Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
If you had bothered to read he references provided you would know your statement is nonsense. There is another type of battery that does not appear in the table above, since it is limited in the relative amount of current it can deliver. However, it has even higher energy storage per kilogram, and its temperature range is extreme, from -55 to +150°C. That type is Lithium Thionyl Chloride. It is used in extremely hazardous or critical applications such as space flight and deep sea diving. On Dec 27, 2011, at 12:46 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Horace, lithium batteries will explode in a high temperatures of ecat, especially if batterypack is thermally isolated. Only chemically plausible idea is to hide a bucketful of thermite or some other oxygen containing mixture of chemical compounds and an apparatus for controlled or catalyzed burning. Just ten liters would be enough for explaining the ecat. But even with the thermite, there will be not just the myriads of engineering difficulties, but also physical limitations that the density of thermite is too low compared to measured 100 kg weight. Of course if there is stuffed some depleted uranium few liters, then we have no problems with the weight. —Jouni On Dec 27, 2011 11:11 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Dec 26, 2011, at 6:32 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Put it this way, if this isn't a nuclear reaction, it is some kind of super-battery, probably worth billions just for that. Unfortunately for this battery idea, ... helium. A Lithium Thionyl Chloride battery works out OK. See post below (archive down at the moment): Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheff...@mtaonline.net Subject:[Vo]:Duplicating Rossi is not worthwhile Date: December 10, 2011 6:20:12 PM AKST Resent-To:undisclosed-recipients: ; To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Duplicating Rossi's setup is not worthwhile. If he is not a fraud it is likely Rossi has something extraordinary. If there is a reasonable chance of actually duplicating that, or something similar, then that is worthwhile. However success along those lines, developing a commercial quality LENR reactor without extensive research and good facilities is highly unlikely - even less likely than developing transistor technology in 1930 I would guess. The notion that Rossi's device is self delusion has looked to me less and less likely day by day. That leaves fraud as the remaining possibility to consider when designing such a test. Such a test is ridiculous. Of course the device can be faked, by numerous means. Despite the fact Rossi removed the outer cover on the E-cat, no one was permitted to see inside the 30x30x30 cm inner box, or the reactor box(es) inside the inner box. Four water tight conduits lead from the outside of the outer box to the inside of the inner box. Anything can be inside the inner box. No one has seen the inside of that box. The inner box has a volume of 27 liters. It can be water tight. What can be put inside the inner box? Lots of chemical things of course. The simplest might be to use a lithium battery, perhaps a Lithium Thionyl Chloride battery. http://www.allaboutbatteries.com/Battery-Energy.html The specifications for Lithium Thionyl Chloride are $1.16 per watt- hour, 700 watts/kg, 2,000,000 Joules/kg, and 1100 watt-hours per liter. For more information of Lithium Thionyl Chloride please contact Tadiran Batteries. The total kWh output produced by the 6 Oct 2011 E-cat was about 27 kWh. See: http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/Rossi6Oct2011noBias.pdf Net output was about 18 kWh. At 1100 wh/liter that is 29.7 kWh capacity in the 27 liter inner box. That leaves a lot of room for electronic control devices. Might need to route some of the cold water input so as to cool the battery. Also, the battery could be pressurized to prevent boiling. I don't think this was actually done because in one photo, after some processing, I could make out the water entry port on the inside of the box. Cool water I think flows under the box through a thin gap, and along the sides, mostly under the flanges that bolt together the top and bottom halves of the 27 liter inner box. I suspect it sits slightly elevated on a few short legs, possibly bolts which penetrate the bottom of the box, but which are sealed. At 2 MJ/kg, or 00.56 kWH/kg, the 29.7 kWh represents 53 kg, right about what is needed inside the inner box to be credible. There are many ways to make a fake that can replicate the public tests Rossi has performed. Actually building one doe not prove very much. Better to to devote the time to experimenting with stuff that might actually work. For some specific examples of stuff that might actually work, see the posts and associated
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
At 10:39 PM 12/26/2011, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: As I read Dr Bushnell, he is saying 5 things: 1) Excess heat is real and has been replicated in 100s of labs around the world. Yes. It has. By a couple of years ago, there were 153 reports of excess heat in peer-reviewed journals, there is a complilation listing those papers on lenr-canr.org. Storms reviews all this in his book, The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction, World Scientific, 2007. This has little or nothing to do with Rossi, except in one way. Once one knows that LENR is possible, the immediate rejection of Rossi isn't quite so simple. Rossi still looks like a con. Note: looks like. 2) The scale of the heat generated is beyond current chemistry. Yes. Note that this is not at all a claim that chemistry, if used in some fraudulent scheme, could not produce this amount of energy. It means that analysis of the experiment by experts in chemistry sometimes shows heat well beyond current chemistry. Given that a nuclear product, helium, has been shown to be very strongly associated with the FPHE, Occam's Razor currently points to ... a nuclear reaction. That the energy ratio is right for deuterium fusion is frosting on the cake, and could be a red herring. Most in the field consider straight deuterium fusion, the direct fusion of two deuterons, to be impossible, just as did the physicists in 1989-1990. As Huizenga told us ad nauseum, on about every page, there are no neutrons, and, when he realized, as he did, the significance of Miles' work with helium, he