On Oct 5, 2009, at 5:46 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
I've purchased some LR-115; I will cut it up, I plan to serialize
the chips, and I'll be selling them in small packages. If you want
to give some away, you could either subsidize what I'm doing, or
you could buy your own material from the supplier. There is nothing
stopping you. If I try to price gouge, which would be stupid,
anyone else could step in.
Clearly I have not communicated. I have no interest in being
intensively involved in what you are doing either positively or
negatively. I especially do not want to engage in extended detailed
discussion with you about it. I merely feel it is important to note
that I had specific aspirations long before you came on the scene
that do not match your vision, and may conflict with your vision in
the future. What I lacked is a *convincing* cheap experiment. If
such a protocol comes along, then I may or my not continue efforts to
develop an experiment intended for classroom use. If I feel like
commenting here on any aspect of CF that may or may not relate to
your commercial effort I will do so, and if not, not. However, I am
not part of your team and not part of the "we" to which you
continually refer, unless by "we" you mean the free energy lunatic
fringe, to which I freely admit belonging.
I have no interest in spending time on this kind of thing when the
basic science to pull this off cheaply and *convincingly* in a
classroom setting is not there yet. I would prefer to focus on the
fundamentals if I spend time on CF. However, I have a lot more on my
plate than CF. If I should find a way to do this my first step would
be to publish free instructions with suppliers for all parts listed.
No kit necessary. The next step would be to form a non-profit
corporation to distribute kits for educational institutions at cost
or less.
The instructions already exist. It's the Galileo protocol.
I said *convincing*. Not only is the Galileo protocol highly
controversial, to put it mildly, even the superior work by SPAWAR is
still controversial amongst experts in the field. If you come up
with something better, great. A convincing experiment would be a
good thing to provide to students for a first hand experience, but an
unreliable non-definitive experiment, especially one disseminated for
profit making purposes, could be a very negative thing for the field.
It includes a list of suppliers, and detailed instructions. The
first thing I'm doing is to follow the protocol very closely; I may
do some things a little differently, but I'm quite aware that what
might seem like a harmless variation could quench the effect, so
I'll be very careful. What I do will be documented. The plan was
to, indeed, make all the engineering involved in my kits available,
so that anyone could replicate exactly without depending on me for
supplies. But if you can buy the supplies in appropriate quantities
from me, at a price that is worth spending to save the time and
hassle, where I make my profit based on quantity purchase and/or
convenience, why would you avoid it? For pure science, spotlessly
independent replication, perhaps. But that's not the purpose of
these kits. The purpose is to get *demonstration* happening, out in
the public, widespread, plus certain other benefits I've mentioned.
And, since I'm on social security, with a very limited income and
very little savings, making some small profit is important for me.
Even though I'm retired, I do have two small children and they
could use a little more support than they themselves get from their
"survivor's benefits."
You want to form the non-profit, go ahead. I'd cooperate and
support it. But I'm not about to stop this effort because someone
else prefers to do something else!
I haven't suggested you stop. In fact, I might be a prospective
customer. What I am not is an employee, nor a committed
collaborator. All I am is a list member of vortex-l.
There already is the New Energy Foundation, which supports Krivit
in his work. How about sending them a check? Maybe you already
have, I don't know who is behind them. Somebody bought $600-$800
worth of CR-39 and sent it to the researchers in a rush when the
Tastrak detectors turned out to be "fogging" in the electrolyte.
Another approach I want to pursue, by the way, is to test one of
the standard commercial varieties of CR-39, especially very thin
sheets. It's possible to "erase" it before usage, by pre-etching.
See http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radmeas.2004.11.010. And I'll be
working on scaling down the cells. A small amount of radiation is
just as useful for our purposes as a larger amount as long as it is
clearly above background, and smaller is both safer and cheaper.
(But the SPAWAR neutron levels are very low, ten times background
is thinner than I like; still, when that's replicable and
consistent, it's enough, and I'm hoping that the boron-10 will up
the detection levels at least a little. That boron-10 may end up
being the most expensive thing in a cell. Well, not "in" the cell,
and I won't be using it on cells where I want to observe the
cathode with a microscope during the experiment. Unless it's on the
opposite side, a possibility, since the neutrons should penetrate
in both directions.
I wish you success in your research.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
