RE: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

AndyTheGrump?

 

BLP has it in for Grump as well. They filed a law suit against him and others. 

 

http://www.williamslopatto.com/uploads/2/5/8/4/25843913/blacklight_power_inc._complaint.pdf

 

Have no idea if BLP's complaint has managed to get any traction or not. I 
suspect it's gone nowhere. If BLP want's restitution they need to present to 
the public a working prototype that proves OU is occurring. Until then I 
suspect the Grump and all of his cohorts will remain safe as a bug under the 
rug until then... 

 

We're still waiting.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

[Lennart Thornros]

I agree with you Steven, not much will happen before it can be proven BLP
has a product. However, to me it is really sad that BLP need to go to court
to resolve this type of issues. IMHO there is no upside for either party
regardless of the outcome. The only guys laughing all the way to the bank
are the lawyers.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros

www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648

“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

> AndyTheGrump?
>
>
>
> BLP has it in for Grump as well. They filed a law suit against him and
> others.
>
>
>
>
> http://www.williamslopatto.com/uploads/2/5/8/4/25843913/blacklight_power_inc._complaint.pdf
>
>
>
> Have no idea if BLP's complaint has managed to get any traction or not. I
> suspect it's gone nowhere. If BLP want's restitution they need to present
> to the public a working prototype that proves OU is occurring. Until then I
> suspect the Grump and all of his cohorts will remain safe as a bug under
> the rug until then...
>
>
>
> We're still waiting.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
>
> OrionWorks.com
>
> zazzle.com/orionworks
>

RE: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Lennart,

 

> ... However, to me it is really sad that BLP need to go to court

> to resolve this type of issues. IMHO there is no upside for either

> party regardless of the outcome.

 

Indeed. IMO, there is really only one definitive way to settle the matter. 
Build a working prototype proving OU is occurring. Filing a law suit to go 
after Grump and his cohorts accomplishes diddly squat other than eating up 
valuable man-hours and financial resources better spent on building the 
promised prototype. ...to paraphrase a famous saying from a popular movie "If 
you build it, [they] will come." For now, all the Gump has to say is "Where's 
the beef! You've been promising us eminent delivery of a quarter pound double 
cheeseburger for how long now??? I rest my case." IMO, BLP would be wise not to 
press the matter in court. It might be the primary reason why there hasn't been 
much said about the matter since. Going forward, seeking damages, IMO, is more 
likely to end up hurting BLP's image more than any so-called legitimate 
scientific evidence filed in court claiming verification of scientific findings 
would show. Again, No cheeseburger? Grump goes free.

 

> The only guys laughing all the way to the bank are the lawyers.

 

yep.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

 

Re: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

[Jed Rothwell]

Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson  wrote:

> Indeed. IMO, there is really only one definitive way to settle the matter.
> Build a working prototype proving OU is occurring. Filing a law suit to go
> after Grump and his cohorts accomplishes diddly squat . . .
>
Yes, this is foolish. It makes BLP look bad. I see no upside, and no way
they can win.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

[a.ashfield]

I can't see most of the comments because I get a message that there is a 
coding error.


Good luck getting Wiki to change their write up on cold fusion.  I got 
banned from there for arguing with editor AndyTheGrump, who was 
obviously biased and wrong.

Re: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

[Blaze Spinnaker]

There's huge consensus about what works though.   Why not establish that as
a basis and just say other approaches are open questions?  Why does
everyone go to such huge effort to say "pyroelectric fusion which works at
low temperatures isn't cold fusion because it doesn't follow
pons/fleischman experimental apparatus".

What really annoys me to no end is that the first historical usage of the
term cold fusion actually referred to muon catalyzed fusion!!  The whole
term got hijacked by these drama seekers.