pointed out, but there are no gammas. Right. No gammas! Get over it! Unkknown nuclear reactions don't follow the rules for known ones. The assumption of two reactants and a single helium nucleus as a product (which would indeed require a gamma or *something* to handle the energy and momentum balance) was just that: an assumption. For some very odd reason, the logic went, if this is a nuclear reaction, it must be d-d fusion, but since the branching ratio is obviously Wrong, since there are no gammas, well, the energy must be artifact and the helium is, of course, leakage from ambient, and we will stuff our ears so that we don't hear about why this is completely inconsistent with the experimental data. People still write ad-hoc Rube Goldberg explanations of how the helium and heat just happen to be consistent with deuterium fusion (by whatever mechanism, if, inside a black box, deuterium is somehow converted to helium, no other products, the energy must be 23.8 KeV per helium nucleus. It would be that if the deuterium is broken down into quarks and then reassembled as helium, it would be that if somehow some neutrons are produced from deuterium (i.e., D2 + e - 2n, or W-L mechanism), and then some transmutation in the cell produces an isotope that ends up ejecting an alpha, if the fuel is deuterium and the product is helium, regardless of what catalysts accomplish the feat, the energy will be that.) 3) What is being observed to occur is not Fusion (Hot or Cold) as it is currently understood. Key word: as it is currently understood. There is a lost performative there. Understood by whom? Whatever cold fusion LENR turns out to be, it is not what everyone thought of in 1989-1990. It's something else. But fusion does remain a simple and popular term that does describe, most likely, what's happening. Just not, most likely, d-d fusion. If it *is* d-d fusion, something is very, very odd about it. For example, the conditions that allow the fusion would have to also drastically modify the branching ratio, and suppress radiation. That's a tall order, one that I don't think Widom and Larsen really appreciate (they do possibly resolve the branching ratio problem, but wave a magic wand to get rid of the expected gammas from neutron activation.) As an example of a possibility that may not be *it*, but that might be close, Takahashi has calculated 100% cross-section for fusion within a femtosecond of the formation of a Bose-Einstein condensate from four deuterons should they be found in a tetrahedral pattern with very low relative velocity, for even about a femtosecond. That is a *prediction* of fusion from quantum field theory, but what is unknown is how this pattern would form, and it is unverified that it actually forms, and the work to predict formation rate hasn't been done. This is solid state quantum mechanics, a field that I was taught was impossibly complex, beyond our capacities, unless perhaps you have a lot of time on some supercomputers. The reaction, then, would be 2 D2 - Be-8 - 2 He-4 (yes, two deuterium molecules, *molecular fusion*, which obviously could only occur at low temperatures), and because there are two products, there is no conservation of momentum problem. There is still an issue of how the energy is dumped. Suffice it to say that there are physicists working on this problem. There should be more, many
RE: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
From Abd: ... I'll comment on it: he [Bushnell] went on to say, but it isn't fusion. That's apparently because he's swallowed, lock, stock, and sinker, Widom-Larsen theory, and isolated, idiosyncratic attempt to explain LENR by coming up with even more preposterous hypotheses, none of which have been tested and shown to be of predictive value. But, Abd, you left out a really juicy part of the email: As you point out, Opdenaker states, as a result of his conversations with NASA scientist, Bushnell: ...MY CHANGE OF MIND WAS A DIRECT RESULT OF TALKING WITH DR. DENNIS BUSHNELL, THE CHIEF SCIENTIST FOR NASA LANGLEY WHO HAS ASSURED ME THAT OVER 100 EXPERIMENTS WORLDWIDE INDICATE THAT LENR IS REAL, CAPABLE OF PRODUCING ENERGY MUCH GREATER THAT CHEMICAL REACTIONS, WITH MINIMAL RADIATION, THAT THEORIES INDICATE THAT WHAT IS HAPPENING IS WEAK INTERACTIONS, BETA DECAY AND NOT FUSION OF ANY KIND. But then, Opdenaker goes on to say: FRANKLY, IT DOES NOT SEEM TO ME TO MATTER WHAT WE CALL IT IF IT WORKS AND BUSHNELL SAYS IT DOES WORK. Opdenaker's brief little comment suggests to me that many who might take a closer look will not necessarily buy into the W-L theory as the correct theory. I think they will care less about any theoretical arguments that claim that the heat can't be due to fusion - that the heat can only be due to beta decay and ultra slow neutrons. I would even venture to say that Opdenaker might have even picked up on the some of the unseemly theoretical politics that seems to have attached itself to the WL camp as they go about denigrating all the other theoretical camps that are also currently on the table. Regardless to the ensuing politics, I gather Bushnell seems to be on favorable terms with the W-L folks and has probably gotten an ear-full from them. I suspect Opdenaker has already picked up on that. Meanwhile, I suspect Opdenaker could care less about what kind of theoretical product placement that might be occurring under the table. All Opdenaker would care about would be how much heat is being produced through the exploitation of a particular engineering process, and can that heat be produced consistently and on demand. The ensuring politics that comes with the favorite theory-of-the-day can come later. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks He knows, though, of the heat evidence, and, indeed, Jed's right, that evidence does show, once we look carefully at the reactions, at what is in the cells under study, heat far beyond that possible from chemical reactions in the cell -- unless they are totally unknown chemical reactions, between elements not known to be present in the cells, somehow being supplied. One can imagine that with Rossi, many have attempted it. With standard FPHE, the chemistry is well-known, and if all the cell components were to be maximally reactions, we'd still be far, far short of what these cells have demonstrated. Put it this way, if this isn't a nuclear reaction, it is some kind of super-battery, probably worth billions just for that. Unfortunately for this battery idea, ... helium.
