ridiculing the CICAP participant. The press participants Raymond Zreick (italian Focus) and Mats Lewan (Nyteknik) will be dismissed as LENR-promoters. They will also think of something to say about the fourth participant Paolo Vitulo. Regarding the setup of the demontration: The demonstration was not a scientific validation, thus nothing was validated.; Defkalion was fully in control of the setup.; The wires were probably rigged.; They could not inspect the inside of the reactor. Yadda yadda yadda. Those who refuse to consider that this might be actually happening will ask for whatever was not done in the demonstration. On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: What do people expect these demos will show? What could make them convincing or unconvincing? If you reply either publicly or privately, please let me know if I may cite your name if I quote you. [mg] On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: My dear friends. Tomorrow will take place the first public demo of Defkalion's Hyperion. Anticipating this Event, I have published today: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/07/defkalion-is-re-defining-success-in.html re my vision about Defkalion's professional virtues and: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/07/test-protocol-for-public-demo-test-code.html the essential protocol of the demo of Defkalion. I apologize for my lack of experience in publishing pdf. files on my Blogger blog, but anyway you will get the correct impression of this achievement. Please let me and my friends know about what you will learna nd conclude from these two demos and presentations Thank you! Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Why Cold Fusion Has to Die
That article doesn't make sense to me. You are proposing that a name change will make non-listeners into listeners, I don't think that's gonna work at all. I think that any non-listening scientists that would read the a paper published with the new name will immediately figure out that it's plain old cold fusion again, but now they're pushing it to us with yet another name. To them it would only appear as if an attempt was made to hide the topic behind a new name. You are aware that according to mainstream literature the name low energy nuclear reactions is only a weak attempt to shed the negative connotation of cold fusion. Why would you think the use of another name would change that perspective ? The only way to getting cold fusion more into the mainstream is to get the more of mainstream into cold fusion and that won't work by simply relabeling it. One could argue that the first adopters amongst the mainstream are already listening very well. The university of Missouri, Elforsk, even the European commission is showing interest. Or does their involvement means they now have crossed over from the mainstream into the non-mainstream ? The article should not propose a name change for cold fusion, but a name change for mainstream science instead. Proposals are: not sticking one's neck out science, can I make a living with that science, we don't need new science, publish or perish science On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/15/why-cold-fusion-has-to-die/ [mg]
[Vo]: quantum tunneling increases chemical reaction rate at very low temperatures
http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1112887638/quantum-tunneling-methoxy-radicals-space-chemical-compounds-063013/ In this new work, methanol and an oxidizing chemical called the ‘hydroxyl radical’ were allowed to mix at minus 210 degrees Celsius, simulating conditions of deep space. They found that the methoxy radicals were produced as a result of quantum tunneling. Not only that, but the reaction rate was 50 times that of similar mixing at room temperature. “If our results continue to show a similar increase in the reaction rate at very cold temperatures, then scientists have been severely underestimating the rates of formation and destruction of complex molecules, such as alcohols, in space,”
[Vo]: Graham Hubler named director of SKINR
http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2013/0308-hubler-named-director-of-nuclear-renaissance-institute-at-mu/ I also found what projects are running at SKINR http://iccf18.research.missouri.edu/tours.php#SKINR
Re: [Vo]: Graham Hubler named director of SKINR
Some of these projects do not seem to have much to do with cold fusion. it depends, I think they have a lot to do with finding out what cold fusion is On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com wrote: I also found what projects are running at SKINR http://iccf18.research.missouri.edu/tours.php#SKINR Some of these projects do not seem to have much to do with cold fusion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Nanotubes generate huge electric currents from osmotic flow
Interesting. In some ways this is similar to cold fusion research. What FUD could one hurl at it ? - It has not been replicated. - I will only believe this when there are economically viable energy generator. - They have no theory to explain the observation. (somebody kindly check the nature paper if this is true) - It therefore must be a measurement error. - They should stop this research, it is a waste of money. On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: http://www.rdmag.com/news/2013/03/nanotubes-generate-huge-electric-currents-osmotic-flow
[Vo]: Slashdot story about NASA basement reactor
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/13/02/22/0219216/nasas-basement-nuclear-reactor I guess we can expect many inquisitive minds will start looking around for more information on this topic.
