Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
I've been looking through my personal archives. I declared on Wed Apr 22, 2009 02:07pm I'm changing my position from 'maybe' to 'yes'. and came across a Jed quote : Wednesday, March 24, 2010 Chemists taken in by Cold Fusion . . . AGAIN! http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2010/03/chemists-taken-in-by-cold-fusion-again.html?showComment=1269462185011#c6972878308653839828 Repruducibility has gone from 10% to 20% to 100% with some techniques. The NRL recently repeated the Arata experiment several hundred times in a row with automated equipment, completely degassing the samples between runs. It worked every time. So I do not see why you say that nothing has changed. (Got a quick link to the paper? -- too lazy to search !! )
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: The NRL recently repeated the Arata experiment several hundred times in a row with automated equipment, completely degassing the samples between runs. It worked every time. So I do not see why you say that nothing has changed. (Got a quick link to the paper? -- too lazy to search !! ) That was Kidwell et al. at ICCF15. Kidwell insisted it was chemical, especially in the Proceedings paper which came out after I wrote that. I disagreed then, and still do. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KidwellDdoesgasloa.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ViolanteVproceeding.pdf They described a lot more about it at ICCF17. Kidwell finally agrees it is anomalous. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
I found Miles at the 2010 ACS reporting 6/6 (Though for my purposes his $50 calorimeter got the press's attention).
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
At 01:02 PM 9/25/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: They described a lot more about it at ICCF17. Kidwell finally agrees it is anomalous. Does Kidwell say so in a paper?
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: They described a lot more about it at ICCF17. Kidwell finally agrees it is anomalous. Does Kidwell say so in a paper? As of a few weeks ago he had not yet turned in a paper for ICCF17. But that is what he and Dawn Dominguez said in their presentations. It was unequivocal. Having David Kidwell to say anything unequivocally positive about cold fusion is the fourth miracle of cold fusion. The three previous miracles, brought to you by Huizenga, pale in comparison. The Coulomb barrier is nothing compared to the Kidwell Attitude Barrier. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
At 03:02 PM 9/25/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Alan J Fletcher mailto:a...@well.coma...@well.com wrote: The NRL recently repeated the Arata experiment several hundred times in a row with automated equipment, completely degassing the samples between runs. It worked every time. So I do not see why you say that nothing has changed. (Got a quick link to the paper? -- too lazy to search !! ) That was Kidwell et al. at ICCF15. Kidwell insisted it was chemical, especially in the Proceedings paper which came out after I wrote that. I disagreed then, and still do. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KidwellDdoesgasloa.pdfhttp://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KidwellDdoesgasloa.pdf http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ViolanteVproceeding.pdf They described a lot more about it at ICCF17. Kidwell finally agrees it is anomalous. Okay, an anomaly. Very important point: anomaly does not equal cold fusion. It means something unexplained. If the level of heat is high, it may indicate a nuclear effect. I don't think that is the case here. The heat is simply unexplained. However, I keep virtually banging my head against the wall. There is very likely a way to know, with certainty, that PdD heat is nuclear in origin. Measure helium. Arata apparently did that, though lots of Arata results seem hard to find. They did not measure helium, though they did many experiments. Helium measurement is tricky, but should have been accessible to them. If they are getting heat such that there should be measurable helium, from anywhere near 24 MeV/He-4, and they *don't* find helium, it would be quite suspicious, given what we know about PdD LENR. It would be a first, quite a remarkable result all on its own. Why was this not done? When I became involved with cold fusion, I found that the full significance of heat/helium seemed to be overlooked, and great confidence and attention was placed on calorimetry alone. I'm not knocking the calorimetry, but one of the important values of helium measurement is that it confirms that the heat is coming from a nuclear source, and it roughly validates the calorimety. As we accumulate experience with helium capture and measurement in these experiments, it could become quite an accurate confirmation.
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
At 03:43 PM 9/25/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Having David Kidwell to say anything unequivocally positive about cold fusion is the fourth miracle of cold fusion. The three previous miracles, brought to you by Huizenga, pale in comparison. The Coulomb barrier is nothing compared to the Kidwell Attitude Barrier. Maybe it's a miracle, but people with Seriously Bad Attitude about Cold Fusion don't run cold fusion experiments, because they are completely convinced that it's a waste of time. No, it appears that Kidwell is a skeptic, which is not at all a bad thing. He's obviously not a pseudoskeptic. Now, how will pseudoskeptics take Kidwells apparent turnabout? Putting on my pseudoskeptic hat, made of anti-tinfoil (looks exactly like tinfoil, but coming in contact with tinfoil, vanishes in a flash of hot air), I come up with: Kidwell obviously was an idiot, because he was willing to waste his time with this obvious nonsense, there is no credible theory that explains cold fusion, so any sane scientist won't touch it with a ten-foot-pole. We make sure they won't, because their reputations will be deservedly trashed faster than you can say Bockris. Remember Joe Champion? No? Obviously you have fallen under the influence of these fanatic die-hards, like the American Chemical Society, those physics-deprived chemists, and like the editors of Naturwissenschafter, what do the editors of a biology journal know about physics? The U.S. Navy has supported cold fusion research? Yeah, the military also supported research on killing goats by staring at them. Nobel Prize-winners have supported cold fusion research? Obviously, beyond their prime, losing it, dotty in their old age, like Pauling and that Josefson fellow. Did you know he's seriously considered telepathy? Yeah, to even think that cold fusion is possible, you have to have drunk way too much Whacko Kool-Aid. No, this is all a plot to divert seriously needed government funding for hot fusion, which has already produced breakeven once, and, with another trillion dollars of funding, is on track to produce real power by 2050. All this attention to cold fusion is weakening this important project, which employs hundreds of physicists and supports major reputable institutions. Hot fusion is proven technology, it works, and there are only a few technical details to be worked out for commercial applications, and the radioactive waste produced can be easily handled. ... I really wish I was making this up. Most of these arguments I have actually encountered, in one form or another. Mostly, they come from physics grad students, since they now know everything and will soon need a job applying it. They don't know chemistry and materials science, which are the cold fusion fields. Therefore it's bogus. Physics Rules. One little detail: experimental evidence. Feynman. Cargo Cult Science.