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
On Dec 26, 2011, at 6:32 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Put it this way, if this isn't a nuclear reaction, it is some kind of super-battery, probably worth billions just for that. Unfortunately for this battery idea, ... helium. A Lithium Thionyl Chloride battery works out OK. See post below (archive down at the moment): Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheff...@mtaonline.net Subject:[Vo]:Duplicating Rossi is not worthwhile Date: December 10, 2011 6:20:12 PM AKST Resent-To:undisclosed-recipients: ; To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Duplicating Rossi's setup is not worthwhile. If he is not a fraud it is likely Rossi has something extraordinary. If there is a reasonable chance of actually duplicating that, or something similar, then that is worthwhile. However success along those lines, developing a commercial quality LENR reactor without extensive research and good facilities is highly unlikely - even less likely than developing transistor technology in 1930 I would guess. The notion that Rossi's device is self delusion has looked to me less and less likely day by day. That leaves fraud as the remaining possibility to consider when designing such a test. Such a test is ridiculous. Of course the device can be faked, by numerous means. Despite the fact Rossi removed the outer cover on the E-cat, no one was permitted to see inside the 30x30x30 cm inner box, or the reactor box(es) inside the inner box. Four water tight conduits lead from the outside of the outer box to the inside of the inner box. Anything can be inside the inner box. No one has seen the inside of that box. The inner box has a volume of 27 liters. It can be water tight. What can be put inside the inner box? Lots of chemical things of course. The simplest might be to use a lithium battery, perhaps a Lithium Thionyl Chloride battery. http://www.allaboutbatteries.com/Battery-Energy.html The specifications for Lithium Thionyl Chloride are $1.16 per watt- hour, 700 watts/kg, 2,000,000 Joules/kg, and 1100 watt-hours per liter. For more information of Lithium Thionyl Chloride please contact Tadiran Batteries. The total kWh output produced by the 6 Oct 2011 E-cat was about 27 kWh. See: http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/Rossi6Oct2011noBias.pdf Net output was about 18 kWh. At 1100 wh/liter that is 29.7 kWh capacity in the 27 liter inner box. That leaves a lot of room for electronic control devices. Might need to route some of the cold water input so as to cool the battery. Also, the battery could be pressurized to prevent boiling. I don't think this was actually done because in one photo, after some processing, I could make out the water entry port on the inside of the box. Cool water I think flows under the box through a thin gap, and along the sides, mostly under the flanges that bolt together the top and bottom halves of the 27 liter inner box. I suspect it sits slightly elevated on a few short legs, possibly bolts which penetrate the bottom of the box, but which are sealed. At 2 MJ/kg, or 00.56 kWH/kg, the 29.7 kWh represents 53 kg, right about what is needed inside the inner box to be credible. There are many ways to make a fake that can replicate the public tests Rossi has performed. Actually building one doe not prove very much. Better to to devote the time to experimenting with stuff that might actually work. For some specific examples of stuff that might actually work, see the posts and associated threads here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44662.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg57397.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg21943.html It might just be as simple as cycling the temperature about the Curie point in a mu-metal filament in high pressure hydrogen gas under the influence of an intense and slowly rotating magnetic field. I might be as simple as loading powdered zeolites with a mu-metal like compound and stimulating with microwaves, or high intensity laser. Despite the odds, there is a tiny possibility a useful and simple solution is available. Better to spend time seeking that than debating the ridiculous. The odds of success may be small, but the payoff is vastly greater. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
Horace, lithium batteries will explode in a high temperatures of ecat, especially if batterypack is thermally isolated. Only chemically plausible idea is to hide a bucketful of thermite or some other oxygen containing mixture of chemical compounds and an apparatus for controlled or catalyzed burning. Just ten liters would be enough for explaining the ecat. But even with the thermite, there will be not just the myriads of engineering difficulties, but also physical limitations that the density of thermite is too low compared to measured 100 kg weight. Of course if there is stuffed some depleted uranium few liters, then we have no problems with the weight. —Jouni On Dec 27, 2011 11:11 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Dec 26, 2011, at 6:32 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Put it this way, if this isn't a nuclear reaction, it is some kind of super-battery, probably worth billions just for that. Unfortunately for this battery idea, ... helium. A Lithium Thionyl Chloride battery works out OK. See post below (archive down at the moment): Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: hheff...@mtaonline.net Subject:[Vo]:Duplicating Rossi is not worthwhile Date: December 10, 2011 6:20:12 PM AKST Resent-To:undisclosed-recipients: ; To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Duplicating Rossi's setup is not worthwhile. If he is not a fraud it is likely Rossi has something extraordinary. If there is a reasonable chance of actually duplicating that, or something similar, then that is worthwhile. However success along those lines, developing a commercial quality LENR reactor without extensive research and good facilities is highly unlikely - even less likely than developing transistor technology in 1930 I would guess. The notion that Rossi's device is self delusion has looked to me less and less likely day by day. That leaves fraud as the remaining possibility to consider when designing such a test. Such a test is ridiculous. Of course the device can be faked, by numerous means. Despite the fact Rossi removed the outer cover on the E-cat, no one was permitted to see inside the 30x30x30 cm inner box, or the reactor box(es) inside the inner box. Four water tight conduits lead from the outside of the outer box to the inside of the inner box. Anything can be inside the inner box. No one has seen the inside of that box. The inner box has a volume of 27 liters. It can be water tight. What can be put inside the inner box? Lots of chemical things of course. The simplest might be to use a lithium battery, perhaps a Lithium Thionyl Chloride battery. http://www.allaboutbatteries.