Re: New light on LENR
Horace Heffner wrote: It appears we have made no progress at all on the issues I have raised. Rather than wasting more time on that now, I would very much appreciate information on a side issue you have raised in the discussion. I don't know what you would consider progress short of my agreeing with you that I screwed up. As for the magnet effect, I will explain. An isoperibolic calorimeter, as Letts used, measures power production by determining temperature drop across the cell wall. The inner temperature is measured at one or more locations within the electrolyte. In his case, the outer temperature was the ambient air. Heat is being generated within the electrolyte by the motion of electrons and ions and by the CF process at the cathode, both of which generate convection currents within the fluid having different temperatures. Such a calorimeter is calibrated by assuming that the calibration method produces similar gradients and that these gradients are stable. When the ions and electrons that are moving within the electrolyte are subjected to a magnetic field, their trajectories are changed. This change causes convection currents within the fluid to change their path so that fluid current of a different temperature impacts on the thermistor, hence the the measured inner temperature appears to change. This change is indistinguishable from a change in power production. I explored this effect in some detail using a similar calorimeter. I found that I could obtain apparent excess energy by simply moving the magnets in the absent of the laser. I also measured the laser effect using a Seebeck calorimeter in the absence of a magnet. Because the cell is within a metal box, I would expect any external magnetic field would be significantly reduced within the calorimeter. As for changing laser polarization, this effect may also be an artifact because the laser effect is very sensitive to where on the surface the laser is applied. Unless the exact same spot on the cathode is being irradiated by the same size spot of laser light, the effect of any change in laser characteristics can not be isolated from these effects. These experiments were not done under conditions that would insure consistency of spot size or position. In short, many of the details about the effect still need to be determined. Therefore, it is premature to speculate about a model. I hope this explanation is clear. Regards, Ed At 2:58 PM 8/20/4, Edmund Storms wrote: 2. An isoperibolic calorimeter has an artifact when a magnetic field is applied. Such fields change the internal thermal gradients so that the calibration no longer applies. Therefore, any claim based on such a calorimeter involving a magnetic field can not be believed. Could you explain how a magnetic field significantly changes thermal gradients in an isoperibolic calorimeter? I assume you mean here that even if magnets in the calorimeter are replaced with masses of the same size, shape and thermal properties, but having no magnetic field, the change in calibration will still be seen? If it is known in advance that magnetic fields are going to be used in a calorimeter, it seems like it should be a fairly small issue to use materials in the calorimeter that do not significantly change their thermal properties in a magnetic field. It should of course be impossible for a static magnetic field to actually change the total energy balance of a process, as that would be a violation of conservation of energy. Thus the question arises: even if there is no motion of conductors, and even if no materials are used which have thermal properties which are altered significantly by magnetic fields, can the calibration constant of an isoperibolic calorimeter be altered by magnetic fields enclosed within the calorimeter? Regards, Horace Heffner
[ISBL04] Newspaper Articles of International Symposium on Ball Lightning in Taiwan (fwd)
The Ball Lightning Symposium apparently just took place last week in Taiwan. I received the following chinese-language file. Can anyone translate? See this temporary GIF image http://amasci.com/temp.gif Babelfish also does a slightly-worthwhile job on the following URLs. -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:21:05 +0900 From: Masashi KAMOGAWA [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Masashi Kamogawa [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ISBL04] Newspaper Articles of International Symposium on Ball Lightning in Taiwan Dear my colleagues: I would like to inform you the newspaper articles about ISBL04 in Taiwan. Chinatimes: August 5, 2004 http://news.chinatimes.com/Chinatimes/newslist/newslist-content/0%2C3546%2C110503%2B112004080500061%2C00.html NCU secretary news: August 5, 2004 http://www.ncu.edu.tw/ncu2/modules.php?name=Ncu_mainfile=indexfunc=articlesid=2393 NCU secretary news: August 10, 2004 http://www.ncu.edu.tw/ncu2/modules.php?name=Ncu_mainfile=indexfunc=articlesid=2411 We are looking forward to seeing you in the Holland. Best wishes, Masashi KAMOGAWA - Department of Physics, Tokyo Gakugei University (Transfer from Waseda University) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://faculty.web.waseda.ac.jp/kamogawa/index.html TELFAX +81-42-329-7484 (Direct)
