"It was told me that some of the spurious results that have plagued the CF community for the past 20 years is due to the fact that the process is extremely susceptible to environmental/weather changes."
If we speak about Pd-D, perhaps the best is to find out what was the best, most consistent, powerful, reproducible system/result ever. How, and why? As regarding unorthodox ideas I have tried to explain here that the troubles of Pd-D LENR are caused by the fact that polar gases inactivate the NAE. 0.5 ppb of such impurity means billions of molecules per cubic cm air. I am not believed. OK, then what is the source of the R problem? Why was it necessary that useful LENR came "by an other car?" And, in principle. will we ever have a technologizable Pd-D cold fusion? As regarding an explanation of the Rossi system, orthodox or completely unorthodox- it must jhave some logic in it. I have limited imagination (see definition of Brainair in my septoes) and I don't see any reason for wjich an isotope of nickel could function better than an other isotope of nickel??? And enrichment is very expensive & difficult. In patents ( I have 33 ones -Romanian ones but the rules are the same) you have to be prepared for surprise and then you use the umbrella technique. Peter On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 5:38 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson < svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote: > From Peter Gluck: > > ... > > > I don't uinderstend exactly your idea with the prper pressure- they add > > hydrogen, this is adsorbed in part, you cannot add exactly a dosis of > > hydrogen- but surely there is a "best practices" type protocol here. > > My apologies, Peter. > > Let me try to clarify my previous pressure statement. > > Since the Vort Collective IS known to occasionally speculate > extravagantly at times... > > <Unorthodox Rossi Explanation Follows> > > The following is a massively edited transcript originating from a > completely unorthodox and totally unscientific source. Never the less, > this unorthodox source occasionally gives me interesting tidbits of > information that have caused me to ponder, people, events & history in > ways that I might not have pondered otherwise. Therefore, - and for > what it's worth... ;-) > > I was told me that some of the spurious results that have plagued the > CF community for the past 20 years is due to the fact that the process > is extremely susceptible to environmental/weather changes. This > includes high and low pressure weather patterns. The implication was > that when a mundane weather pattern, such as when a cold front passes > through the lab, the environmental conditions could affect the > experiment in seemingly unpredictable but dramatic ways. > > When I heard this statement it suggested to me that it might be useful > to go back through some of the old experiments and determine what the > "weather" barometric pressure might have been at the time the certain > experiments suddenly began generating massive amounts of heat. I'm not > sure if this would be helpful however since I gather many labs had > numerous experiments running simultaneously - and some would suddenly > take off while the others remained stubbornly dormant. Obviously, > there must be other "environmental" factors at play as well. > > The same unorthodox source implied that the current "Rossi" process > still has "impurities" (contaminants in the nickel powder - I > believe). These contaminants need to be refined out of the chemistry > in order to make the process more robust than it currently is (as if > it isn't robust enough as-is!). They have no doubt that those > "impurities" will be located and removed. > > They also cautioned that this particular process, if not engineered > properly, is capable of generating harmful toxic impurities that could > be released into the environment. Such unwanted contaminants could > enter the water table where it could remain harmful for centuries. It > was not clear to me if the "impurities" being discussed might have > been chemical and/or radioactive in nature. I suspect it might have > been the latter - meaning radioactive. They stated the necessary > engineering" that would be needed to make the technology "safe" should > not difficult to engineer. > > Some here might find it amusing to ponder the fact that this > unorthodox source stated that what Rossi and Focardi have been > pursuing is nothing more than carrying on a centuries-old (old world) > European tradition, one that is close to the art of what we in the > western world would call "alchemy". (This BTW, should help explain why > I have recently been mentioning "Steam Punk!" in some of my Vort > posts.) Old farts like Rossi and Focardi are instinctively comfortable > with how to manipulate these old-world alchemical "technologies". It's > is right up their alley. Such alchemical explorations at present tend > to baffle "modern" western world scientific sensibilities. > Nevertheless, I'm sure nuclear explanations will eventually be > determined. When believable "nuclear" explanations are "theorized" the > western world will probably start feeling much more comfortable with > what's going on! >8-0. > > Economically speaking, I got the distinct impression that they predict > that this "technology" will eventually be accepted by the world, this > despite initial economic resistance to marginalize it. Most of the > initial resistance, I was told, will NOT be due to the newness of > technology itself, but rather due to the complicated global economic > issues that will have to be addressed first. We have to find ways to > make the new technology profitable within the current economic > institutions in power in order to move it into a reality. > > </Unorthodox Rossi Explanation Follows> > > I hope that some of the Vort Collective enjoyed the entertainment! And > now, back to regularly scheduled programming. ;-) > > > Regards > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com > www.zazzle.com/orionworks > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