Re: [Vo]:Urgent: Until Feb9, can vote for Dr Miley 10kw LENR Thermal Electric Generator
#01 - 2030 BDL water technologies #02 - 1764 HEVO Power: Wireless Charging #03 - 1523 Gravaton Energy Resources #04 - 565 Military OceanEnergy Microgrids #05 - 522 Altenera #06 - 513 Transatomic Power Inc #07 - 450 Solar Wind Energy Tower #08 - 390 Sail Carousel Wind Turbine #09 - 340 LENR distributed power units #10 - 318 AC Kinetics Motor Drive #11 - 309 HighSeasWind #12 - 282 Arc Fault Detection Miley came in #9. On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Rob Dingemans manonbrid...@aim.com wrote: Hi, Anyone any idea of the end result of the voting? Kind regards, Rob Energy Ξ Communication
[Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
It seems LENUCO might be up to get funding from ARPA-E. Maybe. First he'll need enough votes. http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861
Re: [Vo]:Urgent: Until Feb9, can vote for Dr Miley 10kw LENR Thermal Electric Generator
Don't forget to open your email and klick the confirmation link. On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: AFAIK, this is the first ARPA-E funding of LENR. Interesting that it comes on the heels of the resignation of Steven Chu. Coincidence?
Re: [Vo]:George Miley up for ARPA-E funding
Akira, the votes are coming in fairly quick now, just 4 hours ago the counter was at 18, now we're past 80. If anything this will show the LENR supporters across the internet forums what we are capable of. On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: On 2013-02-08 11:49, Moab Moab wrote: It seems LENUCO might be up to get funding from ARPA-E. Maybe. First he'll need enough votes. http://futureenergy.**ultralightstartups.com/**campaign/detail/861http://futureenergy.ultralightstartups.com/campaign/detail/861 It would have been in LENUCO's best interest to let people know about this in advance! What a wasted opportunity. (if not for funding, at least for visibility / public awareness) No chances to take the lead within the remaining time over other projects with 1500+ votes. Cheers, S.A.
[Vo]: Surface magnetism of RuO2 - the results are difficult to reproduce
Surface magnetism and unusual low temperature conductivity of RuO2 ... at very low temperatures the resistivity of RuO2 is extremely low, it is possibly the “best” normal metal, but the situation is complicated by the fact that results are difficult to reproduce. Possible explanations, based on electronic structure calculations will be discussed. http://www.eventure-online.com/eventure/publicAbstractView.do?id=204428congressId=6376 Is this interesting ?
[Vo]: Deuterium retention - Scanning Electron Microscopy revealed large blisters present at the surface.
Here is another one from the currently ongoing Scientific Programme Physics@FOM Veldhoven 2013, Netherlands ( http://www.eventure-online.com/eventure/publicSciProgram.do?congressId=6376) Deuterium retention in self-damaged tungsten exposed to high-flux plasmas http://www.eventure-online.com/eventure/publicAbstractView.do?id=204521congressId=6376
Re: [Vo]:J Ouellette on how stuff works... another lenr bashing
this story is from 2011. On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Robert Dorr rod...@comcast.net wrote: It's hard to understand how someone who writes for the technology minded can be so brain dead. Investigating new technologies with a filter in place just leads to a reaffirmation of ones prior understanding. Not much learned. She makes me a bit cranky. Robert Dorr At 07:44 AM 1/12/2013, you wrote: Ah… “cocktail party physics” … “Combining the best of life into the worst of science ???” *From:* alain.coetm...@gmail.com FYI and article by J ouellette http://science.howstuffworks.com/starships-use-cold-fusion-propulsion.htm/printable start with a nice pitch and is finally lenr bashing, with cherry-picked critics on Rossi, scientific sophism presented as evidence and irony when not enough... see my article http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?1017-JOuellette-LENR-bashing-Could-starships-use-cold-fusion-propulsion some other story by Ouellette on lenr-forum http://www.lenr-forum.com/tags.php?tag=ouellette
Re: [Vo]:J Ouellette on how stuff works... another lenr bashing
Yeah, it's terrible that they don't put a date on their articles, but then again this is timeless BS anyhow. I found out, by chance, because I noticed that several people liked it on facebook and G+'ed it. So I went over to Google+, searched for the title and found the people and then noticed they had all G+'ed in back in Dec 2011. On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: ah... thanks for the info how could you see that, I did not see any date... too bad. anyway old story are interesting. We just have to be less critical on JO, because at that time it was less clear. except in the scientific scene where there was a clear situation since long... clear if you don't close your eyes.. 2013/1/12 Moab Moab moab2...@googlemail.com this story is from 2011.
