2010/3/21 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com:
Michel Jullian wrote:
Such an evaluation is not foolproof, as even if the experimental setup is
made fully open to the experts and they find nothing wrong with it (heating
resistor current as advertised etc), there is no way to be sure there
2010/3/21 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com:
Merci beaucoup, Michel...
My interest is in technology and this resurrection or rejuvenation of the
Piantelli system
is the first really interesting event after many years. It is a great
mystery what has happened between 1994 and 2008, it is
ABD
Perhaps Steve is defining the W-L theoretical reaction (and any other method
that does not involve brute force smashing of the Coulomb barrier) as not
fusion to differentiate it/them from the popular perceptions of mainstream
science that Cold Fusion cannot happen because of the Coulomb
Dear Michel,
I believe the claims because I know the history of the system invented by
Piantelli, I admire Piantelli and trust him. And he says the system is 100%
reproducible and the heat release is intense. And you have to take great
care with scale-up. I have no idea how Focardi who was a
Michel Jullian wrote:
You need not worry about that sort of thing.
I have been in contact with
both parties,
and they have already taken apart the cells.
Which parties?
Please ask me again in 3 months.
6 or 7 kg would be the weight of a complete 1kW device, and the US is
not the only
I wrote:
The slides shown in the video are here:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/RealityOfLENRMythologyColdFusion.shtmlhttp://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/RealityOfLENRMythologyColdFusion.shtml
I meant HERE:
Dear Peter,
Let me see if I understand, you believe the Rossi Focardi claims
because you believe Piantelli when he _says_ he too has 100%
reproducible intense excess heat with Ni-H. It's all based on trust,
right?
You missed my point about Scott/Earthtech, which is not that they have
a more
Nick Palmer wrote:
Perhaps Steve is defining the W-L theoretical reaction (and any
other method that does not involve brute force smashing of the
Coulomb barrier) as not fusion to differentiate it/them from the
popular perceptions of mainstream science that Cold Fusion cannot
happen because
Michel Jullian wrote:
You missed my point about Scott/Earthtech, which is not that they
have a more sensitive calorimeter (which for kW level power is
irrelevant I agree), but that they can perform an _independent_
measurement of the device.
As a practical matter, given the difficulties of
2010/3/23 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com:
Michel Jullian wrote:
You need not worry about that sort of thing.
I have been in contact with
both parties,
and they have already taken apart the cells.
Which parties?
Please ask me again in 3 months.
I thought you didn't want to know
Dear Michel,
Yes it is based on trust, I could not visit these labs- but I will try to,
this summer.
But this trust is based on knowing the history of the system and its father.
I have not missed any point re Scott Little. I don't believe he or anybody
else will be
able to reproduce the working
Nick,
Please look at Horace's prior comments on this in the archive. They are
right on.
By claiming a beta decay and an ultra-low momentum neutron - W-L do NOT
avoid the problem of fusion (including NA and transmutation). They merely
make it a secondary step and avoid talking about it. Plus
I think this is partly a matter of form. Marwan may have judged these
slides inappropriate because they use the wrong style of speech. I
would have tossed them out for that reason. It is a matter of saying
things in a certain way. In a formal presentation at a chemistry
conference, you can say
Michel Jullian wrote:
Which parties?
Please ask me again in 3 months.
I thought you didn't want to know any CF information that you could
not divulgate ;-)
Seriously, that is my rule. I am bending it slightly. That's Arthur
Clarke's rule, also expressed by Steve Early of the FDR
It turns out the ACS session was broadcast in real time on the web. I
wish I had known! Also, Krivit just told me that he wasn't the one
relaying questions from Larsen. That was someone else. Anyway, it is
a darn good idea to have people participate via the web. I wish the
ICCF conferences
On Mar 23, 2010, at 7:45 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
[snip a bunch of stuff with which I agree]
I wrote: Windom and Larsen estimate slow neutrons to be absorbed in
less than a nanometer, 10^-9 meter, about 10 angstroms. That is about
10 hydrogen atoms, or 3 Pd atoms in width. If neutrons can
Dear Vorts,
I see by the subject header that some messages on Vortex have been directed
at me personally again.
I had thought people on Vortex were more mature than this.
I had thought people on Vortex had less tolerance for personal attacks.
I had thought that personal attacks were
2010/3/23 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com:
Dear Michel,
Yes it is based on trust, I could not visit these labs- but I will try to,
this summer.
But this trust is based on knowing the history of the system and its father.
I have not missed any point re Scott Little. I don't believe he or
http://www.physorg.com/news188377829.html
'Cold fusion' moves closer to mainstream acceptance
A potential new energy source so controversial that people once
regarded it as junk science is moving closer to acceptance by the
mainstream scientific community. That's the conclusion of the
organizer
Dear Michel,
I am, modesty apart, quite good in empathy. I can put myself in the place of
the inventor.