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
Regarding the Dardik/Ultrasonic paper, I wonder if anyone has tried vapor deposition of palladium (or nickel, titanium, lithium???) directly onto a material with piezoelectric properties? Or for that matter, deposition on to a SAW device, over a very thin passivation layer that in turn lies over the metal forks? I think this would only make sense if the resulting chip could be placed in a compressed D2 environment. Electrolysis doesn't make sense here for many reasons. Piezo devices are high-impedance and voltage-driven - so you need a (possibly big ratio, more than 100:1) step-up transformer if you're going to use bipolar transistors to drive it. Power FETs might work directly. Dunno, not enough of an AC circuit designer to say. Also don't know about the drive characteristics of SAWs. Low voltages, I think. Then you need a control system that would allow modulation of the pulses - not difficult at ultrasonic frequencies, you could do it with a PC or just about any microcontroller, but still another design task. Yes, it quickly begins to resemble Godes' patent application. Go figure. I'm guessing the entire materials processing, system design and implementation task is daunting enough that it's never been done, given the paltry dollars available for LENR research. Of course Intel could do this in a week if they decided to bother...dream on. (But boy, oh boy, are THOSE guys going to be embarrassed if this all plays out and they miss out on all the patents!) For the record, I've never heard of SAW devices being mentioned in the same breath with LENR. For the record, I note that this email might be significant in some future patent or other IP law proceeding. Ramblin' on into an unknown and unknowable future. Jeff On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 03:43 PM 9/25/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Having David Kidwell to say anything unequivocally positive about cold fusion is the fourth miracle of cold fusion. The three previous miracles, brought to you by Huizenga, pale in comparison. The Coulomb barrier is nothing compared to the Kidwell Attitude Barrier. Maybe it's a miracle, but people with Seriously Bad Attitude about Cold Fusion don't run cold fusion experiments, because they are completely convinced that it's a waste of time. No, it appears that Kidwell is a skeptic, which is not at all a bad thing. He's obviously not a pseudoskeptic. Now, how will pseudoskeptics take Kidwells apparent turnabout? Putting on my pseudoskeptic hat, made of anti-tinfoil (looks exactly like tinfoil, but coming in contact with tinfoil, vanishes in a flash of hot air), I come up with: Kidwell obviously was an idiot, because he was willing to waste his time with this obvious nonsense, there is no credible theory that explains cold fusion, so any sane scientist won't touch it with a ten-foot-pole. We make sure they won't, because their reputations will be deservedly trashed faster than you can say Bockris. Remember Joe Champion? No? Obviously you have fallen under the influence of these fanatic die-hards, like the American Chemical Society, those physics-deprived chemists, and like the editors of Naturwissenschafter, what do the editors of a biology journal know about physics? The U.S. Navy has supported cold fusion research? Yeah, the military also supported research on killing goats by staring at them. Nobel Prize-winners have supported cold fusion research? Obviously, beyond their prime, losing it, dotty in their old age, like Pauling and that Josefson fellow. Did you know he's seriously considered telepathy? Yeah, to even think that cold fusion is possible, you have to have drunk way too much Whacko Kool-Aid. No, this is all a plot to divert seriously needed government funding for hot fusion, which has already produced breakeven once, and, with another trillion dollars of funding, is on track to produce real power by 2050. All this attention to cold fusion is weakening this important project, which employs hundreds of physicists and supports major reputable institutions. Hot fusion is proven technology, it works, and there are only a few technical details to be worked out for commercial applications, and the radioactive waste produced can be easily handled. ... I really wish I was making this up. Most of these arguments I have actually encountered, in one form or another. Mostly, they come from physics grad students, since they now know everything and will soon need a job applying it. They don't know chemistry and materials science, which are the cold fusion fields. Therefore it's bogus. Physics Rules. One little detail: experimental evidence. Feynman. Cargo Cult Science.