Re: [Vo]:Slate attacks cold fusion
The article is just a promotion for Seife's book. I didn't know Slade lends itself for that. On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 5:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That tends to be the way things work. I just want to see all the egg upon the faces of those that are so confident that fusion will never work when the proof is going to be impossible to deny very soon. On second thought, the definition of fusion might be modified to protect the innocent! Dave -Original Message- From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 3, 2013 10:17 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Slate attacks cold fusion All good will be attacked. It is a human condition. On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: This is depressing. See: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/nuclear_power/2013/01/fusion_energy_from_edward_teller_to_today_why_fusion_won_t_be_a_source_of.html For one thing, the history of fusion energy is filled with crazies, hucksters, and starry-eyed naifs chasing after dreams of solving the world's energy problems. One of the most famous of all, Martin Fleischmann, died earlier this year. Along with a colleague, Stanley Pons, Fleischmann thought that he had converted hydrogen into helium in a beaker in his laboratory, never mind that if he had been correct he would have released so much energy that he and his labmates would have been fricasseed by the radiation coming out of the device. - Jed
[Vo]:Reifenschweiler effect
I was wondering if the Reifenschweiler effect was ever replicated ? Was an attempt ever made ? If not, why not ? My understanding is that Reifenschweiler discovered the effect in the Philips lab (NatLab) in Eindhoven, Netherlands around 1960/62. He discussed it with Hendrik Casimir who was head of research there. The investigations at NatLab were not continued to further understand the effect further and forgotten. When Fleischmann Pons announced their anomalous heat effect in 1989 Casimir urged Reifenschweiler to publish the (old) results, because he thought it might be related. I read the discussion here with Mark Gibbs about falsifiable theory. It appears that this experiment should be easily repeatable. I have never heard of any lab actually trying a replication. That's strange. Science method dictates that an theoretical understanding is only valid until experiment evidence shows a different behaviour. Yet no research lab wants to (re)produce this evidence. To me that stinks, science is not performing research to falsify their own theory. Any lab could take the Reifenschweiler effect and replicate it. If successful the notion (axiom?) that the radioactive decay rate is constant would be void. And the notion (axiom?) that chemical environment cannot influence nuclear reactions would also be void. What excuses does science have for not performing the research that would disprove the accepted axioms ? My assumption is that the funding agencies only promote the deepening of the current understanding out of convenience: Anomalies are too plentiful to investigate all and it would likely endanger the validity of running programs. I haven't seen any science journalist write a story about this topic, asking these questions, let alone answering them. And therefore we trot on, boldy going where no man was ever supposed to go.
Re: [Vo]:WLT Disproof
mainstream scientists reading LENR papers and replying to them ? What happened, did LENR become noticeable overnight ? On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com wrote: The following paper: Low Energy Neutron Production by Inverse-beta decay in Metallic Hydride Surfaces S. Ciuchi, L. Maiani, A. D. Polosa, V. Riquer, G. Ruocco, M. Vignati has just been uploaded to ArXiv http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.6501 The paper addresses the WLT as presented by Widom, Larsen and Srivastava in peer-reviewed journals and presents very strong objections to the theory that can be summarized as: It has been recently argued that inverse-beta nuclear transmutations might occur at an impressively high rate in a thin layer at the metallic hydride surface under specific conditions. In this note we present a calculation of the transmutation rate which shows that there is little room for such a remarkable effect. It is worthwhile to say that some of the authors are preminent scientists. Luciano Maiani is a San Marino citizen physicist best known for his prediction of the charm quark with Sheldon Lee Glashow and John Iliopoulos. He became Director General of CERN, serving from 1 January 1999 through the end of 2003. Moreover, he is the past-President of the Italian National Research Council (CNR, 2008-2011). Giancarlo Ruocco is deputy Dean at Rome University La Sapienza and Director of the Physics Department. He is in charge for research coordination activities at La Sapienza. The paper will be (or has been, actually I do not know) submitted to peer-reviewed journals to be published; probably in the same journal in which the WLT has been proposed. Since WLT forms the basis of a number of experimental approaches to LENR's (including Brillouin and NASA) maybe it's wise to read and try to understand the paper. Cheers GG
Re: [Vo]:Save the Balloon!