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Blaze Spinnaker  > wrote:
>
> The idea that cold fusion doesn't involve hydrogen infused metal is just
>> end-of-times for these people.
>>
>
> It's really hard to sort out what is known from what is conjecture.  There
> are some careful experimentalists who have made some very measured
> statements and drawn some very measured conclusions.  And then there are
> some popularizers who take those statements and overlay all kinds of
> additional details that do not have a sure foundation, applying what they
> believe to be obvious logic, which, when analyzed more closely, is not
> obvious.
>
>- Does CF involve deuterium?  In some cases it appears to.
>- Does CF involve light hydrogen?  There's some evidence that it might
>in some cases.
>- Does CF involve lithium?  In some cases it might.
>- Does CF involve palladium?  Somehow, sometimes.
>- Does CF involve nickel?  Maybe, sometimes.
>- Is helium-4 correlated with excess heat?  Yes, in a subset of CF
>experiments with very specific systems.
>- Is helium-4 always correlated with excess heat in CF?  Hard to say.
>- Is the amount of excess heat indicative of the 23 MeV resulting from
>d+d -> 4He?  There was an experiment by a careful researcher that suggested
>that it was in that particular case.
>- Is the amount of excess heat always indicative of the 23 MeV
>resulting from d+d -> 4He?  Hard to say.
>
> People want to go well beyond measured statements of this kind.  Some are
> willing to manufacture consensus in the process.  It's a little hard to
> watch from the sidelines as this kind of thing is done.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

[Blaze Spinnaker]

Yeah, I know.  It's like these people's brains are utterly broken.   There
is an implicit conspiracy (by BOTH anti and pro pons/fleischman people) to
narrow define cold fusion as experiments done in the late 80s.   The idea
that cold fusion doesn't involve hydrogen infused metal is just
end-of-times for these people.

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

> From Blaze,
>
>
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > I think it will also help the community at large if they view cold
>
> > fusion as completely doable.
>
>
>
> Perhaps it's time for you to update the Wikipedia article on CF in order
> to reflect this important matter.
>
>
>
> See what happens...
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven Vincent Johnson
>
> OrionWorks.com
>
> zazzle.com/orionworks
>

Re: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:

The idea that cold fusion doesn't involve hydrogen infused metal is just
> end-of-times for these people.
>

It's really hard to sort out what is known from what is conjecture.  There
are some careful experimentalists who have made some very measured
statements and drawn some very measured conclusions.  And then there are
some popularizers who take those statements and overlay all kinds of
additional details that do not have a sure foundation, applying what they
believe to be obvious logic, which, when analyzed more closely, is not
obvious.

   - Does CF involve deuterium?  In some cases it appears to.
   - Does CF involve light hydrogen?  There's some evidence that it might
   in some cases.
   - Does CF involve lithium?  In some cases it might.
   - Does CF involve palladium?  Somehow, sometimes.
   - Does CF involve nickel?  Maybe, sometimes.
   - Is helium-4 correlated with excess heat?  Yes, in a subset of CF
   experiments with very specific systems.
   - Is helium-4 always correlated with excess heat in CF?  Hard to say.
   - Is the amount of excess heat indicative of the 23 MeV resulting from
   d+d -> 4He?  There was an experiment by a careful researcher that suggested
   that it was in that particular case.
   - Is the amount of excess heat always indicative of the 23 MeV resulting
   from d+d -> 4He?  Hard to say.

People want to go well beyond measured statements of this kind.  Some are
willing to manufacture consensus in the process.  It's a little hard to
watch from the sidelines as this kind of thing is done.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

[Jones Beene]

Steven,

 

I read the old NYT article just now and yes --- it specifically uses the
term "cold fusion" several times in 1956 . wow. and yes, they are talking
about muon catalyzed fusion at low temperature - the kind with lots of 24
MeV gamma rays as evidence of the reaction. Even though it was initiated
cold, the radiation from the MCF is extremely hot, but does not heat the
reactants. 

 

Steven Jones also claimed the term "cold fusion" for his muon catalyzed
fusion at about the same time as P Clearly either of the two prior
announcements could have precedence, if actual history means anything (it
doesn't). 

 

The problem now is Holmlid - who uses MCF but apparently sees few hot
gammas. If he really is doing what he says, he should see very energetic
gammas.

 

BTW - the article is quoting from Luis Alvarez at Cal. One of the great
Magi.

 

 

From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson 

 

>From Blaze:

 

>
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E03E0D7103FE033A05753C3A9649
D946792D6CF   

 

I wonder if the 1956 article actually uses the phrase "Cold Fusion"? I'm not
clear on that. I'm assuming it didn't.

