[Vo]:the future of PdD LENR is not technological

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Friends

I have just published:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/08/why-pd-d-lenr-will-never-work.html

Time can and will show if I was right. Anyway, the mission of
truth is to help problem solving and progress even it makes
some people unhappy and even angry.

Peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:My ICCF18 presentation

[Eric Walker]

Very nice table talk.

You included these good-natured observations:  "If you want great science,
you must settle for lots of schlock science, and also many *odd people*."
 And, "by his own account, Watson was always ready to cut corners and goof
off. He described a conference in Italy in 1951, a year before he
discovered DNA. This is a picture of emergent science and the many *odd
people* it attracts," where you go on to quote Watson's description of the
jumble of unrestrained theorizing that was going on at the time.

History does repeat itself, over and over.  The real mystery is that people
forget this from time to time and come to imagine that the book has been
closed on the important discoveries in science.  All of the people here can
take pride in being among the odd people.

Eric




On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Here is the script for my ICCF18 Luncheon Talk. This was well received. It
> has cute illustrations.
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf
>
> I have to write an oh-so-serious version for the Proceedings, in
> academese. This one is more fun.
>
> I am also trying to squeeze Mizuno's paper down to the 6-page limit of the
> Proceedings. That is difficult.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Asked & Answered

[Kevin O'Malley]

Cold fusioneers cannot get a US patent

Even anti-LENR anti-science Luddites acknowledge this is the case, and
applaud it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2981505/posts?page=13#13

To: *Moltke*
 *The patent office does not care whether or not it works. That’s for the
*market* to decide.*

The USPTO won't even look at a LENR or cold fusion patent application,
because over here it does matter whether it works or not.
13 posted on
*Thu 24 Jan 2013 06:48:31 PM PST* by
Moonman62(The US has become
a government with a country, rather than a country with
a government.)


--
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2981505/posts?page=20#20


To: *Moltke*
 *The sad fact is that the USPTO grants about an order of magnitude more
silly patents than the EPO.*

I've still got to give them credit for dismissing cold fusion applications
without wasting their time looking at them.
20 posted on
*Fri 25 Jan 2013 10:14:20 AM PST* by
Moonman62(The US has become
a government with a country, rather than a country with
a government.)

Re: [Vo]:Asked & Answered

[Kevin O'Malley]

Vigilante Censorship, censorship by thread spamming


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2981505/posts

To: *Moonman62*
 *"I’m going to continue to post to you under FR’s guidelines. Your
interpretation of the guidelines is wrong. That’s why your repeated
attempts to get me banned have failed."*

Sure you will, because you're an asshole. Also ignorant (or a liar) not
understanding the difference between "rules" and "etiquette". Thus far, I
have made NO effort to "get you banned", nor do I want you "banned" as in
"kicked off FR". I simply want you to cease posting to me. I have
ascertained from your LONG history that you are simply a liar, indulging in
vigilante censorship of the topic of LENR, and you will say literally
anything to foster that end. In future my total response to you will be:

*“Trolls, troublemakers, disruptors, forum pests, malcontents, RINOs,
liberals, stalkers, et al, would continue posting to (harassing) someone
after being asked to stop. Conservative FReepers would not.”*

DO NOT POST TO ME! (#)

Consider this to be #1. Perhaps if that number gets large enough, the mods
will pay some attention to your continuing abuse of FR.
41 posted on
*Wed 30 Jan 2013 07:03:34 AM PST* by Wonder
Warthog
[ Post Reply |
Private
Reply|
To
40  | View
Replies 
| Report
Abuse ]

Re: [Vo]:Asked & Answered

[James Bowery]

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 11:25 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:

> But it is not an established ENGINEERING field ...
>

But it is not an established THEORETICAL field ...

Re: [Vo]:Asked & Answered

[Kevin O'Malley]

Thanks for bumping the thread -- T4BTT

LENR seems to have its own set of Anti-Science Truthers. In the last couple
of years, there has been quite a bit of activity in the area of Low Energy
Nuclear Reactions. Originally, the field was called Cold Fusion in 1989
when Pons & Fleischmann announced their findings prematurely. They were
ridiculed and blacklisted by scientists who could have lost funding for
their nuclear projects in 1989, even though some of their findings were
soon replicated.. You can get the story here:

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=263


In fact, the only verified instance of Fraud in LENR was when MIT
scientists fudged their results to show a negative result rather than the
positive one the data supports.