from the article: Helium is extracted from deep underground, where deposits of the gas have built up. pray tell us, how did the helium deposits get there ? On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: The world faces an unimaginable fate: the demise of the helium balloon. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19676639 Only LENR can save us! ;-) Jeff
Re: [Vo]:Save the Balloon!
wikipedia1: the oil industry flares 150 × 10^9 cubic meters natural gas annually, wikipedia2: the concentration of helium in natural gas varies in a broad range from a few ppm up to over 7%. assume average 0,1% of flared gas is helium: 150 x 10^6 cubic meters goes to waste every year. that must be a huge amount of balloons that the oil industry is taking away from the kids, somebody care to calculate ? will somebody think of the children ! On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: The world faces an unimaginable fate: the demise of the helium balloon. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19676639 Only LENR can save us! ;-) Jeff
Re: [Vo]:How can the Wikipedia process be so good if does not work?
The rules/policies are absolutely ok when applied by editors with common sense or for non-controversial articles. For articles on controversial topics a group of editors will feel that they have to protect the article from evil POV pushers. They have a mission: Wikipedia must not expound fringe ideas In some cases they do the right thing by deleting really bad sources, but they have simply lost any form of perspective, they overshoot, some willingly, some unwillingly. They turn the article into a dark alley where only they rule. There is no way to evolve an article in such atmosphere. Those who tried all got blocked or banned, as there will always be a reason to ban an editor. polite POV pushing is suffient. Uninvolved editors who really enjoy working on wikipedia stay away from controversial articles. Wikipedia is based on consensus and just as crooks in a dark alley the editors will have reached a consensus to misuse the rules/policies. Example: The indian scientific journal current science was dismissed by one editor as not reliable source, because they had published a paper by Steven Krivit and it was argued that their peer review is not done properly and that the journal is not significant. The atmosphere is already so devoid from common sense that such a argumentation is simply accepted by fellow editors, just to keep a paper from being mentioned in the article. Wikipedia fails with the set of editors that make up the consensus. POVbrigand On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com, an expert in Wikipedia, wrote descriptions that seem contradictory to me. First he says the policies are great, then he says they are not followed: If you are interested in helping with Wikipedia, do register, but be aware that it can be an abusive community, the policies and guidelines are fantastic, and commonly not followed. They are not followed because the users who understood them gave up pushing the boulder up the hill and watching it roll back again. . . . I do not see how a set of rules can be fantastic when they are routinely ignored. A rule is only fantastic when it is enforceable. The rules lead to many problems: Users who persisted in insisting on policy, against the desires of any kind of cabal or informal collection of editors pushing a particular point of view . . . That is, the Arbs know how to be administrators, they all come from that, but they don't know how to *manage* administrators. They are chosen by popularity, not for management skills, and Wikipedia overwhelms even the best of them. It seems to me you need rules that people can live with and that do not overwhelm even the best administrators. Rules that result in people being overwhelmed need revision. The larger community *does* support the guidelines and policies, the cabals attempt to subvert them and even sometimes openly oppose them. If the larger community supports these things, why are they not enforced? Is there no enforcement mechanism? In that case the rules are inadequate. Look, want to accomplish something on Wikipedia? No, I hope it withers away. Maybe what Abd has in mind here is that the rules are good and with a little tweaking they would work. It seems to me these rules were invented for Wikipedia. They do not work well because they are novel. I am conservative. I think it is better to apply old rules that were invented for conventional media and for conventional academic forums, such as the rules used to run physics conferences. Rule number one should be everyone has to use his or her real name. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Additional paper have been posted on Krivet's site