Why, for God's sake should he take his device to Earthtech's lab and make
measurments
to demonstrate that they get excess heat? Is Earthtech legally such a great
authority
in calorimetry
2010/3/23 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com:
Michel Jullian wrote:
You missed my point about Scott/Earthtech, which is not that they have a
more sensitive calorimeter (which for kW level power is irrelevant I agree),
but that they can perform an _independent_ measurement of the device.
as
A question for the Vort Collective:
Does the use of the term Fusion HAVE to imply there must exist a
mechanism or process that directly overcomes the Coulomb barrier - by
brute force?
Could fusion also be used to explain a mechanism or process, a
process that is not yet understood and as such is
I was under the impression that nuclear fusion means any process that
fuses the nuclei of two or more atoms.
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:56 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
A question for the Vort Collective:
Does the use of the term Fusion HAVE to imply there
Quoting from the Windom and Larsen (WL) article at:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0509269v1
Low energy nuclear reactions in the neighborhood of metallic hydride
surfaces may be induced by ultra-low momentum neutrons. Heavy
electrons are absorbed by protons or deuterons producing ultra low
From Alexander:
I was under the impression that nuclear fusion means any process that
fuses the nuclei of two or more atoms.
...
That may indeed be the impression that many hold. It is, in fact, the
impression I hold as well.
Nevertheless, I'm also under the impression that many may NOT
At 11:05 AM 3/23/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Nick Palmer wrote:
Perhaps Steve is defining the W-L theoretical reaction (and any
other method that does not involve brute force smashing of the
Coulomb barrier) as not fusion to differentiate it/them from the
popular perceptions of mainstream
Video of ACS press conference session for cold fusion
http://tinyurl.com/ycg2eug
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/5620243#utm_campaigne=synclickbacksource=http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/03/miley-20100322.html#moremedium=5620243
Harry
Dear Peter,
If I was the inventor, I would take my cold fusion cell, *as a black
box to preserve my secrets*, to whatever authority accepts to test it
(Earthtech is willing, if NIST is willing let it be NIST, good idea),
to get the excess heat certified.
Why, you ask? To make it considerably
At 01:27 PM 3/23/2010, Steven Krivit wrote:
Dear Vorts,
I see by the subject header that some messages on Vortex have been
directed at me personally again.
I had thought people on Vortex were more mature than this.
You did? Where did you get that idea?
I had thought people on Vortex had
Here is the video of the cold fusion press conference at the APS:
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/5620243http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/5620243
If that doesn't work there is a link here:
Iron-nitrogen compound forms strongest magnet known
March 22, 2010 by Lin Edwards
Fe16N2. Image credit: Kikkawa
Laboratory
(PhysOrg.com) -- A group of scientists from the
University of
Minnesota say that Fe16N2 crystals
are more magnetic than the most
magnetic material previously known,
Michel Jullian wrote:
If I was the inventor, I would take my cold fusion cell, *as a black
box to preserve my secrets*, to whatever authority accepts to test it
I do not think there is any chance that would work. I have never seen
a cold fusion experiment that did require disassembling the
Steven Krivit wrote:
I see by the subject header that some messages on Vortex have been
directed at me personally again.
I had thought people on Vortex were more mature than this.
Oh come off it. The only person who has insulted you is you. You
should be ashamed of yourself for trying to
At 01:56 PM 3/23/2010, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
A question for the Vort Collective:
Does the use of the term Fusion HAVE to imply there must exist a
mechanism or process that directly overcomes the Coulomb barrier - by
brute force?
Absolutely not. Muon-catalyzed fusion does it
okay, this isnt a definition of Fusion youre looking for , but a
theory of how fusion works?
Two different things my friend.
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:44 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
From Alexander:
I was under the impression that nuclear fusion means any
Presenters are M. Miles, G. Miley, V. Vysotskii, P. Hagelstein, M.
McKubre and J. Marwan.
- Jed
On Mar 23, 2010, at 9:56 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
A question for the Vort Collective:
Does the use of the term Fusion HAVE to imply there must exist a
mechanism or process that directly overcomes the Coulomb barrier - by
brute force?
The term in question I think is nuclear
Michel Jullian wrote:
It is less independent than using a fresh cathode and
your own cell.
Which, since you don't really know what makes the original cell work,
is even harder than moving the original cell.
We know what makes the cells work. With bulk Pd the control
parameters are well
http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2010/03/acs_cold_fusion_calorimeter.html
Still skeptical, but you can tell she's beginning to think, Katherine
Sanderson notes this:
The discussion about excess heat in these reactions could be one of
semantics, says Michael McKubre, of SRI International in
It strikes me as a good thing to have debate of public interest
regarding the causes of cold fusion and heavy element low energy
nuclear reactions. Better to argue about why it happens than if it
happens. However, it is also clearly useful to assume the integrity
of the scientists
From Alexander:
okay, this isnt a definition of Fusion youre looking for,
but a theory of how fusion works?
I'm not looking for a specific theory of how fusion works.
My original question was more in tune with what might be considered a
sociological query: What does the term fusion define?
I recommend everyone see the video.
I doubt the content will be a revelation to anyone here but there
were some interesting comments by Vysotskii and others. I love
Vysotskii's reason for doing the biologic cold fusion research:
because it's interesting.