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
Alain, this order is bad in real lifen and the rejection of LENR is caused by that pseudo-rational pathology... I appreciate Your fight against pathoskepticism and partly agree. To converge on the issue, let me comment: in real life the inventors discover a phenomenon, try to make it useful... This is not universally the case, and depends on the TYPE of invention or discovery. It is probably useful to distinguish between 'in-ven-tion' and 'dis-covery'. A discovery results from genuine curiosity like amber/electrostatics, Galvani/proto-battery. 'In-ven-tion' has a peculiar smell : It means: To incorporate something into a pool of property: therefore eg 'Corporation', which is a super-body of property. Like it or not. I have very little hope that my american friends here understand that. Because You are obviously French, maybe You do. Anyway. -finally scientist get the story and make a theory compatible with other scientific theory... Well. No. This is not the general case. theory is not a goal, but a tool to make things work... Well. No. It is a conceptual vehicle to reduce complexity and make predictions. At times so successfully that we are inclined to mistake it as 'reality'. -- Two examples: 1) Newton 'gravity'. Did Newton 'invent' gravity? Not in the above sense. Did Newton 'discover' gravity? Not really. It is an element of a conceptual SYSTEM, to make it cohernet! It is a conceptual vehicle like 'temperature'! Newton CONSTRUCTED 'gravity'. Compare: ' Inventing Temperature --Measurement and Scientific Progress' http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Philosophy/Science/?view=usaci=9780195337389 2) The telephone. Compared to Newton/gravity or Galvani/electricity it is TRIVIAL what Reis/Bell/Gray and other contenders did. See the timing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone#Patents (Same with the light-bulb, the phonograph etc) To repeat: This is TRIVIAL, because it is BASED ON EXISTING DISCOVERY/CONCEPTUALIZATION of physical laws, which is quite different to the state of LENR, where NO consensus exists wrt underlying physical laws/concepts! I could go on and on, but most vortexers would fall asleep. So I stop here. Guenter ### 2012/9/19 Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com my five cents: a) aim at reproducibility, whatever the COP or power-level. b) produce a working hypothesis c) investigate 'ash' and side-effects: radiation, energy bursts, etc. d) repeat (a), (b), (c) until convergence a robust 'theory-experiment'- loop is established. e) aim for 'commercial' level. Jumping to (e) prematurely is futile, quack, nonsensical. Commerce and science do not mix easily, to be polite. Please spare me Edison or Tesla. Bad examples. Galvani being a better one. Guenter
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
Well, Let me tell You: As an 'inventor' myself, not of the trivial Apple sort, the non-obviousness is in the eye of competent. My 'invention' was about an interferometer which is insensitive to five of six degrees of freedom. Not an easy task. BUT: it was completely within existing physical laws, AND, You guessed, I was not the first one. Some polish guy had the idea two years earlier, and because of the iron courtain he could not apply and defend it in the West. As a fair arbitrator I would have liked to congratulate my Polish like-mind. But this is not how the capitalist-competitive-world pinpoints the issue. It took me some years to identify the essence of that. Guenter Jed Rothwell ... James Bowery wrote: No. Patentability criteria are: Novel, non-obvious and useful. The utility of a patent does not exist if it doesn't actually work. Correct. I think useful means usable. That is, the invention does something, however trivial. It works. The purpose it is applied to may be trivial, or of no practical or desirable use to anyone. It does not have to have any commercial value. I base this on discussions with David French, and also on various websites that say things like: the invention must have some usefulness (utility), no matter how trivial. David French emphasizes that just because you get a patent, that does not mean the invention has any commercial value or that you will make any money from it. He says many patents are awarded for inventions that no one wants. They are useless in that sense. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
my five cents: a) aim at reproducibility, whatever the COP or power-level. b) produce a working hypothesis c) investigate 'ash' and side-effects: radiation, energy bursts, etc. d) repeat (a), (b), (c) until convergence a robust 'theory-experiment'- loop is established. e) aim for 'commercial' level. Jumping to (e) prematurely is futile, quack, nonsensical. Commerce and science do not mix easily, to be polite. Please spare me Edison or Tesla. Bad examples. Galvani being a better one. Guenter --- Von: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 2:59 Mittwoch, 19.September 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability Godes probably wouldn't agree. Fwiw, he seems to be an advocate of an electron capture kind of hypothesis as opposed to a fusion kind of hypothesis. Electron capture hypotheses roughly substitute the miracle of coming up with a missing ~0.8MeV (along with some quantum mumbo jumbo) for the miracle of crossing the Coulomb barrier (and a different set of quantum mumbo jumbo). Sorry to anyone I might offend with this offhand comment. ;-) From what little he says, his views seems distinct from Widom-Larson. This was discussed in the group recently. Jeff
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
now who engages on what level: To be provocative: SRI/McKubre is somewhere at level (a) to (b), less so at (c). Here commmercial -ahem- 'secrets' seem to set in. And when SRI does this, it puts itself outside the scientific method of rigorous interpersonal replication. It is of no help to produce youtube videos which show this or that. Youtube is not yet part of the scientific method, as far as I know. The LENR-field has yet to prove its adherence to the scientific method, and not to sell snake-oil to the hopefuls, who seem to want to warm their feet by hope, not evidence. To discard this, or mix up categorials -as I am afraid Jed does- is dangerous! PROOF is INTERGROUP proof without any doubt about methods and results. I/we have yet to find that PROOF. There is none yet. Which is: i) produce an evidence, revealing ALL methods used. ii) reproduce this evidence by a COMPLETELY independent group, with ALL those methods used. This should be the basis of any hypothesizing/theoretisizing. Right? Guenter Von: Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 13:59 Mittwoch, 19.September 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability my five cents: a) aim at reproducibility, whatever the COP or power-level. b) produce a working hypothesis c) investigate 'ash' and side-effects: radiation, energy bursts, etc. d) repeat (a), (b), (c) until convergence a robust 'theory-experiment'- loop is established. e) aim for 'commercial' level. Jumping to (e) prematurely is futile, quack, nonsensical. Commerce and science do not mix easily, to be polite. Please spare me Edison or Tesla. Bad examples. Galvani being a better one. Guenter