Several papers name the New York Community Trust as the grant giver. Is there a significant increase in grants for research ? That would be an clear indication of a turning point: more grants, more and better research, more exposure, more credibilty. On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: All of the pre-prints were distributed on a flash card. I will upload them when I return. Krivit has already done so, I see. I don't see why you say sheesh about him. He is being helpful. Krivit did not attend the conference. This was a well organized conference. The organizers demanded that authors turn in a preprint before the conference. I have never seen them do that. I approve of the idea. In the past some have been a year or two late. They gave the authors another month to write a final version. I was the only one who failed to turn in a pre-print, because they only asked me a week or two before the conference. They included me on Friday in the commercialization section. The other papers presented then were pretty good. A lot more technical, detailed and less speculative than previous presentations on this subject. I quibbled with Kleehous because they did not take into account the dollar value of embedded energy, which exceeds the direct cost. I.e.; it takes 1 or 2 liters of gasoline to produce 500 g of meat (depending on the type of meat). - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Brillouin presentation impressive
Jed, thanks for keeping us updated. Do you notice any increase in participation from outsiders ? mainstream journalists ? On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: Defkalion presented the same talk they gave at NIWeek. Not sure if that is online or if the slides are available. I think everything from this conference will be online sooner or later. Probably easier to see than trying to watch in real time via Skype. It is about time we joined the 21st century. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Some new papers, possibly related to LENR
good articles. The last one appears 100% LENR to me. Is this evidence that the topic is gaining attention within the scientific community ? On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:17 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Nuclear reactions, induced by gamma-quanta, in palladium saturated with deuterium surrounded by dense deuterium gas http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/99/2/22001?fromSearchPage=true - Fusion and fissions result in micro-volcanoes on Pd surfaces, along with significant transmutations, similar to those observed in LENR (Full pdf text is available after free account sign-up) Cooperative enhancement of channeling of emission from atoms into a nanofiber ABSTRACT We show the possibility of directional guided superradiance from a linear array of distant atoms separated by one or several wavelengths in a line parallel to the axis of a nanofiber. We find that the rate and efficiency of channeling of emission from the atoms into the fiber are cooperatively enhanced by the guided modes. http://iopscience.iop.org/2043-6262/3/3/035001/pdf/2043-6262_3_3_035001.pdf On the role of the uncertainty principle in superconductivity and superfluidity http://iopscience.iop.org/1674-1056/21/7/070306/ (Full pdf text is available after free account sign-up) Electron screening effects in nuclear reactions: still an unsolved problem http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/337/1/012062?fromSearchPage=true (Full pdf text is available after free account sign-up) Anomalously High Isotope Ratio 3He/4He and Tritium in Deuterium-Loaded Metal: Evidence for Nuclear Reaction in Metal Hydrides at Low Temperature http://iopscience.iop.org/0256-307X/29/1/012503?fromSearchPage=true
[Vo]: European commission recommends funding for LENR research
The European Commission - Directorate-General for Research and Innovation has published a report in which they recommend funding research in LENR. http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/pdf/emerging-materials-report_en.pdf Does this mean that the topic will finally get mainstream recognition ?
Re: [Vo]:July 2nd LENR workshop at Palazzo Montecitorio
LENR is also featured on the upcoming NIweek 2012 http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/06/national-instruments-to-feature-lenr-presentation-by-akito-takahashi-at-niweek-2012/ On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: Hello group, On July 2nd there will be a LENR workshop in Rome. What's interesting it that it will be held in Palazzo Montecitorio, seat of the Italian Chamber of Deputies [1] . What's even more interesting is that a few politicians are actively involved in this as well. A poster for this event can be seen on 22passi: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2012/06/in-un-periodo-di-crisi-come-quello.html Direct link: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EpCqFCbPLwo/T-yUZos1WrI/G7I/1ruH74RXZyw/s1600/PosterA3.jpeg There is also a press release in Italian: http://www.22passi.it/downloads/Comunicato_Convegno_LENR_Camera_Deputati.pdf It appears that physicist Stefano Concezzi, director of National Instruments' Science and Big Physics Segment will attend this event as well. You might remember him for his neutral comments toward Leonardo Corporation / Andrea Rossi last year [2]. Cheers, S.A. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palazzo_Montecitorio [2] http://pesn.com/2011/11/10/9601953_National_Instruments_signs_to_do_E-Cat_controls/
[Vo]: brand new twisted conspiracy theory