The only news to me is that Melvin
Dear Cousin Jed,
You are right in principle, we have many elements of *know wha*t and *know
how *re the cells.
We know the critical parameters but we cannot always achieve them. We
definitely have no *know why* because we do not have first class theories
that predict, we also do not have
second
fusion means to make two things one. It is a much older term than
anything we use it to mean. One could say that pouring water into a
pan and adding sugar, you have made a fusion of water and sugar.
Nuclear fusion is something different. You are being way to general,
it seems to be.
On Tue, Mar
At 03:46 PM 3/23/2010, Horace Heffner wrote:
The term in question I think is nuclear fusion. There are many
definitions which do not mention the Coulomb barrier. However, it
appears plasma fusion is often assumed.
And the reason is obvious. Almost all known fusion is plasma,
thermonuclear
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:17:42 -0700 (PDT):
Hi,
[snip]
Iron-nitrogen compound forms strongest magnet known
March 22, 2010 by Lin Edwards
Fe16N2. Image credit: Kikkawa
Laboratory
(PhysOrg.com) -- A group of scientists from the
University of
Minnesota say
Fusion mechanism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The fusion mechanism is the mechanism by which cell fusion takes place. Cell
fusion is the formation of a hybrid cell from two different cells of different
species.[1][2] Cells from the same organism may fuse together as well. This is
How do you make babies?
In a canoe or in a bed?
Harry
__
Connect with friends from any web browser - no download required. Try the new
Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA at
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
And the reason is obvious. Almost all known fusion is plasma,
thermonuclear fusion.
A.k.a. the brute force method. In the ACS press briefing, Peter
Hagelstein called this kind of fusion vacuum reactions which I
think is a good term.
Regarding words and the
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Notice how Krivit's presentation is being read. The negativity is being
picked up, the positive aspects, Krivit's assertions that LENR is real, are
not being seen.
Maybe it's the Oilies?
T
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
Better to argue about why it happens than if it happens.
And how!
T
(intended double entendre)
Useful comments, Jed,
The intent of my original query was to ask if there exists any kind of
a perceived battle or struggle going on (subtle or not-so-subtle)
pertaining to whether the use of the term, nuclear fusion, must
imply a mechanism of overcoming the Coulomb barrier by some brute
force
This Nature blog is pretty good. It is better than anything else I
recall seeing from Nature in the last 21 years. RIP Maddox.
As Abd noted this is marred by Steve Krivit making a spectacle of
himself. But not by much.
- Jed
At 05:23 PM 3/23/2010, Harry Veeder wrote:
How do you make babies?
In a canoe or in a bed?
Intercourse. A method whereby a man and a woman remove their
clothes and come together in a bed to make babies.
Therefore if it happens in a canoe, it ain't intercourse.
Those people in the canoe,
On 03/23/2010 02:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 01:27 PM 3/23/2010, Steven Krivit wrote:
...
If that's the way you want Vortex to be, not a problem. Journalists
are used to people coming unglued when we report hard-hitting facts
that ruffle people's feathers.
Or when they become
On Mar 23, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I do not know of any worthwhile secrets in this field in any case.
- Jed
Well of course not. They're secret! 8^)
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
On Mar 23, 2010, at 1:38 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Horace Heffner
hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
Better to argue about why it happens than if it happens.
And how!
My oversight. 8^) Once again a bad choice of words on my part.
Ultimately no one can
At 05:23 PM 3/23/2010, you wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
And the reason is obvious. Almost all known fusion is plasma,
thermonuclear fusion.
A.k.a. the brute force method. In the ACS press briefing, Peter
Hagelstein called this kind of fusion vacuum reactions which I
think is a good
At 05:36 PM 3/23/2010, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Notice how Krivit's presentation is being read. The negativity is being
picked up, the positive aspects, Krivit's assertions that LENR is real, are
not being seen.
On Mar 23, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 03:46 PM 3/23/2010, Horace Heffner wrote:
The term in question I think is nuclear fusion. There are many
definitions which do not mention the Coulomb barrier. However, it
appears plasma fusion is often assumed.
And the reason is
At 03:36 PM 3/23/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Presenters are M. Miles, G. Miley, V. Vysotskii, P. Hagelstein, M.
McKubre and J. Marwan.
Jed seems to have left something out. I found it here:
http://www.scientificblogging.com/florilegium/blog/cold_fusion_press_conference_video_acs_2010
In the ACS press conference video Miles states he has a new recipe
for codeposition that produced excess heat 6 out of 6 times. Is
there a copy of his paper available yet, or any other information?
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
- Original Message
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, March 23, 2010 6:52:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Request for fusion definition
At 05:23 PM 3/23/2010, Harry Veeder wrote:
How do you make
babies?
In a
At 08:03 PM 3/23/2010, Horace Heffner wrote:
In the ACS press conference video Miles states he has a new recipe
for codeposition that produced excess heat 6 out of 6 times. Is
there a copy of his paper available yet, or any other information?
My general impression has been that codeposition
64 matches
Mail list logo