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com mailto:gwildgru...@ymail.com wrote: And when SRI does this, it puts itself outside the scientific method of rigorous interpersonal replication. SRI and Godes are presently engaged in commercial RD, not rigorous fundamental scientific research. The rules are different. It is of no help to produce youtube videos which show this or that. SRI has not made YouTube videos as far as I know. The LENR-field has yet to prove its adherence to the scientific method . . . This is nonsense. Hundreds of peer-reviewed papers have been published describing the experiments, materials and techniques in detail. Any expert who has funding and time can reproduce the effect. It is no more difficult than cloning mammals or doing open heart surgery. In other words, it takes skill but it has been widely replicated. To discard this, or mix up categorials -as I am afraid Jed does- is dangerous! This has nothing to do with me. I am not in charge of policy at the U.S. Patent Office. They are the source of the problem. The purpose of a patent is to promote progress in technology by sharing information while protecting intellectual property. If the P.O. would do their job, information on cold fusion would spread as quickly as it does with any other commercial RD. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
On 09/19/2012 10:58 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: [...] This has nothing to do with me. I am not in charge of policy at the U.S. Patent Office. They are the source of the problem. The purpose of a patent is to promote progress in technology by sharing information while protecting intellectual property. If the P.O. would do their job, information on cold fusion would spread as quickly as it does with any other commercial RD. - Jed I wonder why the Patent Office cares if the device actually works? The criteria should be that the work is original, complex, and involved a significant labor investment. Instead, we have Amazon patenting a 'point a click' method of purchasing, and we have the 'cat and laser' patent. http://www.google.com/patents/US5443036 These are nonsense, and threaten the whole concept of intellectual property, whereas original, creative, labor intensive, design, is denied. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
No. Patentability criteria are: Novel, non-obvious and useful. The utility of a patent does not exist if it doesn't actually work. On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.comwrote: I wonder why the Patent Office cares if the device actually works? The criteria should be that the work is original, complex, and involved a significant labor investment. Instead, we have Amazon patenting a 'point a click' method of purchasing, and we have the 'cat and laser' patent. http://www.google.com/patents/US5443036 These are nonsense, and threaten the whole concept of intellectual property, whereas original, creative, labor intensive, design, is denied. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
Power evaluations should not be done by electronic power meters, but with current probes and DSO's. Only in such case one can determine the correct power consumption from the grid. In such setup, even power consumption in pulses can be measured accurately. On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:00 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: If we have learned anything from Griggs, Rossi, and Myers its that the power contained in electrical pulses is difficult to measure. Frank -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Sep 18, 2012 2:04 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Is this the first paper in which one group has reported100% success in multiple tests (over 150)? Yup, it may be. I do not recall seeing such a high success rate before. There may have been a few poorly documented reports of 100% success that I suspected were 100% instrument artifacts. I seem to recall some, but I do not remember who made these claims. They did not publish a paper. I do not remember uploading anything like that. I think I would remember it. Normally I would be very suspicious of an effect that appears every time, on demand. But when it comes from a a top-notch lab such as SRI I am not going to worry about it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
Craig, I noticed several times in the cat patent, they mention invisible light. That's interesting, possibly an invalid patent, or possibly, one could patent one, using visible light. Bob On 09/19/2012 10:58 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: [...] This has nothing to do with me. I am not in charge of policy at the U.S. Patent Office. They are the source of the problem. The purpose of a patent is to promote progress in technology by sharing information while protecting intellectual property. If the P.O. would do their job, information on cold fusion would spread as quickly as it does with any other commercial RD. - Jed I wonder why the Patent Office cares if the device actually works? The criteria should be that the work is original, complex, and involved a significant labor investment. Instead, we have Amazon patenting a 'point a click' method of purchasing, and we have the 'cat and laser' patent. http://www.google.com/patents/US5443036 These are nonsense, and threaten the whole concept of intellectual property, whereas original, creative, labor intensive, design, is denied. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
On 09/19/2012 11:44 AM, Robert Dorr wrote: Craig, I noticed several times in the cat patent, they mention invisible light. That's interesting, possibly an invalid patent, or possibly, one could patent one, using visible light. Bob I'm sure you've seen this. You take a laser pointer and point the light spot near a cat, and he'll jump at it. You can then move the light spot around the room, and he'll run and jump at it indefinitely. I was pointing out the absurdity of patenting something so simple. There's no original work here; likely the fellow who patented it, had seen it somewhere else. And there's no way to enforce this patent. The patent owner doesn't own the right to laser pointers; only the process of using a laser pointer to excite a cat. Since we were talking about what 'should' be patentable, I was throwing my opinion into the mix, that patents should protect labor, as should all property rights. Without the labor involved in the creation process, there shouldn't be anything to patent, and with the labor, then it shouldn't matter if it works. Notice that if the object created, has to be 'useful', then patents are very limited when used in RD. If you are working on a multi-step process and try to patent step 1, when step 1 isn't useful in any other type of process, then the patent may fail that test. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