It is well known amongst the races of the universe that once a civilization has developed cold fusion they lose their protection and become fair game for intergalactic warfare. The extraterrestrial friends of the Maya explained to them that, unless it can be stopped, this is predicted to happen in December 2012. Therefore the friendlies have tried to steer humanity away from discovering the secret of cold fusion, instead giving them gunpowder, steam, fission and helping them to get hot fusion up and running. This is proven by the newly discovered Maya calendars that go way beyond 2012. However many hostile breeds have infiltrated on earth to force the discovery of cold fusion, so that they can then freely usurp the earth unbound by intergalactic code of conduct. Apart from earlier alchemical attempts the biggest coup happened in 1989 and earth almost lost her protection status. Only a tightly orchestrated effort could pull the neck out of the noose, friendlies were put on key positions to effectively halt advancement in any possible way. Based on this theory it is clear that agents of the hostile aliens are amongst the proponents of cold fusion. Unfortunately they seem to be winning the game and an ever increasing number of innocent earthlings take their side in the hope of a bright future. For the love of planet earth and all its inhabitants, denounce cold fusion. It is not humanity's road to freedom, but our road to destruction and annihilation. It is obvious that anyone who ridicules or pokes fun at this theory is a agent of the hostiles, do not listen to them ! Moab
Re: [Vo]:Featured speakers at ICCF17
According to infinite energy magazine Defkalion Green Technologies and Brillouin Energy have agreed to participate. so we'll be seeing some new younger faces too. On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: See: http://iccf17.org/sub04_03.php I gotta say it . . . What a collection of old farts! - Jed
[Vo]: March 22 - Celani speaks at CERN March 23 - Miley speaks at NETS
Two top LENR researchers speaking about the current status of research the day before and on the 23rd anniversary of the Utah press conference. That almost looks like an orchestrated effort. Could it be just coincidence ? Oh, almost forgot Yeong E. Kim. So make that three top researchers. Moab
Re: [Vo]:Miley obtains 350W from Pd nanoparticle cell at room temp
the agenda is here http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/program.pdf The interesting seesion is on Friday March 23 3:30 pm titled Advanced concenpts: LENR, Anti-Matter and new Physics http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/sess462.pdf Yeong E. Kim is also speaking. Moab On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:14 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs) http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3051.pdf To be presented March 22, at The Woodslands, TX at NETS (Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space meeting) http://anstd.ans.org/NETS2012/NETS2012Home.html http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/sess301.pdf EXCERPT: Excess heat generation from our gas-loading LENR power cell (Figure 1) has been verified, confirming nuc-lear reactions provide output energy. While there are similarities between ours and the Rossi E-Cat gas-loaded kW-MW LENR cells that have attracted inter-national attention, there are important differences in nanoparticle composition and cell construction. Our experiment has established a remarkable proof-of-principle power unit at ca. 350W/kg under room tem-perature when using deuterium (D2) gas (H2 can also be employed) with Pd rich nanoparticles, producing 1479J heat, well above the maximum exothermal ener-gy (690J) possible from all conceivable chemical reac-tions (Figure 2). Neglecting unlikely chemical reaction contributions, the energy gain is virtually unlimited due to negligible power input with gas loading! ...
Re: [Vo]:Rob Duncan comments on Rossi
I am guessing, but it might come from results of Energetics Technologies at the MU incubator http://muincubator.com/clients.html Moab On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: “The success rate is about 20 percent, so we know the conditions must be very specific,” David Robertson, an MU chemistry professor who’s going to be involved in the project, said in a statement. “It’s a hit-or-miss reaction, which is the reason why we’re trying to understand it, and we’re using every tool in the toolbox to find the answer.” Where do you think David Robertson get the 20% figure? Harry On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Great stuff! See: http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2012/feb/12/duncan-talks-cold-fusion-at-saturday-science/
Re: [Vo]:video from NASA about lenr (cold fusion)
Les Case also used C, although as core of his granules which were coated with Pd and he used D gas loading. On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Wolf Fischer wolffisc...@gmx.de wrote: I didn't follow the discussions on the potential catalyst here (as I am no physicist), but could carbon be the missing ingredient (as C is being mentioned in the video)? Have there ever been publications on a H-Ni-C LENR experiment? Or is this something that NASA is working on and hasn't published any details yet? video from NASA about lenr (cold fusion) http://technologygateway.nasa.**gov/media/CC/lenr/lenr.htmlhttp://technologygateway.nasa.gov/media/CC/lenr/lenr.html
Re: [Vo]:Cooper pairing of protons