The ongoing story here on Free Republic has been one where the detractors
use ridicule, falsehoods, false argumentation, classic fallacies,
misdirection, and all manner of unscientific and ugly behavior other than
to discuss the science behind the claims. In order to fight fire with fire,
I started calling these pathological skeptics “seagulls” but the moderator
told me not to do that. So the skeptopaths are allowed certain tactics on
FR but the LENR afficianados are not. It turns out that one of the
moderators resigned, and his scientific background was lacking in terms of
being able to properly absorb this material. At one time he even put it on
the same level as BigFoot without backing it up when confronted:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2917406/posts?page=3976#3976


And even though the Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated hundreds of
times by more than a thousand scientists, even in mainstream peer-reviewed
journals.

https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2&sh=www.springerlink.com
.
Jing-tang He
• Nuclear fusion inside condense matters
• Frontiers of Physics in China
Volume 2, Number 1, 96-102, DOI: 10.1007/s11467-007-0005-8
This article describes in detail the nuclear fusion inside condense
matters—the Fleischmann-Pons effect, the reproducibility of cold fusions,
self-consistency of cold fusions and the possible applications
.
Note that Jing-tang He found there were 14,700 replications of the Pons
Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect.
http://www.boliven.com/publication/10.1007~s11467-007-0005-8?q=(%22David%20J.%20Nagel%22)

.
National Instruments is a multibillion dollar corporation that does not
need to stick its neck out for “bigfoot stories”. After noting more than
150 replications, they recently concluded that with so much evidence of
anomalous heat generation...
http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf
Conclusion
• There is an unknown physical event and there is a need of better
measurements and control tools. NI is playing a role in accelerating
innovation and discovery.



The current state of the science of LENR is that the Pons Fleischmann
Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated and it is an established
scientific fact. But it is not an established ENGINEERING field because the
effect is difficult to generate and there is still some lingering stigma
associated with the field. The level of pathological resistance this field
receives is unconscionable for those of us who seek scientific answers and
engineering solutions.

If you find that the thread leads to this post it is because I no longer
respond to the seagulls, I send all inquiries to this post so that crickets
are not generated, nor is there an impression left that they have an
objection worth pursuing. If lurkers feel the objection is worth pursuing,
they can repost the same question.
To learn more about LENR, I recommend the LENR-CANR website
http://lenr-canr.org/


On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> Basic derision
>
> ***That's all the skeptopaths seem to be able to muster.  They can't
> counteract the science.  They downshift into ridicule because they can get
> away with it.  It's basically like saying, "hey, look, I can be an asshole
> and get away with it, so that's what I'm going to do."  It does NOTHING to
> further the science.  There isn't even an attempt to refute the science
> behind the claims.
>
> The same thing happened to the Wright brothers for 5 years between the
> time they first flew an airplane in 1903 and the time they had a contract
> to demo against in 1908.  What happened to those skeptopaths in 1904?  They
> were utterly discredited, but within a few weeks of the Wright brothers
> demonstration, they were spouting off yet again about how things should be
> done differently, better, more to their liking.  It's horse shit.
>

RE: [Vo]:My ICCF18 presentation

[DJ Cravens]

thanks for your kind words in the talk.
I like it.   
 
And yes materials are very important.
23% Ag, 2% Ce (or 2% Y) always gave me the best overall performance.
But you do have to treat it nice. 
Using a model builders sand blaster with cerium oxide was a quick easy way to 
clean up the metal.
 
D2
 
for those that like check diffusion rates of alloyed Pd
The Y or Ce in it seemed to work its charm at higher temps for those working 
with pressurized electrochem cells. 
 
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.platinummetalsreview.com%2Fpdf%2Fpmr-v21-i2-044-050.pdf&ei=P2gNUsz3MKKoiQLV5oHgBg&usg=AFQjCNFblsRSsaa6RKn2wDKeCd2SVk70Cw&sig2=FDnhE-4_ieg1Ai-O7Hsuzg&bvm=bv.50768961,d.cGE
 
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 17:09:37 -0400
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:My ICCF18 presentation

Here is the script for my ICCF18 Luncheon Talk. This was well received. It has 
cute illustrations.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf

I have to write an oh-so-serious version for the Proceedings, in academese. 
This one is more fun.
I am also trying to squeeze Mizuno's paper down to the 6-page limit of the 
Proceedings. That is difficult.

- Jed
  

Re: [Vo]:Asked & Answered

[Kevin O'Malley]

Basic derision

***That's all the skeptopaths seem to be able to muster.  They can't
counteract the science.  They downshift into ridicule because they can get
away with it.  It's basically like saying, "hey, look, I can be an asshole
and get away with it, so that's what I'm going to do."  It does NOTHING to
further the science.  There isn't even an attempt to refute the science
behind the claims.