Yep, lawyers involved in what I call the 'scientific method' seems to be a bad idea. See: ... In the 19th century, the invention of perpetual motion machines became an obsession for many scientists. Many machines were designed based on electricity. John Gamgee developed the Zeromotor, a perpetual motion machine of the second kind. Devising these machines is a favourite pastime of many eccentrics, who often devised elaborate machines in the style of Rube Goldberg or Heath Robinson. Such designs appeared to work on paper, though various flaws or obfuscated external energy sources are eventually understood to have been incorporated into the machine (unintentionally or intentionally). ... Proposals for such inoperable machines have become so common that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has made an official policy of refusing to grant patents for perpetual motion machines without a working model. ... http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetuum_mobile # wrt 'scientific method': ... Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established (when data is sampled or compared to chance). ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method With rare exceptions LENR researchers (not scientists) want to keep their magic sauce, and try to trick the patent-system to patent an aspect of their method/machinery, which maybe necessary, but not essential nor sufficient. This is understandable, but counter to the scientific method. And I would be very surprised if the public accepted a device on a wide scale in their basement, which has potential substiantial hazards To cite Feynman: ... warning against self-deception, the original sin of science, saying that the first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. To avoid self-deception scientists must bend over backward to report data that cast doubt on their theories. Feynman applied this principle specifically to scientists ... Von: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 17:25 Mittwoch, 19.September 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability No. Patentability criteria are: Novel, non-obvious and useful. The utility of a patent does not exist if it doesn't actually work. On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder why the Patent Office cares if the device actually works? The criteria should be that the work is original, complex, and involved a significant labor investment. Instead, we have Amazon patenting a 'point a click' method of purchasing, and we have the 'cat and laser' patent. http://www.google.com/patents/US5443036 These are nonsense, and threaten the whole concept of intellectual property, whereas original, creative, labor intensive, design, is denied. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
this order is bad in real lifen and the rejection of LENR is caused by that pseudo-rational pathology... in real life the inventors discover a phenomenon, try to make it useful... if it work, they are happy and try to optimize until all is blocked... if not they are blocked... when they are blocked, they try to build a theory to know where to look at... basically phenomenological model... with that they make it work as needed... finally scientist get the story and make a theory compatible with other scientific theory... theory is not a goal, but a tool to make things work, or kids happy (scientist a curious kids or bad scientists). 2012/9/19 Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com my five cents: a) aim at reproducibility, whatever the COP or power-level. b) produce a working hypothesis c) investigate 'ash' and side-effects: radiation, energy bursts, etc. d) repeat (a), (b), (c) until convergence a robust 'theory-experiment'- loop is established. e) aim for 'commercial' level. Jumping to (e) prematurely is futile, quack, nonsensical. Commerce and science do not mix easily, to be polite. Please spare me Edison or Tesla. Bad examples. Galvani being a better one. Guenter --- *Von:* Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com *An:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Gesendet:* 2:59 Mittwoch, 19.September 2012 *Betreff:* Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability Godes probably wouldn't agree. Fwiw, he seems to be an advocate of an electron capture kind of hypothesis as opposed to a fusion kind of hypothesis. Electron capture hypotheses roughly substitute the miracle of coming up with a missing ~0.8MeV (along with some quantum mumbo jumbo) for the miracle of crossing the Coulomb barrier (and a different set of quantum mumbo jumbo). Sorry to anyone I might offend with this offhand comment. ;-) From what little he says, his views seems distinct from Widom-Larson. This was discussed in the group recently. Jeff
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
James Bowery wrote: No. Patentability criteria are: Novel, non-obvious and useful. The utility of a patent does not exist if it doesn't actually work. Correct. I think useful means usable. That is, the invention does something, however trivial. It works. The purpose it is applied to may be trivial, or of no practical or desirable use to anyone. It does not have to have any commercial value. I base this on discussions with David French, and also on various websites that say things like: the invention must have some usefulness (utility), no matter how trivial. David French emphasizes that just because you get a patent, that does not mean the invention has any commercial value or that you will make any money from it. He says many patents are awarded for inventions that no one wants. They are useless in that sense. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
In reply to Craig Haynie's message of Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:13:21 -0400: Hi, [snip] These are nonsense, and threaten the whole concept of intellectual property, whereas original, creative, labor intensive, design, is denied. ..now you understand the true purpose of the patent office! ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Is this the first paper in which one group has reported100% success in multiple tests (over 150)? Yup, it may be. I do not recall seeing such a high success rate before. There may have been a few poorly documented reports of 100% success that I suspected were 100% instrument artifacts. I seem to recall some, but I do not remember who made these claims. They did not publish a paper. I do not remember uploading anything like that. I think I would remember it. Normally I would be very suspicious of an effect that appears every time, on demand. But when it comes from a a top-notch lab such as SRI I am not going to worry about it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
If the Godes/McKubre system has 100% reproducibility why isn't it the poster child for CF/LENR?! And why hasn't the CF/LENR research community exhaustively investigated the system and built working models that would show, irrefutably, that CF/LENR is real? In following this list I've read about scores of theoretical systems and theories that it seems no one has actually made work reliably and here you're claiming the Godes/McKubre system not only works but works reliably! Can anyone explain why this system isn't being refined and promoted at the very least as proof of CF/LENR? [mg] On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Is this the first paper in which one group has reported100% success in multiple tests (over 150)? Yup, it may be. I do not recall seeing such a high success rate before. There may have been a few poorly documented reports of 100% success that I suspected were 100% instrument artifacts. I seem to recall some, but I do not remember who made these claims. They did not publish a paper. I do not remember uploading anything like that. I think I would remember it. Normally I would be very suspicious of an effect that appears every time, on demand. But when it comes from a a top-notch lab such as SRI I am not going to worry about it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: If the Godes/McKubre system has 100% reproducibility why isn't it the poster child for CF/LENR?! Because it just happened. They only began this work 6 months or a year ago as I recall, and this is the first paper. The official collaboration with SRI just began. Things happen slowly in experimental science. The shortest significant unit of time is a growing season. (Paraphrasing The Soul of a New Machine.) Can anyone explain why this system isn't being refined and promoted at the very least as proof of CF/LENR? It is being refined. They just got a pot of investment money to do that. It is not being promoted because SRI does not promote things. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