**com/Battery-Energy.htmlhttp://www.allaboutbatteries.com/Battery-Energy.html The specifications for Lithium Thionyl Chloride are $1.16 per watt-hour, 700 watts/kg, 2,000,000 Joules/kg, and 1100 watt-hours per liter. For more information of Lithium Thionyl Chloride please contact Tadiran Batteries. The total kWh output produced by the 6 Oct 2011 E-cat was about 27 kWh. See: http://www.mtaonline.net/%**7Ehheffner/**Rossi6Oct2011noBias.pdfhttp://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/Rossi6Oct2011noBias.pdf Net output was about 18 kWh. At 1100 wh/liter that is 29.7 kWh capacity in the 27 liter inner box. That leaves a lot of room for electronic control devices. Might need to route some of the cold water input so as to cool the battery. Also, the battery could be pressurized to prevent boiling. I don't think this was actually done because in one photo, after some processing, I could make out the water entry port on the inside of the box. Cool water I think flows under the box through a thin gap, and along the sides, mostly under the flanges that bolt together the top and bottom halves of the 27 liter inner box. I suspect it sits slightly elevated on a few short legs, possibly bolts which penetrate the bottom of the box, but which are sealed. At 2 MJ/kg, or 00.56 kWH/kg, the 29.7 kWh represents 53 kg, right about what is needed inside the inner box to be credible. There are many ways to make a fake that can replicate the public tests Rossi has performed. Actually building one doe not prove very much. Better to to devote the time to experimenting with stuff that might actually work. For some specific examples of stuff that might actually work, see the posts and associated threads here: http://www.mail-archive.com/**vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44662.**htmlhttp://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44662.html http://www.mail-archive.com/**vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg57397.**htmlhttp://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg57397.html http://www.mail-archive.com/**vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg21943.**htmlhttp://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg21943.html It might just be as simple as cycling the temperature about the Curie point in a mu-metal
RE: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
... not to mention a few hints (re: supra-chemistry) coming direct from National Labs ... years before nano-thermite made an impact, so to speak. http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/437696-qcD7AM/webviewable/437696.pd f -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Put it this way, if this isn't a nuclear reaction, it is some kind of super-battery, probably worth billions just for that. Unfortunately for this battery idea, ... helium. You appear to have ignored the possibility of super-chemistry, a la Mills or IRH. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
At 11:39 PM 12/26/2011, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Mon, 26 Dec 2011 22:32:07 -0500: Hi, [snip] Put it this way, if this isn't a nuclear reaction, it is some kind of super-battery, probably worth billions just for that. Unfortunately for this battery idea, ... helium. You appear to have ignored the possibility of super-chemistry, a la Mills or IRH. Hydrinos, i.e., a la Mills, would not produce helium unless they catalyze a nuclear reaction. Helium demonstrates nuclear, by whatever mechanism. It's a transmuted element. Look, I can't rule out hydrinos, but I'd expect hydrino-catalyzed fusion to produce the same branching ratio as muon-catalyzed fusion. I.e., the same as hot fusion. Mills doesn't look quite as nuts as Rossi, but I do get a bit, ah, ... impatient ... at announcements of products that are ready any day now, for years. Blacklight Power is, again, *secret* process, like Rossi. What is Rowan University up to now? ...
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
Am 27.12.2011 00:19, schrieb Aussie Guy E-Cat: What no comment on this: My change of mind was a direct result of talking with Dr. Dennis Bushnell, the Chief Scientist for NASA Langley who has assured me that over 100 experiments worldwide indicate that LENR is real, capable of producing energy much greater that chemical reactions, with minimal radiation citation: HOWEVER, IF ROSSI HAS ALREADY SOLD MORE THAN 10 OF THE 1 MW PLANTS AS I AM READING ON THE NET, AND IT TURNS OUT THAT THE PLANTS WORK, AND ROSSI'S CUSTOMERS ARE HAPPY WITH THEM, I DO NOT THINK THAT THE DOE NEEDS TO GET INTO THE MIX TO CONVINCE PEOPLE TO BUY A PRODUCT THAT OTHERS HAVE ALREADY BOUGHT AND ARE WILDLY HAPPY WITH. IT IS JUST A MATTER OF A SHORT WAIT TO SEE WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN.[snip] OPDENAKER FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES OFFICE OF SCIENCE US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 301-903-4941 tel:301-903-4941 albert.opdena...@science.doe.gov mailto:albert.opdena...@science.doe.gov end citation. Now this is a clever man. He comes to the final conclusion, no action on this required, because the stone is already rolling and soon we will see. This is a very diplomatic answer and not without fine irony, but obviously not everybody is able to understand this ;-) Peter
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
At 01:43 AM 12/27/2011, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I'll comment on it: he went on to say, but it isn't fusion. That's apparently because he's swallowed, lock, stock, and sinker, Widom-Larsen theory, and isolated, idiosyncratic attempt to explain LENR by coming up with even more preposterous hypotheses, none of which have been tested and shown to be of predictive value. Abd, If you reject W-L theory, what would you regard as the most reasonable explanation for all of the transmutations reported? Is there a particular paper that you could recommend. I'm too overwhelmed by the complexity of solid state reactions to take any side in the controversy. Transmutations are not observed with any clean correlation with excess heat. Some experiments produce more, some less. Levels of transmuted products other than helium are produced at far lower levels than helium, many orders of magnitude lower. Thus I ascribe transmuations to rare branches or side-reactions. Note that if fusion is actually taking place, it would only take a little leakage of the reaction energies to produce transmutations. As one example, suppose that Takahashi's TSC forms in the middle of a palladium lattice cell. When it collapses, it's a very small Bose-Einstein Condensate. It's conceivable that such a beastie could fuse with a nucleus, producing a +4 Z transmuted element. Suppose that 4D doesn't happen, but 6D does. This would produce +6 Z nuclei, just what Iwamura has reported. But this is all highly speculative. Bottom line, the main reaction in the FPHE is relatively simple. The apparent fuel, we can guess -- we cannot measure this, the amount consumed is way too low -- is deuterium. The energy and helium correlate roughly as expected, and no other products are produced detectably, except at levels way below the helium. Some of those other transmutation products can be detected, such as tritium, and there are many, many reports, enough that we can say that the FPHE does *sometimes* product a tiny amount of tritium. McKubre points out in his recent video -- I highly recommend it -- that the DoE doesn't believe that this stuff works, because if they did believe it, they'd be all over him for producing tritium at SRI. I think you need a license for that! (and probably quantity doesn't matter). In any case, sometimes tritium, sometimes higher-Z transmutation products, but *always* helium.
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
Do we really know Obdenaker actually wrote the email attributed to him? Has anyone checked with NASA's PR office or anyone else there? I think it was just from a post by an anonymous poster in a fan/enthusiast web site run by a guy only known as Ben.