 

Interesting piece of research nevertheless. Perhaps someone within Vort Land
might like to fork over $3.95 to NYT and get the article. How bout you,
Blaze. Based on some of your prior posts you have given me the impression of
being someone who may have a few extra bucks laying around, just for
gambling occasions like this. ;-)

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

 

[Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

[Blaze Spinnaker]

I was reading the entry for cold fusion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

While I agree with this statement:


*Cold fusion is a hypothetical type of nuclear reaction
 that would occur at, or
near, room temperature .
This is compared with the "hot" fusion
 which takes place naturally
within stars , under immense
pressure and at temperatures of millions of degrees.*

The following statement is utterly false:

*There is currently no accepted theoretical model which would allow cold
fusion to occur.*

For example, both muon and pyro electric fusion will occur at room
temperatures.  We also now have a published statement about laser induced
fusion happening at low temperatures.

I think we're doing a massive disservice to researchers everywhere by
obsessively defining the concept of "cold fusion" as pons/fleischman.
 Normal people care whether fusion can occur  with minimal investment and
low temperatures.

I think it will also help the community at large if they view cold fusion
as completely doable.  There will be increased investment in the area if
people can use the term without having to apologize.  Hopefully people will
stop wasting money on these moronic ITER experiments.

RE: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Blaze,

 

...

 

> I think it will also help the community at large if they view cold 

> fusion as completely doable.  

 

Perhaps it's time for you to update the Wikipedia article on CF in order to 
reflect this important matter. 

 

See what happens...

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

RE: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

[Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Blaze:

 

> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E03E0D7103FE033A05753C3A9649D946792D6CF
>

 

I wonder if the 1956 article actually uses the phrase "Cold Fusion"? I'm not 
clear on that. I'm assuming it didn't.

 

Interesting piece of research nevertheless. Perhaps someone within Vort Land 
might like to fork over $3.95 to NYT and get the article. How bout you, Blaze. 
Based on some of your prior posts you have given me the impression of being 
someone who may have a few extra bucks laying around, just for gambling 
occasions like this. ;-)

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

OrionWorks.com

zazzle.com/orionworks

 

Re: [Vo]:Rewriting the lede on cold fusion for wikipedia

[Blaze Spinnaker]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E03E0D7103FE033A05753C3A9649D946792D6CF


Cold Fusion of Hydrogen Atoms; A Fourth Method Pulling Together

1956!!

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:

> There's huge consensus about what works though.   Why not establish that
> as a basis and just say other approaches are open questions?  Why does
> everyone go to such huge effort to say "pyroelectric fusion which works at
> low temperatures isn't cold fusion because it doesn't follow
> pons/fleischman experimental apparatus".
>
> What really annoys me to no end is that the first historical usage of the
> term cold fusion actually referred to muon catalyzed fusion!!  The whole
> term got hijacked by these drama seekers.
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Eric Walker 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <
>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The idea that cold fusion doesn't involve hydrogen infused metal is just
>>> end-of-times for these people.
>>>
>>
>> It's really hard to sort out what is known from what is conjecture.
>> There are some careful experimentalists who have made some very measured
>> statements and drawn some very measured conclusions.  And then there are
>> some popularizers who take those statements and overlay all kinds of
>> additional details that do not have a sure foundation, applying what they
>> believe to be obvious logic, which, when analyzed more closely, is not
>> obvious.
>>
>>- Does CF involve deuterium?  In some cases it appears to.
>>- Does CF involve light hydrogen?  There's some evidence that it
>>might in some cases.
>>- Does CF involve lithium?  In some cases it might.
>>- Does CF involve palladium?  Somehow, sometimes.
>>- Does CF involve nickel?  Maybe, sometimes.
>>- Is helium-4 correlated with excess heat?  Yes, in a subset of CF
>>experiments with very specific systems.
>>- Is helium-4 always correlated with excess heat in CF?  Hard to say.
>>- Is the amount of excess heat indicative of the 23 MeV resulting
>>from d+d -> 4He?  There was an experiment by a careful researcher that
>>suggested that it was in that particular case.
>>- Is the amount of excess heat always indicative of the 23 MeV
>>resulting from d+d -> 4He?  Hard to say.
>>
>> People want to go well beyond measured statements of this kind.  Some are
>> willing to manufacture consensus in the process.  It's a little hard to
>> watch from the sidelines as this kind of thing is done.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>