By the way, those 150 tests were not conducted at SRI. SRI cannot yet officially put their seal of approval on them, although they do say they have confidence in the work. That's what McKubre told me. Tests of this system will soon begin at SRI. It is not shocking to me that something like this worked 150 times in a row. It was bound to happen sooner or later. Repeatability has been improving over the years. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
I asked Storms twice years ago, Does RF stimulation do any good? His answers was, We tried it and it did not work! In that there is a controversy. Frank -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Sep 18, 2012 2:04 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Is this the first paper in which one group has reported100% success inmultiple tests (over 150)? Yup, it may be. I do not recall seeing such a high success rate before. There may have been a few poorly documented reports of 100% success that I suspected were 100% instrument artifacts. I seem to recall some, but I do not remember who made these claims. They did not publish a paper. I do not remember uploading anything like that. I think I would remember it. Normally I would be very suspicious of an effect that appears every time, on demand. But when it comes from a a top-notch lab such as SRI I am not going to worry about it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
If we have learned anything from Griggs, Rossi, and Myers its that the power contained in electrical pulses is difficult to measure. Frank -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Sep 18, 2012 2:04 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Is this the first paper in which one group has reported100% success inmultiple tests (over 150)? Yup, it may be. I do not recall seeing such a high success rate before. There may have been a few poorly documented reports of 100% success that I suspected were 100% instrument artifacts. I seem to recall some, but I do not remember who made these claims. They did not publish a paper. I do not remember uploading anything like that. I think I would remember it. Normally I would be very suspicious of an effect that appears every time, on demand. But when it comes from a a top-notch lab such as SRI I am not going to worry about it. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
Mark Gibbs asks rather impatiently, Can anyone explain why this system isn't being refined and promoted at the very least as proof of CF/LENR? Very simply and obvious reasons. lack of details of exactly how, and patent infringement! The testing at SRI is getting underway and hopefully will go a long way to achieving what you ask. -Mark Iverson From: mark.gi...@gmail.com [mailto:mark.gi...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mark Gibbs Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 11:20 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability If the Godes/McKubre system has 100% reproducibility why isn't it the poster child for CF/LENR?! And why hasn't the CF/LENR research community exhaustively investigated the system and built working models that would show, irrefutably, that CF/LENR is real? In following this list I've read about scores of theoretical systems and theories that it seems no one has actually made work reliably and here you're claiming the Godes/McKubre system not only works but works reliably! Can anyone explain why this system isn't being refined and promoted at the very least as proof of CF/LENR? [mg] On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Is this the first paper in which one group has reported100% success in multiple tests (over 150)? Yup, it may be. I do not recall seeing such a high success rate before. There may have been a few poorly documented reports of 100% success that I suspected were 100% instrument artifacts. I seem to recall some, but I do not remember who made these claims. They did not publish a paper. I do not remember uploading anything like that. I think I would remember it. Normally I would be very suspicious of an effect that appears every time, on demand. But when it comes from a a top-notch lab such as SRI I am not going to worry about it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
How disappointing. Once again, it looks like yet more jam tomorrow. So, there aren't enough details in the paper for you chaps to theorize what the actual physical test set up consisted of? Anyone care to take a WAG at it? Also, it's odd that other than in the paper's URL on http://newenergytimes.com/ the document isn't dated (in fact the only date I noticed in it is 1992 embedded in the URL of a citation). [mg] On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:16 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netresponded snarkily: Mark Gibbs asks rather impatiently, “Can anyone explain why this system isn't being refined and promoted at the very least as proof of CF/LENR?” ** ** Very simply and obvious reasons… lack of details of exactly how, and patent infringement! The testing at SRI is getting underway and hopefully will go a long way to achieving what you ask. ** ** -Mark Iverson ** ** *From:* mark.gi...@gmail.com [mailto:mark.gi...@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Mark Gibbs *Sent:* Tuesday, September 18, 2012 11:20 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability ** ** If the Godes/McKubre system has 100% reproducibility why isn't it the poster child for CF/LENR?! And why hasn't the CF/LENR research community exhaustively investigated the system and built working models that would show, irrefutably, that CF/LENR is real? In following this list I've read about scores of theoretical systems and theories that it seems no one has actually made work reliably and here you're claiming the Godes/McKubre system not only works but works reliably! ** ** Can anyone explain why this system isn't being refined and promoted at the very least as proof of CF/LENR? ** ** [mg] On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: ** ** Is this the first paper in which one group has reported100% success in multiple tests (over 150)? ** ** Yup, it may be. I do not recall seeing such a high success rate before.*** * ** ** There may have been a few poorly documented reports of 100% success that I suspected were 100% instrument artifacts. I seem to recall some, but I do not remember who made these claims. They did not publish a paper. I do not remember uploading anything like that. I think I would remember it. ** ** Normally I would be very suspicious of an effect that appears every time, on demand. But when it comes from a a top-notch lab such as SRI I am not going to worry about it. ** ** - Jed ** ** ** **