Re: New light on LENR
Ed, Thanks for your more detailed answer, which addresses several points of interest in the Letts effect which were unclear from you published experiment, and your previous messages. Perhaps we should even reserve judgement on this name, the Letts effect, pending review of the similar work of Dr. Mitchell Swartz, who seems to claiming some priority in this discovery. More disturbingly, he seems to be insinuating that there is an ongoing effort on the part of LENR-CANR to censor or otherwise obstruct the distribution of his information. But back to the task of looking towards the future of a planet which is desperately in need of a prompt solution to its increasing energy needs, part of which might be met if the [eponymic] effect is truly reproducible, with or without the direct conversion of heat into electricity... I think everyone will agree with your first conclusion: In short, many of the details about the effect still need to be determined. However, in regard to the second, Therefore, it is premature to speculate about a model. Experimenters desirous of efficiency should disagree in the strongest terms with that conclusion for several reasons: 1) The important thing for the future, not only of this experiment but perhaps for the entire field, is to find the correct model expediently, in order to guide in the correct understanding of this anomaly; and this cannot be done efficiently without first designing experiments based on *most likely possible models,* so that the false models can be eliminated, one by one. 2) To proceed in a hit-or-miss fashion, based on incremental improvements of past experiments, might provide some good answers also, but unless one is very fortunate or skilled, it will logically be a semi-blind effort, since there is no satisfactory underlying model. No doubt you have a personal model in the formative stages, which steers the design of ongoing work. But even though this Edisonian approach does work well sometimes, the only problem is, it may not be as efficient for others than yourself as the alternative: which is building speculative models first, and then performing experiments to prove/disprove those. 3) There are some easy-to-disprove new models, based on Quantum Mechanics, which can be put forward. 4) At least one of these models is poised to produce answers for less effort than is involved in the typical calorimetry experiment, because calorimetry is not needed-and in fact, in this model retention of excess heat in the active zone could be inhibitory to the effect. This model will depend on a newfound ability (hopefully), if the obvious extension to the Letts effect is correct, to construct the experiment in two separated steps a) loading and sealing a target, b) irradiating a stand-alone target, not with some randomly chosen frequency but with a frequency determined by the model, and irradiation the target outside of a liquid cell, so that charged particles can be collected, if they are present. If charged particles are not found, and they should be easy to find if they are present, then that would be very temporarily disappointing, but might lead to a more refined model and subsequent experiment to prove/disprove the next model. You are understandably committed to the Edisonian approach - fine - it has worked for you in the past, but that is because you are an exceptionally skilled experimenter, like Thomas A. himself - but the rarity of those traits only reinforces the notion that it is wiser for others to proceed more logically. I just wish you and the others in this field has a staff of 50-60 technicians to push this effort along Regards, Jones Beene Here is a story on the Large Hadron Collider http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3583658.stm which is the latest $5 billion boondoggle which takes away even more potential funding from much higher priority needs - like REAL - solutions to nuclear energy at the low-energy end of the spectrum. Give experimenter like Storms/Letts/Shoulders/Miley/ etc. etc. a small fraction of that and we could already be sitting on the answer to an oil-free future.