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
On Dec 27, 2011, at 8:31 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 01:43 AM 12/27/2011, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I'll comment on it: he went on to say, but it isn't fusion. That's apparently because he's swallowed, lock, stock, and sinker, Widom-Larsen theory, and isolated, idiosyncratic attempt to explain LENR by coming up with even more preposterous hypotheses, none of which have been tested and shown to be of predictive value. Abd, If you reject W-L theory, what would you regard as the most reasonable explanation for all of the transmutations reported? Is there a particular paper that you could recommend. I'm too overwhelmed by the complexity of solid state reactions to take any side in the controversy. Transmutations are not observed with any clean correlation with excess heat. Some experiments produce more, some less. Levels of transmuted products other than helium are produced at far lower levels than helium, many orders of magnitude lower. This is far from true. Transmutation products have been detected by chemical means, and XRF. This requires large quantities of product. This is one of the great mysteries of LENR - the vast amount of nuclear reactions involved in heavy element transmutation, without the corresponding excess heat. It is explanation of this experimental observation that is one of the strong points of deflation fusion theory. The initial energy deficits in heavy element transmutation, due to the trapped electron, are typically very large. This is due to the large positive charge of the heavy nucleus involved. See: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt for many examples. For Rossi E-cat related examples see: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NiProtonRiddle.pdf The large initial energy deficit makes follow-on weak reactions likely, involving the trapped electron(s) when energetically favorable. Most of the reaction energy, about 99%, is carried away by neutrinos in the case of the follow-on weak reactions. This, plus the initial energy deficit, is why heavy element LENR often produces no observable excess heat. This was discussed with references on page 1 of: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf This lack of corresponding heat from heavy element transmutation, required by and corresponding to the mass deficit change, is also why the huge amount of transmutation that occurs was such a surprise to Bockris and others when it was first observed. Explaining this is one of the strong points of deflation fusion theory. It is an even stronger argument for deflation fusion theory than the fact it also explains the change in branching ratios in D+D fusion, and the 10^-8 ratio of n/T observed in some LENR experiments. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
Abd, If you reject W-L theory, what would you regard as the most reasonable explanation for all of the transmutations reported? Is there a particular paper that you could recommend. I'm too overwhelmed by the complexity of solid state reactions to take any side in the controversy. Thanks, Lou Pagnucco From my reading list at http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg58232.html Fralik's http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government/NASA/20111209NASA-Fralick-GRC-LENR-Workshop.pdf slide 14 Has a brief summary of peer-reviewed contenders. I'd start with : http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol4.pdf#page=40 OR at : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedc.pdf read the whole issue, while you're there Includes latest by various authors, eg : A. Meulenberg and K.P. Sinha Chubb Chubb - - - - For detailed papers I'd also look at : Kim's Bose Einstein Condensates papers http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KimYEgeneralize.pdf 2011 Specifically addressing Rossi Ni H http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KimYEboseeinste.pdf 2009 General theory, Pd D Chubb's Band States 2009 http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbTAovercoming.pdf Note : they have a newer paper in iscmns Vol 4 And to cover D-D interactions, screening and the like Sinha : http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SinhaKPamodelfore.pdf 2008 D-D resonance, phonons, lochons, shielding, coulomb Note : they have a newer paper in iscmns Vol 4 (I don't seem to have a link to Parmenter and Lamb, referenced by Fralik) NOTE : I'm not skilled enough to pick a theory ... but all of these address the impossible argument.
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Do we really know Obdenaker actually wrote the email attributed to him? I expect he would complain if he did not write it. In the modern wired world, he would soon find out someone is circulating a forged memo attributed to him. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
At 01:01 PM 12/27/2011, Horace Heffner wrote: On Dec 27, 2011, at 8:31 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Transmutations are not observed with any clean correlation with excess heat. Some experiments produce more, some less. Levels of transmuted products other than helium are produced at far lower levels than helium, many orders of magnitude lower. This is far from true. Transmutation products have been detected by chemical means, and XRF. This requires large quantities of product. Horace, can you provide a reference for this. It contradicts what I've understood. To be sure, I'm talking about widely reported results, not about isolated reports. This is one of the great mysteries of LENR - the vast amount of nuclear reactions involved in heavy element transmutation, without the corresponding excess heat. It is explanation of this experimental observation that is one of the strong points of deflation fusion theory. Please specify the experimental observation. Quantitatively. Various techniques have been used to detect extremely small quantities of transmuted elements on cathode surfaces, but this work is hampered by the garbage collector characteristic of an electrolytic cathode, it attracts cations from the tiniest impurities in cell materials, one can find almost anything on a cold fusion cathode. However, my understanding has been that the detected quantities, compared to the helium found to be correlated with the FPHE, are far lower. I.e., typical tritium results might be a production of about 10^11 atoms of tritium, compared to, say, 10^14 atoms of helium. That's about three orders of magnitude down. My understanding has been that in most reports, other transmuted elements are at even lower numbers. However, looking through Storms, I do see some reports of higher production rates. One of the problems with transmuation reports are that the techniques are all over the map, and when we are looking for what are usually very low quantities of material, and with many of the reported elements, contamination is a real problem. Earthtech showed fairly well how some reported transmutations were do to cell contaminants, and Storms cautions about the problem studying electrolytic cells re transmutation. There are many research avenues which have not been explored, it's a problem related to the widespread rejection of cold fusion, it became very difficult to get funding for this work, so many promising avenues of exploration have never been followed. Some quite amazing work has been done, as an example, involving biological transmutation, specifically the work of Vyosotskii. The work, as reported, seems definitive. But I've not seen or heard of any attempt to replicate what should be a fairly simple experiment, one merely needs access to Mossbauer spectroscopy, and one of the reported cultures (deinococcus radiodurans has been used, quite a fascinating little bug all by itself. What would be the evolutionary advantage to being