The same thing happened to the Wright brothers for 5 years between the time
they first flew an airplane in 1903 and the time they had a contract to
demo against in 1908.  What happened to those skeptopaths in 1904?  They
were utterly discredited, but within a few weeks of the Wright brothers
demonstration, they were spouting off yet again about how things should be
done differently, better, more to their liking.  It's horse shit.

Re: [Vo]:Asked & Answered

[Kevin O'Malley]

It does not make sense to compare AVErage to MAXimum, anyways, because it
depends upon having access to so much data that one can take the average of
it.  So I'm going to revise this aspect of the Bang4TheBuck calculation
into 1/2 the maximum.  One half of 300MJ is 150MJ.  One half of 6MJ is
3MJ.  Until we hear otherwise and need to revise it, shaving off an order
of magnitude here or there.  That doesn't  change the fact that LENR is 12
orders of magnitude more bang for the buck than hot fusion.

look at the two side by side:
cold fusion
2 * 3600 seconds average * 300 Mjoules (Max) * 14,700 replications / $300k
average = 105840 sec*MjouleSamples/$

Hot fusion
  0.5 seconds average * 6 Mjoules (max) * 20 replications / $2 Billion
average = 0.0003  sec*MjouleSamples/$
That is now 14 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more bang for the buck.


On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Kevin O'Malley  wrote:
>
> Controlled Hot-Fusion has generated more energy for longer sustained
>> periods.
>>
>
> Until a few years ago the PPPL held the world record. 10 MW for about 0.6
> s. (6 MJ). I think some other Tokamak topped that by a wide margin, but I
> am not sure.
>
>
> ***The average cold fusion experiment generates several hundred megajoules
>> for several hours and costs maybe $300k.
>>
>
> No, the average experiment generates a megajoule or two at most. Only a
> few have generated 10 to 300 MJ.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:FYI: Does tritium hydride exhibit measurable spontaneous fusion via proton tunneling?

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Wed, 14 Aug 2013 20:49:58 -0700:
Hi Jones,
[snip]

See http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1953PhRv...90..865W. The reaction is highly
exothermic:-

1H+3H => 4He + 19.814 MeV + gamma

It probably has a low cross section for hot fusion because the energy is
disposed of via gamma emission, analogous to the 
D+D=> 4He + gamma reaction.

Nevertheless, as we have seen, the D+D=> 4He reaction appears* to have a much
larger cross section for cold fusion, than it does for hot fusion, so perhaps
the p + T => 4He reaction does too. IOW CF may provide a fast alternative to
gamma emission, for disposing of the energy, which could dramatically increase
the cross section.

* - "appears", because it's not yet certain IMO that D+D fusion is actually
happening in CF.

>-Original Message-
>From: mix...@bigpond.com 
>
>In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:20:32 -0700:
>Hi,
>
>>First off, tritium hydride - even if proton tunneling were to occur, is
>>unlikely to fuse into helium at all unless it was part of a coincidental
>>beta decay. However, tritium deuteride would be a much better candidate to
>>fuse, if that is what is meant in the original poser. 
>
>Actually, the original poster was correct. T has 1 proton and 2 neutrons, so
>an added proton => 4He. This is a strong force reaction, and no beta decay
>is needed.
>
>
>Hi Robin,
>
>Despite it looking feasible on paper, pT can only result in 3He + n as the
>ash - and that one cannot happen via proton tunneling. 
>
>The pT -> 4He reaction cannot happen AFAIK. That should be obvious since it
>is never listed on any table as a feasible reaction.
>
>The pT -> 3He + n reaction has been seen at high energy, but is endothermic
>IIRC- so it would not happen via QM tunneling.
> 
>Jones
>
>
>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

[Vo]:My ICCF18 presentation

[Jed Rothwell]

Here is the script for my ICCF18 Luncheon Talk. This was well received. It
has cute illustrations.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf

I have to write an oh-so-serious version for the Proceedings, in academese.
This one is more fun.

I am also trying to squeeze Mizuno's paper down to the 6-page limit of the
Proceedings. That is difficult.

- Jed

[Vo]:New Quantum Theory Separates Gravitational and Inertial Mass

[H Veeder]

from 2010

New Quantum Theory Separates Gravitational and Inertial Mass

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/419367/new-quantum-theory-separates-gravitational-and-inertial-mass/

<>


Harry

[Vo]:The Hunt for the Magnetic Monopole

[Alberto De Souza]

See:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/materials/the-hunt-for-the-magnetic-monopole/?utm_source=techalert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=081513

Alberto.