Maybe someone can shed a light. How are Celani's comments, cooper pairing and Kim's BECNF theory related ? - If they are related, why doesn't Celani mention Kim in his presentation, he mentions almost all other proposed theories ? Moab On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Cooper pairing is a quantum effect of protons which has been mentioned by Axil and others wrt Rossi. Cooper pairing is possible in all Fermions, not just electrons. This terminology is a bit confusing, and it is too bad we do not have a different name for it with protons - since Leon Cooper did not go that far. This paper from Leinson relates to a cooling effect seen in neutron stars, claimed to be due to Cooper pairing of protons. I was not aware that substantial numbers of protons even existed in neutron stars. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0009/0009050v2.pdf Anyway, the cooling mechanism consists of shedding of neutrinos from paired protons. If the phenomenon exists in neutron stars on a massive scale, then perhaps it exists in dense clusters or IRH (inverted Rydberg hydrogen) on a lesser scale. But it is a cooling effect ! This is extremely important for a little known reason (except to a few vorticians). In Brian Ahern's work on the Arata effect, which is probably the same thing as the Thermacore/Piantelli/Rossi/Ni-H effect - but is NOT the F-P effect - Ahern has found both anomalous heating and anomalous COOLING. The only thing which changes is interatomic spacing . The cross-connection of these temperature anomalies to BCS superconductivity is curious in light of Cooper pairing at temperatures which are not near absolute zero. I do not place a lot of faith in Leinson's paper yet, for several reason, and Ahern's report to EPRI has not been released for publication yet. But when it is - perhaps we will be able to tie a lattice cooling effecting with dense hydrogen (pycno or IRH) into a range of expected and predictable phenomena - along with Romanowski. It is all about interatomic geometry in the 1-3 Angstrom range (Figures 1,2,3 in the Romanowski paper). But a cooling effect is so extremely surprising - especially in similar circumstances to where anomalous heating is seen - that we should take special note of it all - especially with the missing ingredient : compreture. Jones
Re: [Vo]:US Senate candidate Randy Hekman puts LENR first
Hekman was one of the men who proposed the cold fusion review to the U.S. Department of Energy. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government/DOE/DOE.shtml On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: Hello group, It looks that Tarr and Romney aren't the only US politicians seemingly open on LENR. From now, you can add to the list Randy Hekman, US Senate candate from Michigan.
[Vo]:ENEA endorses the phenomenon
my first post ... Mary Yugo wrote As Carl Sagan was fond of pointing out, the more extreme the claim, the better the evidence has to be. Anyone can claim anything and there are plenty of strange and not wonderful web sites that demonstrate the phenomenon. The interesting thing to me is always the evidence and not the claim, especially when it comes to Rossi. In their 2009 book *COLD FUSION The history of research in Italy* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#cite_note-ENEAbook-14 The Italian National agency ENEA present an overview of the research in ENEA departments, CNR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consiglio_Nazionale_delle_Ricerche Laboratories, INFN, Universities and Industrial laboratories in Italy. In the foreword of the book Luigi Paganetto, president of ENEA says: *In other words, two government programs – carried out in close interaction and with check of results – have proved the existence of this phenomenon in terms that are not ascribable to a chemical process. This must be considered a starting point. The results achieved so far represent an obligation to continue on the scientific path already started with the aim of achieving a complete definition of the studied phenomenon.* My question to Mary Yugo: Why would the president from ENEA endorse the existance of the phenomenon ? What would be is the rationale for that in your opinion ? If you use rhetoric to dismiss the ENEA as competent research agency or to dismiss its president as a loony then I will know that you have no real answer. Thank you Moab
[VO]: ENEA endorses the phenomenon
my first post ... Mary Yugo wrote As Carl Sagan was fond of pointing out, the more extreme the claim, the better the evidence has to be. Anyone can claim anything and there are plenty of strange and not wonderful web sites that demonstrate the phenomenon. The interesting thing to me is always the evidence and not the claim, especially when it comes to Rossi. In their 2009 book *COLD FUSION The history of research in Italy* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#cite_note-ENEAbook-14 The Italian National agency ENEA present an overview of the research in ENEA departments, CNR Laboratories, INFN, Universities and Industrial laboratories in Italy. In the foreword of the book Luigi Paganetto, president of ENEA says: *In other words, two government programs – carried out in close interaction and with check of results – have proved the existence of this phenomenon in terms that are not ascribable to a chemical process. This must be considered a starting point. The results achieved so far represent an obligation to continue on the scientific path already started with the aim of achieving a complete definition of the studied phenomenon.* My question to Mary Yugo: Why would the president from ENEA endorse the existance of the phenomenon ? What would be is the rationale for that in your opinion ? If you use rhetoric to dismiss the ENEA as competent research agency or to dismiss its president as a loony then I will know that you have no real answer. Thank you Moab