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: How disappointing. Once again, it looks like yet more jam tomorrow. It takes a long time to do research. Months and months to set up an experiment. You have to live with that. It is like building a house with 2 or 3 people, or writing a million-line computer program. If you had any idea how difficult it is, you would be amazed at how quickly they do it, and how much progress they have made. As I said at ICCF17, by the standards of plasma fusion or cancer research, cold fusion research has been going on for one day so far. *One day*. That is how much money and how many man-hours we have expended. How much progress does plasma fusion or cancer research make in a single day? I have been hearing from Godes on and off for about a year. I knew that SRI was collaborating informally with them. They finally got funded and now they can afford a formal collaboration. SRI never works for free. They are stepping up the pace. What more can you ask for? Do you expect 2 people working on a shoestring to do this at a magically fast pace? Setting up and running an experiment is painstaking, time consuming work. So, there aren't enough details in the paper for you chaps to theorize what the actual physical test set up consisted of? It is an Ni-H experiment with flow calorimetry. The details are a commercial secret, obviously. They are not going to give away intellectual property worth billions of dollars! When the U.S. Patent Office decides to allow cold fusion patents we will begin to learn the details. Not before that. I do not know anyone willing to give away billions of dollars just to satisfy other people's curiosity. Also, it's odd that other than in the paper's URL on http://newenergytimes.com/ the document isn't dated (in fact the only date I noticed in it is 1992 embedded in the URL of a citation). This is the ICCF17 submission. It is a rough draft. I plan to upload the final version to LENR-CANR.org. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
In order to be commercially viable, the Godes reactor must move to a high temperature hydrogen gas phase reactor. If enough RD funding is available to do this, why go public. A few months ago, Godes went public when he needed more RD funds. This strategy worked and he got the additional funding he needs to move forward. Addition publicity is a distraction at this juncture. This type of attention is not helpful in the successful commercialization of his product. Cheers: Axil On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: If the Godes/McKubre system has 100% reproducibility why isn't it the poster child for CF/LENR?! And why hasn't the CF/LENR research community exhaustively investigated the system and built working models that would show, irrefutably, that CF/LENR is real? In following this list I've read about scores of theoretical systems and theories that it seems no one has actually made work reliably and here you're claiming the Godes/McKubre system not only works but works reliably! Can anyone explain why this system isn't being refined and promoted at the very least as proof of CF/LENR? [mg] On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Is this the first paper in which one group has reported100% success in multiple tests (over 150)? Yup, it may be. I do not recall seeing such a high success rate before. There may have been a few poorly documented reports of 100% success that I suspected were 100% instrument artifacts. I seem to recall some, but I do not remember who made these claims. They did not publish a paper. I do not remember uploading anything like that. I think I would remember it. Normally I would be very suspicious of an effect that appears every time, on demand. But when it comes from a a top-notch lab such as SRI I am not going to worry about it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
As Jed says, there are not enough resources directed toward the field. I am currently reviewing Celani's device since he has published a reasonable document and data. I hope to mine that for as much knowledge as possible before moving on. Perhaps information will become available concerning the Godes/McKubre system to attract my attention. If enough data is released, you can be assured I will take a look. My effort is directed toward doing whatever I can to get LENR systems into service as soon as possible. Thus far this effort is at my expense and I offer my knowledge openly. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Sep 18, 2012 5:07 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: If the Godes/McKubre system has 100% reproducibility why isn't it the poster child for CF/LENR?! Because it just happened. They only began this work 6 months or a year ago as I recall, and this is the first paper. The official collaboration with SRI just began. Things happen slowly in experimental science. The shortest significant unit of time is a growing season. (Paraphrasing The Soul of a New Machine.) Can anyone explain why this system isn't being refined and promoted at the very least as proof of CF/LENR? It is being refined. They just got a pot of investment money to do that. It is not being promoted because SRI does not promote things. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
I wrote: If you had any idea how difficult it is, you would be amazed at how quickly they do it, and how much progress they have made. . . . Setting up and running an experiment is painstaking, time consuming work. You can see what I mean in these photos of Celani's demonstration experiment: http://iccf17.org/photo/photo1.php?dir_str=9 That equipment was assembled by a small team of experts at NI, including the CEO. They replaced all of the original equipment that Celani brought from the ENEA. They are arguably the most qualified people in the world. They were working in a building where every component made by the company is in stock, so there were no delays getting parts. They were working at the request of the CEO with carte blanche funding, and instant access to every expert in the company. That is not a particularly large or complicated experiment. Yet it took them *12 days* of difficult work to get the thing right. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
Mark, I did this QA with Robert Godes July a year ago. I had already spoke with him one-on-one in an interview I could not publish about early January 2011 (before the Rossi demo). Though the electrolytic cell generated a small COP, he had 100% reproducibility then, turning on and off on-demand. But look what a certain agency said about this technology being instant death. And that is not the half of it. /With steady progress meeting each company milestone, the lab runs with a skeleton staff, including volunteers. Negative perceptions about the field of LENR research have discouraged potential investors. One possible private donor seeking a technical evaluation was informed by a //National Science Foundation//member (whose review entailed a quick scan of the Brillouin Energy website) that it was quite possible they had created the 'instant death' version of cold fusion. / http://coldfusionnow.org/funding-dam-breaks-for-brillouin-boiler-that-uses-water/ Ruby On 9/18/12 11:20 AM, Mark Gibbs wrote: If the Godes/McKubre system has 100% reproducibility why isn't it the poster child for CF/LENR?! And why hasn't the CF/LENR research community exhaustively investigated the system and built working models that would show, irrefutably, that CF/LENR is real? In following this list I've read about scores of theoretical systems and theories that it seems no one has actually made work reliably and here you're claiming the Godes/McKubre system not only works but works reliably! Can anyone explain why this system isn't being refined and promoted at the very least as proof of CF/LENR? [mg] There may have been a few poorly documented reports of 100% success that I suspected were 100% instrument artifacts. Normally I would be very suspicious of an effect that appears every time, on demand. But when it comes from a a top-notch lab such as SRI I am not going to worry about it. - Jed -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