astonishingly resistant to radiation? Could it be because the organism does a little nuclear chemistry? If cold fusion results from cavities of a certain size, with loading of the cavities with available elements, it simply wouldn't be utterly beyond the pale for biology to figure out a way to do it, but if there is very short-range radiation, and if the reaction takes place inside a cell, there would be radiation damage. Many cold fusion researchers look for the exits when someone starts talking about biological transmutation, because, after all, isn't that crazy? But it is not really any crazier than cold fusion itself, i.e., highly unexpected, but sometimes nature does what we don't expect. What I've come to is an understanding, a sense of probability that there are many reactions involved, not just one. Some reactions do one thing, other reactions do other things. One of the assumptions that made it difficult to establish cold fusion findings, originally, is exactly the assumption that there was only one reaction. With that assumption, then, but widely differing reported phenomena, the sum of those reports looked to skeptics like proof that CF reseatchers were just imagining things. This experiment produces tritium, that one doesn't. Well, does cold fusion produce tritium or not? Make up your minds! Cold fusion means, in practice, any nuclear reaction, other than possible accelerated decay (known for some beta-capture examples to be possible to influence with chemistry), that takes place with excitation energies below those of thermonuclear fusion. However, the popular usage implies condensed matter temperatures, i.e., below the vaporization temperature of elements, and mostly below the melting point for metals. Other names that are related are LANR, Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reactions. Presumably the lattice provides what Storms calls the Nuclear Active Environment, NAE. It appears that palladium doesn't
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:03:10 -0500: Hi, [snip] At 11:39 PM 12/26/2011, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Mon, 26 Dec 2011 22:32:07 -0500: Hi, [snip] Put it this way, if this isn't a nuclear reaction, it is some kind of super-battery, probably worth billions just for that. Unfortunately for this battery idea, ... helium. You appear to have ignored the possibility of super-chemistry, a la Mills or IRH. Hydrinos, i.e., a la Mills, would not produce helium unless they catalyze a nuclear reaction. True, but Rossi isn't producing Helium, which AFAIK is only produced in experiments using Deuterium. The D-D fusion reaction is one of the easiest to achieve, so it's no surprise that, when D is available, a lot of heat (perhaps most of it) comes from that reaction. OTOH when no D is available, then only the very smallest Hydrinos may be able to fuse resulting in very little if any of the energy release coming from fusion reactions (H-H has such a low cross section that I doubt it makes any significant contribution). Helium demonstrates nuclear, by whatever mechanism. It's a transmuted element. Agreed. Look, I can't rule out hydrinos, but I'd expect hydrino-catalyzed fusion to produce the same branching ratio as muon-catalyzed fusion. I.e., the same as hot fusion. Not necessarily. The shrunken electron(s) may carry away the energy thus conserving momentum while allowing the formation of He4, or a hydrino molecule may be involved in a fusion reaction allowing half to fuse while the other half carries away the reaction energy, or clusters of molecules may be involved (same effect). Mills doesn't look quite as nuts as Rossi, but I do get a bit, ah, ... impatient ... at announcements of products that are ready any day now, for years. Blacklight Power is, again, *secret* process, like Rossi. What is Rowan University up to now? ... I don't think Blacklight Power is especially secretive, beyond the normal commercial secretiveness that one might reasonably expect. In fact I think that they have revealed a great deal more than others in their position might have. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
On Dec 27, 2011, at 5:40 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 01:01 PM 12/27/2011, Horace Heffner wrote: On Dec 27, 2011, at 8:31 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Transmutations are not observed with any clean correlation with excess heat. Some experiments produce more, some less. Levels of transmuted products other than helium are produced at far lower levels than helium, many orders of magnitude lower. This is far from true. Transmutation products have been detected by chemical means, and XRF. This requires large quantities of product. Horace, can you provide a reference for this. It contradicts what I've understood. As I noted, this was discussed with references on page 1 of: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf See references: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20. Reference 14 is good, for example: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYobservatiob.pdf Transmutation of Cs into Pr was demonstrated in more than 60 cases, with reproducibility close to 100%. Thus the results were highly repeatable. No electrolysis was used to accomplish the transmutations, just gas flow. The Pr was cross- checked by various methods such as XPS, TOF-SIMS (Time of Flight Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry), XANES (X-ray Absorption Near Edge Structure), XRF and ICP-MS (Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry). Analysis was performed in situ, before and after using XREF, thus avoiding contamination. Check the references at the end of this and other articles for more information. To be sure, I'm talking about widely reported results, not about isolated reports. Baloney. What widely reported results of a single experiment are there in this field? Lack f interest in replication has always been a problem in this field. Every researcher wants to get in his ego mods. There are more theories than researchers. The fact is almost any researcher that looks for transmutations in LENR experiments finds them. This is one of the great mysteries of LENR - the vast amount of nuclear reactions involved in heavy element transmutation, without the corresponding excess heat. It is explanation of this experimental observation that is one of the strong points of deflation fusion theory. Please specify the experimental observation. Quantitatively. Various techniques have been used to detect extremely small quantities of transmuted elements on cathode surfaces, but this work is hampered by the garbage collector characteristic of an electrolytic cathode, it attracts cations from the tiniest impurities in cell materials, one can find almost anything on a cold fusion cathode. However, my understanding has been that the detected quantities, compared to the helium found to be correlated with the FPHE, are far lower. I.e., typical tritium results might be a production of about 10^11 atoms of tritium, compared to, say, 10^14 atoms of helium. That's about three orders of magnitude down. Take a look at Fig. 2 of reference 10: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHreviewoftr.pdf The y axis is in units of 10^14 atoms/cm^2. Many transmutation results exceed He concentrations from D+D experiments, and the products are much easier to count reliably. Theories that account for D+D--He account for only a tiny part of the mysteries of cold fusion, a little corner of the field. The major mystery is the lack of corresponding heat and very high energy particles that can be expected from heavy element transmutation. This is what my theory addresses. It also happens to cover the more ordinary X+p, X+D and D+D results. A lack of heat from various heavy element experiments constitutes a violation of conservation of energy. Pretty darn strange this gets swept under the rug, ignored, isn't it! That puts a twist in some knickers I'll bet. Its a huge elephant in the room. I stinks and bellows and breaks china, yet is completely ignored. It is a potential source of derision. Life was difficult enough on folks like Bockris at TAMU, just from the cold fusion fiasco. My understanding has been that in most reports, other transmuted elements are at even lower numbers. Most reports is not all reports, it still leaves many reports, some focused strictly on heavy LENR. Light water experiments can produce transmutations, and helium is not even an issue. Also, there is much literature on transmutation observations. It seems you are up on D+D in Pd but not much on heavy element transmutation. It is well worth the trouble to read up on it. I think the real mysteries of LENR, and the greatest opportunities for amateur work, lie in the heavy element transmutations. Overcoming the Coulomb barrier is much more difficult to explain when it happens into a nucleus with 28 protons, vs just one. With long run times transmutatin experiments might be much better subject matter for high school lab
