Re: [Vo]:Amoco (Oil Company) replication of cold fusion experiment in 1994.
I do not mean they got no positive results at all. As I recall, they got small results and made little progress toward reproducibility. One of them retired and the project ground to a halt. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Amoco (Oil Company) replication of cold fusion experiment in 1994.
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: Could they no longer get the *original* *cell* to work, or was it just new cells that didn't work? As far as I know they used the same cell, but different cathodes. In cold fusion, when you fail to reproduce most of the time the problem is in the cathode material. Typically they cannot re-use a cathode because it is used up in destructive analysis, with something like a layer by layer SEM. It has been a long time since I talked to them about this. I do not recall the details. It should be noted that all of these experiments used the same palladium ingot purchased by Lautzenhiser and Eisner in Houston. As McKubre and others have noted, sometimes a sample from the same ingot or wire has very different loading and performance characteristics. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Amoco (Oil Company) replication of cold fusion experiment in 1994.
quote from Amoco document This report will discuss briefly some of the early calorimetric experiments on cold fusion and in more detail, a single experiment just concluded.A closed cell electrolytic experiment has been conducted using a palladium cathode and platinum anode with accurate (+/-0.001 watt) calorimetric measurements. Results indicate a positive energy output of approximately 50 Kilojoules more than was input to the experiment through electrolysis current and heater current. The heat output was observed both as short term bursts of energy and as long term sustained production. Colorimetric calibration with an internal heat source showed essentially identical data before and after the electrolysis experiment. Material balance for palladium, water and lithium showed essentially no material had been consumed during the experiment. Tritium levels measured before and after electrolysis showed a factor of 3 increase that cannot be accounted for by concentration effects. It is important to note that if this experiment had been terminated after only one month the results would have shown no positive energy production. These data support the claims of several experimenters that anomalous heat and tritium are produced during electrolytic experiments using a hydrogen absorbing cathode. Further experiments are in progress to determine reproducibility and better define experimental parameters. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library…thwellEdit.pdf On 12/28/11, David ledin mathematic.analy...@gmail.com wrote: Amoco (Oil Company) replication of cold fusion experiment in 1994. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1994/1994Lautzenhiser-Amoco-Cold-Fusion-Short.pdf http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1994/1994Lautzenhiser-Amoco-Cold-Fusion-Long.pdf http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1994/1994Lautzenhiser-Amoco-ColdFusion-RothwellEdit.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Amoco (Oil Company) replication of cold fusion experiment in 1994.
A cleaner copy is here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhiscoldfusion.pdf See also: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhisconstanthe.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Amoco (Oil Company) replication of cold fusion experiment in 1994.
I wrote: A cleaner copy is here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhiscoldfusion.pdf The authors went over this. They may have made a few corrections. I seem to recall there was a problem with a figure, which we fixed. This is easier to read, and quote from. Note the Discussion, which says: The calorimetry conclusively shows excess energy was produced within the electrolytic cell over the period of the experiment. This amount, 50 kilojoules, is such that any chemical reaction would have had to been in near molar amounts to have produced the energy. Chemical analysis shows clearly that no such chemical reactions occurred. The tritium results show that some form of nuclear reactions occurred during the experiment. (I should add page numbers to this document.) - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Amoco (Oil Company) replication of cold fusion experiment in 1994.
From Jed: I wrote: A cleaner copy is here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhiscoldfusion.pdf Yes, adding page numbering would be useful. When was the original report published? I don't see a date displayed on the PDF copy. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Amoco (Oil Company) replication of cold fusion experiment in 1994.
OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: When was the original report published? I don't see a date displayed on the PDF copy. It was circulated around 1994. They brought a copy to ICCF-4 (1994). I well remember what happened when showed it to John Huizenga. He turned green and fled. It was one of the funniest moments in the history of cold fusion. I talked to one of the researchers and some people who assisted. The old company did not suppress this result. The researchers could not reproduce it. After years of trying they finally gave up. However, they stand by the original result. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Amoco (Oil Company) replication of cold fusion experiment in 1994.
That was messed up! They sent me Fig. R5 but I forgot to add it. I added it in now, plus I added page numbers. You may need to reload the file to see them: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhiscoldfusion.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Amoco (Oil Company) replication of cold fusion experiment in 1994.
I wrote: I talked to one of the researchers and some people who assisted. The old company did not suppress this I meant the oil company not the old company. I wasn't even using dictation. I got that wrong the old fashioned way. This file was originally dated March 19, 1990. I have an interesting cover letter that came with the original copy. It says: Cold fusion was announced by Fleischmann and Pons . . . difficulty in reproducing . . . blah, blah. The attached document is the first formal written report covering [Amoco research]. The latest cold fusion experiment run at the Tulsa Research Center documented anomalous energy production, as measured through careful calorimetry, and produced enhanced levels of tritium, an indication that a nuclear process is involved in the experiment. Work is continuing to further understand the cold fusion mechanism. As I said, it did not pan out. This along with other communications from oil companies do not give me the impression they ever intended to suppress this research. However, if it starts to succeed with a technology out of their control, such as Rossi's, I expect they will try to suppress it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Amoco (Oil Company) replication of cold fusion experiment in 1994.
On 11-12-28 03:09 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I wrote: A cleaner copy is here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhiscoldfusion.pdf The authors went over this. They may have made a few corrections. I seem to recall there was a problem with a figure, which we fixed. The title of this report is a classic example of why words such as current and recent should be used with caution when titling a report. This is easier to read, and quote from. Note the Discussion, which says: The calorimetry conclusively shows excess energy was produced within the electrolytic cell over the period of the experiment. This amount, 50 kilojoules, is such that any chemical reaction would have had to been in near molar amounts to have produced the energy. Chemical analysis shows clearly that no such chemical reactions occurred. The tritium results show that some form of nuclear reactions occurred during the experiment. (I should add page numbers to this document.) The copy I just downloaded has page numbers. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Amoco (Oil Company) replication of cold fusion experiment in 1994.
On 11-12-28 04:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I talked to one of the researchers and some people who assisted. The oil company did not suppress this result. The researchers could not reproduce it. After years of trying they finally gave up. However, they stand by the original result. Jed, do you have any more information on the failure to reproduce? Could they no longer get the *original* *cell* to work, or was it just new cells that didn't work? Do you know if the non-working cells used a different source for the palladium? They mentioned in the Amoco History section that: It should be noted that all of these experiments used the same palladium ingot purchased by Lautzenhiser and Eisner in Houston. The history of the CF field seems to be littered with Jekyl/Hyde effects, where the source of the chemical supplies makes all the difference.