Ruby r...@hush.com wrote: *One possible private donor seeking a technical evaluation was informed by a **National Science Foundation** member (whose review entailed “a quick scan” of the Brillouin Energy website) that it was “quite possible they had created the ‘instant death’ version of cold fusion”. * What do you think they meant by that?!? That is a strange thing to say. Did they mean the cell might produce a fatal dose of radiation? If it could do that, it probably would have in the years they were working on it. They would be dead already. Maybe it means instant death to the skeptical point of view. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
I read Mr. Godes paper the day it appeared on the New Energy Times site (I think that was back in July?). I immediately had the feeling it was important. At the same time, the word proprietary appears six times. It seems clear that Mr. Godes believes the road to progress is a working device, not scientific replication. And I'm not criticizing. In fact given the way the mainstream scientific community has treated LENR for the last 20+ years, it sounds like the path to poetic justice. As always, time will tell. Jeff On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Ruby r...@hush.com wrote: Mark, I did this QA with Robert Godes July a year ago. I had already spoke with him one-on-one in an interview I could not publish about early January 2011 (before the Rossi demo). Though the electrolytic cell generated a small COP, he had 100% reproducibility then, turning on and off on-demand. But look what a certain agency said about this technology being instant death. And that is not the half of it. *With steady progress meeting each company milestone, the lab runs with a skeleton staff, including volunteers. Negative perceptions about the field of LENR research have discouraged potential investors. One possible private donor seeking a technical evaluation was informed by a **National Science Foundation** member (whose review entailed “a quick scan” of the Brillouin Energy website) that it was “quite possible they had created the ‘instant death’ version of cold fusion”. * http://coldfusionnow.org/funding-dam-breaks-for-brillouin-boiler-that-uses-water/ Ruby On 9/18/12 11:20 AM, Mark Gibbs wrote: If the Godes/McKubre system has 100% reproducibility why isn't it the poster child for CF/LENR?! And why hasn't the CF/LENR research community exhaustively investigated the system and built working models that would show, irrefutably, that CF/LENR is real? In following this list I've read about scores of theoretical systems and theories that it seems no one has actually made work reliably and here you're claiming the Godes/McKubre system not only works but works reliably! Can anyone explain why this system isn't being refined and promoted at the very least as proof of CF/LENR? [mg] There may have been a few poorly documented reports of 100% success that I suspected were 100% instrument artifacts. Normally I would be very suspicious of an effect that appears every time, on demand. But when it comes from a a top-notch lab such as SRI I am not going to worry about it. - Jed -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
Thanks, Ruby ... Jed just asked the same question I was going to ask ... [mg] On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Ruby r...@hush.com wrote: *One possible private donor seeking a technical evaluation was informed by a **National Science Foundation** member (whose review entailed “a quick scan” of the Brillouin Energy website) that it was “quite possible they had created the ‘instant death’ version of cold fusion”. * What do you think they meant by that?!? That is a strange thing to say. Did they mean the cell might produce a fatal dose of radiation? If it could do that, it probably would have in the years they were working on it. They would be dead already. Maybe it means instant death to the skeptical point of view. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
Yes, that's what they meant; the idea being, if it was really fusion, there would be deadly radiation that would have killed everyone around. In addition, if it /were/ to be true, in the hands of the wrong people could be dangerous for our planet. My next paragraph in the article was: /Sigh./ /The very much alive Mr. Godes does believe this is a nuclear reaction, but to quote Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger, whose 1991 A Progress Report paper you can down-load from the Brillouin Energy website, ”The circumstances of cold fusion are not those of hot fusion.” / http://coldfusionnow.org/funding-dam-breaks-for-brillouin-boiler-that-uses-water// / It is these attitudes that make it vitally important to have all segments of society onboard to support this clean and /safe/ form of dense energy. Ruby/ / On 9/18/12 3:50 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Ruby r...@hush.com mailto:r...@hush.com wrote: /One possible private donor seeking a technical evaluation was informed by a //National Science Foundation//member (whose review entailed “a quick scan” of the Brillouin Energy website) that it was “quite possible they had created the ‘instant death’ version of cold fusion”. / What do you think they meant by that?!? That is a strange thing to say. Did they mean the cell might produce a fatal dose of radiation? If it could do that, it probably would have in the years they were working on it. They would be dead already. Maybe it means instant death to the skeptical point of view. - Jed -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org mailto:r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org http://www.coldfusionnow.org
Re: [Vo]:Godes/McKubre 100% reproducability
Godes probably wouldn't agree. Fwiw, he seems to be an advocate of an electron capture kind of hypothesis as opposed to a fusion kind of hypothesis. Electron capture hypotheses roughly substitute the miracle of coming up with a missing ~0.8MeV (along with some quantum mumbo jumbo) for the miracle of crossing the Coulomb barrier (and a different set of quantum mumbo jumbo). Sorry to anyone I might offend with this offhand comment. ;-) From what little he says, his views seems distinct from Widom-Larson. This was discussed in the group recently. Jeff On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Ruby r...@hush.com wrote: Yes, that's what they meant; the idea being, if it was really fusion, there would be deadly radiation that would have killed everyone around. In addition, if it *were* to be true, in the hands of the wrong people could be dangerous for our planet. My next paragraph in the article was: *Sigh.* *The very much alive Mr. Godes does believe this is a nuclear reaction, but to quote Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger, whose 1991 A Progress Report paper you can down-load from the Brillouin Energy website, ”The circumstances of cold fusion are not those of hot fusion.” * http://coldfusionnow.org/funding-dam-breaks-for-brillouin-boiler-that-uses-water/ * * It is these attitudes that make it vitally important to have all segments of society onboard to support this clean and *safe* form of dense energy. Ruby* * On 9/18/12 3:50 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Ruby r...@hush.com wrote: *One possible private donor seeking a technical evaluation was informed by a **National Science Foundation** member (whose review entailed “a quick scan” of the Brillouin Energy website) that it was “quite possible they had created the ‘instant death’ version of cold fusion”. * What do you think they meant by that?!? That is a strange thing to say. Did they mean the cell might produce a fatal dose of radiation? If it could do that, it probably would have in the years they were working on it. They would be dead already. Maybe it means instant death to the skeptical point of view. - Jed -- Ruby Carat r...@coldfusionnow.org United States 1-707-616-4894 Skype ruby-carat www.coldfusionnow.org