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
I forgot to mention Table 2 of: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHreviewoftr.pdf Note that the results are reported in percent of isotopic abundance. In terms of atoms this is *huge*. It is *huge* compared to helium results. If you find related reactions in my tables (all energetically feasible reactions are included, whether of unobservable branch probability or not) at: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt you will see that the energies involved are enormous in most all cases involved. Iwamura results were treated in some special reports at the end. Note that only the strong reactions, which precede the weak reactions, are included in my tables. Weak reactions often follow immediately, and only add to the mass difference. There is a giant missing energy problem, in addition to the enormous missing energetic signature radiation problem, when it comes to heavy element transmutation. My theory provides some answers to this missing transmutation energy. Too bad no one has focused on that. I suspect few if any were even aware of it, until I posted it. Even then, I think it was ignored. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
Better link: http://e-catsite.com/2011/12/26/more-helpful-e-mails-from-the-doe/ AG On 12/27/2011 9:19 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: http://ecatnews.com/?p=1717
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: Better link: http://e-catsite.com/2011/12/26/more-helpful-e-mails-from-the-doe/ An email to Mr. X? Hah! Now we know who Rossi's anonymous buyer is. It's none other than Mr. X!!
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
What no comment on this: My change of mind was a direct result of talking with Dr. Dennis Bushnell, the Chief Scientist for NASA Langley who has assured me that over 100 experiments worldwide indicate that LENR is real, capable of producing energy much greater that chemical reactions, with minimal radiation AG On 12/27/2011 9:34 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: Better link: http://e-catsite.com/2011/12/26/more-helpful-e-mails-from-the-doe/ An email to Mr. X? Hah! Now we know who Rossi's anonymous buyer is. It's none other than Mr. X!!
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: What no comment on this: My change of mind was a direct result of talking with Dr. Dennis Bushnell, the Chief Scientist for NASA Langley who has assured me that over 100 experiments worldwide indicate that LENR is real, capable of producing energy much greater that chemical reactions, with minimal radiation I'd be happy to comment after Mr. Opdenaker confirms he wrote it and allows questions. At the moment, it's nothing but an unverified email exchange with a Mr.X, an unidentified party, on a weird believer-oriented web site full of silly comments from obviously ignorant participants. It's also a web site whose owner is unknown. I will say immediately that Dr. Bushnell is entitled to his opinion but until he shown the most spectacular experiments and answers the critiques to them, believing anything because he says so is simply an appeal to authority logical fallacy. Far as I know, Dr. Bushnell has not repeated and independently confirmed any of the experiments. If he had, and had done so properly, his opinion, if the quote is accurate, would be worthy of more consideration. Meanwhile, I'd think you'd want to put pressure on Defkalion and Rossi to get independent testing. Defkalion seems to keep promising it without producing it while Rossi keeps prattling about anonymous customers and a million E-cats to the public this coming year when nobody EVER has been able to prove they got a SINGLE E-cat.
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
Why not call Mr. Opdenaker to confirm? His phone number and email are listed. I find it amazing how easily you put down Dr. Bushnell, casting aside his statement as if it has no value? MY if you were really after the truth, you could have seen a working FPE device by now. AG On 12/27/2011 9:57 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: What no comment on this: My change of mind was a direct result of talking with Dr. Dennis Bushnell, the Chief Scientist for NASA Langley who has assured me that over 100 experiments worldwide indicate that LENR is real, capable of producing energy much greater that chemical reactions, with minimal radiation I'd be happy to comment after Mr. Opdenaker confirms he wrote it and allows questions. At the moment, it's nothing but an unverified email exchange with a Mr.X, an unidentified party, on a weird believer-oriented web site full of silly comments from obviously ignorant participants. It's also a web site whose owner is unknown. I will say immediately that Dr. Bushnell is entitled to his opinion but until he shown the most spectacular experiments and answers the critiques to them, believing anything because he says so is simply an appeal to authority logical fallacy. Far as I know, Dr. Bushnell has not repeated and independently confirmed any of the experiments. If he had, and had done so properly, his opinion, if the quote is accurate, would be worthy of more consideration. Meanwhile, I'd think you'd want to put pressure on Defkalion and Rossi to get independent testing. Defkalion seems to keep promising it without producing it while Rossi keeps prattling about anonymous customers and a million E-cats to the public this coming year when nobody EVER has been able to prove they got a SINGLE E-cat.
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: Why not call Mr. Opdenaker to confirm? His phone number and email are listed. I don't want to pester him by telephone but I am thinking of sending an email. I'd rather someone from the press do it -- perhaps Krivit will.0 BTW, do you think it wise to place an email address openly on the internet where robots/spyders can grab it? I bet he got lots of penis enlargement ads and plenty of offers to open new bank accounts to deposit millions of inheritance dollars from Nigeria.
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
And here I thought I was the only person to get those. Damn I'm not so special alter all. Oh well time to play with my FPE cell. Did I tell you I have learned how to make it levitate and act like a room temperature superconducting ring magnet? Amazing technology. Now if I can just get the right dial-in code I can unlock the 9th chevron and start mining Naquadah, my fortune is assured. AG On 12/27/2011 10:10 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: I bet he got lots of penis enlargement ads and plenty of offers to open new bank accounts to deposit millions of inheritance dollars from Nigeria.
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
AG, I would like to get my hands on one of those levitating FPE devices. My UFO drive needs to be improved since the old one has exhausted its N-H system. Have you had to change a flat when far away from home? Actually, I want to congratulate you for your efforts in this field. We need to have more people that are willing to go the extra mile. Dave -Original Message- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 26, 2011 6:55 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi? And here I thought I was the only person to get those. Damn I'm not so pecial alter all. Oh well time to play with my FPE cell. Did I tell you have learned how to make it levitate and act like a room temperature uperconducting ring magnet? Amazing technology. Now if I can just get he right dial-in code I can unlock the 9th chevron and start mining aquadah, my fortune is assured. AG n 12/27/2011 10:10 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: I bet he got lots of penis enlargement ads and plenty of offers to open new bank accounts to deposit millions of inheritance dollars from Nigeria.
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
At 06:19 PM 12/26/2011, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: What no comment on this: My change of mind was a direct result of talking with Dr. Dennis Bushnell, the Chief Scientist for NASA Langley who has assured me that over 100 experiments worldwide indicate that LENR is real, capable of producing energy much greater that chemical reactions, with minimal radiation I'll comment on it: he went on to say, but it isn't fusion. That's apparently because he's swallowed, lock, stock, and sinker, Widom-Larsen theory, and isolated, idiosyncratic attempt to explain LENR by coming up with even more preposterous hypotheses, none of which have been tested and shown to be of predictive value. He knows, though, of the heat evidence, and, indeed, Jed's right, that evidence does show, once we look carefully at the reactions, at what is in the cells under study, heat far beyond that possible from chemical reactions in the cell -- unless they are totally unknown chemical reactions, between elements not known to be present in the cells, somehow being supplied. One can imagine that with Rossi, many have attempted it. With standard FPHE, the chemistry is well-known, and if all the cell components were to be maximally reactions, we'd still be far, far short of what these cells have demonstrated. Put it this way, if this isn't a nuclear reaction, it is some kind of super-battery, probably worth billions just for that. Unfortunately for this battery idea, ... helium.
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
At 06:27 PM 12/26/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.comaussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: What no comment on this: My change of mind was a direct result of talking with Dr. Dennis Bushnell, the Chief Scientist for NASA Langley who has assured me that over 100 experiments worldwide indicate that LENR is real, capable of producing energy much greater that chemical reactions, with minimal radiation I'd be happy to comment after Mr. Opdenaker confirms he wrote it and allows questions. At the moment, it's nothing but an unverified email exchange with a Mr.X, an unidentified party, on a weird believer-oriented web site full of silly comments from obviously ignorant participants. It's also a web site whose owner is unknown. I will say immediately that Dr. Bushnell is entitled to his opinion but until he shown the most spectacular experiments and answers the critiques to them, believing anything because he says so is simply an appeal to authority logical fallacy. Far as I know, Dr. Bushnell has not repeated and independently confirmed any of the experiments. If he had, and had done so properly, his opinion, if the quote is accurate, would be worthy of more consideration. Mary, Bushnell is not talking about Rossi on that point, and that you seem to think he is, shows how easily you are misunderstanding this field. LENR is real. That says practically nothing about whether or not Rossi is real. Rossi is not established as to science. There have been no independent replications, and the original work hasn't been published in the normal way, and much of what Rossi does remains secret. Secret means we don't know, that we can only speculate. People seem inclined to speculate in ways that confirm what they already believe. Amazing how we do that, eh?
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
As I read Dr Bushnell, he is saying 5 things: 1) Excess heat is real and has been replicated in 100s of labs around the world. 2) The scale of the heat generated is beyond current chemistry. 3) What is being observed to occur is not Fusion (Hot or Cold) as it is currently understood. 4) WL seem to be on the right track in developing a workable theory. 5) NASA is interested and has done replications. AG On 12/27/2011 2:02 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 06:19 PM 12/26/2011, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: What no comment on this: My change of mind was a direct result of talking with Dr. Dennis Bushnell, the Chief Scientist for NASA Langley who has assured me that over 100 experiments worldwide indicate that LENR is real, capable of producing energy much greater that chemical reactions, with minimal radiation I'll comment on it: he went on to say, but it isn't fusion. That's apparently because he's swallowed, lock, stock, and sinker, Widom-Larsen theory, and isolated, idiosyncratic attempt to explain LENR by coming up with even more preposterous hypotheses, none of which have been tested and shown to be of predictive value. He knows, though, of the heat evidence, and, indeed, Jed's right, that evidence does show, once we look carefully at the reactions, at what is in the cells under study, heat far beyond that possible from chemical reactions in the cell -- unless they are totally unknown chemical reactions, between elements not known to be present in the cells, somehow being supplied. One can imagine that with Rossi, many have attempted it. With standard FPHE, the chemistry is well-known, and if all the cell components were to be maximally reactions, we'd still be far, far short of what these cells have demonstrated. Put it this way, if this isn't a nuclear reaction, it is some kind of super-battery, probably worth billions just for that. Unfortunately for this battery idea, ... helium.
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Mon, 26 Dec 2011 22:32:07 -0500: Hi, [snip] Put it this way, if this isn't a nuclear reaction, it is some kind of super-battery, probably worth billions just for that. Unfortunately for this battery idea, ... helium. You appear to have ignored the possibility of super-chemistry, a la Mills or IRH. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:US DOE alters it's stance on LENR and Rossi?
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I'll comment on it: he went on to say, but it isn't fusion. That's apparently because he's swallowed, lock, stock, and sinker, Widom-Larsen theory, and isolated, idiosyncratic attempt to explain LENR by coming up with even more preposterous hypotheses, none of which have been tested and shown to be of predictive value. Abd, If you reject W-L theory, what would you regard as the most reasonable explanation for all of the transmutations reported? Is there a particular paper that you could recommend. I'm too overwhelmed by the complexity of solid state reactions to take any side in the controversy. Thanks, Lou Pagnucco