Re: [ISBL04] Newspaper Articles of International Symposium on Ball Lightning in Taiwan (fwd)
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004, William Beaty wrote: Babelfish also does a slightly-worthwhile job on the following URLs. Also: select chinese-trad as the language. Here's a sample: http://www.ncu.edu.tw/ncu2/modules.php?name=Ncu_mainfile=indexfunc=articlesid=2393 Reporter the pond biography wins/Chungli to report Along with lunar calendar July arrival, many about ghost the subject starts on the media warmly to discuss. Had many people to listen to the jack-o'-lantern to be clear, even some people declared once with own eyes has seen, the average person saw the migration exceptionally shines the object in, unclearly investigates very easily regards as it one kind [psychic?] phenomenon, even far-fetched very many fables. In fact, this kind of abnormal phenomenon may use the modern science the angle to explain that, Central University outer space research institute Manager Liu Zheng Yan said: It has the possibility is the sphere lightning . The sphere lightning is a migration is rapid, the bright shining spheroid, some people mistake it for the jack-o'-lantern, also some people thought is [spirit?] floats, actually it is one kind of extremely special natural phenomenon, also has of atmospheric electricity research the long-time history, including Nobel prize-winner P.L. Kapitza all is one of researchers. Since 1988, in country and so on European and American date has held seven related international seminars, eighth session of international sphere lightning seminar first launches in Taiwan, Central University outer space therefore the nation only, also is the world biggest outer space education unit and so on under the dual qualifications, strives for commendablily to jointly manages the power. Comes from the world 9 countries 20 well-known scholars, in the oligomerization loudly to discuss this kind of mysterious natural phenomenon. Central University outer space research institute Liu Zheng Yan has a quite unforgettable recollection to the sphere lightning: He reads high three o'clock, gloomy is bad in some weather, flutters the drizzle afternoon, bored treating when classroom, suddenly has the unclear sphere object, sends out bright which dazzles, smuggles the huge sound, slowly raises from the window, at that time also shook has broken to pieces nearby the window one, two glass. The at that time because the sky is dim, its Yao goal golden yellow brightness resembled the lightning, Liu Zheng Yan called at that time it the sphere lightning, afterwards under the cause opportune moment started with country and so on the Japan to carry on the sphere lightning the correlation research. Actually the sphere lightning and the average person cognition the jack-o'-lantern or has some kind of degree the difference. The jack-o'-lantern only is the burning phenomenon which the phosphorus one kind of compound produces, the physique is by no means spherical, some luckily meets the sphere lightning the person, possibly by chance bumps into the peak which in August sphere lightning appears, bumps into the Chinese unique clever month, then [xxx] oneself saw is the popular name jack-o'-lantern. This grading eight sessions of international seminars, thought the sphere lightning is the kind of electricity thick liquid ball, occurs under the heavy weather, because the formidable electromagnetism correlation, gathers integrates one kind of not smelly sphere object, except can penetrate object and so on wall surface, but also can against the wind but the line. Liu Zheng Yan pointed out that, the home is situated gg1e0 the area, is an energy gathers, before south on once observed the outer space lightning marvelous sight the giant jet, therefore also should be studies the sphere lightning [xx] the good environment. Original text reprint from [ 2004-08-04/ east woods newspaper ] Http://www.ettoday.com/2004/08/04/122%2D1667580.htm (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-789-0775unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: New light on LENR
Ed, Thanks for your more detailed answer, which addresses several points of interest in the Letts effect which were unclear from you published experiment, and your previous messages. Perhaps we should even reserve judgement on this name, the Letts effect, pending review of the similar work of Dr. Mitchell Swartz, who seems to claiming some priority in this discovery. More disturbingly, he seems to be insinuating that there is an ongoing effort on the part of LENR-CANR to censor or otherwise obstruct the distribution of his information. I have no idea how Mitchell thinks. I and Jed on numerous occasions have asked him for copies of his work. On the few occasions when he responded, the files were not in the right format to upload. He was told of this problem, but he never sent proper formats. The LENR-CANR site wants his work if he will provide it. As for his claims of previous laser studies, these never came to my attention at the time, nor to anyone else as far as I know. If Swartz wants to take credit for his ideas, he needs to publish them before the fact not afterwards. But back to the task of looking towards the future of a planet which is desperately in need of a prompt solution to its increasing energy needs, part of which might be met if the [eponymic] effect is truly reproducible, with or without the direct conversion of heat into electricity... I think everyone will agree with your first conclusion: In short, many of the details about the effect still need to be determined. However, in regard to the second, Therefore, it is premature to speculate about a model. Experimenters desirous of efficiency should disagree in the strongest terms with that conclusion for several reasons: 1) The important thing for the future, not only of this experiment but perhaps for the entire field, is to find the correct model expediently, in order to guide in the correct understanding of this anomaly; and this cannot be done efficiently without first designing experiments based on *most likely possible models,* so that the false models can be eliminated, one by one. No one is doing the work hit or miss, as you say. Everyone in the field has his own personal model, most of which have not been published. I'm only concerned about time wasted discussing a model that is based on what might be incorrect experimental claims. It is obvious, even without a theory, that the effect of polarization, a magnetic field, laser frequency, and laser power all need to be explored. A theory adds nothing to this effort right now unless you can predict where the best frequency might be. 2) To proceed in a hit-or-miss fashion, based on incremental improvements of past experiments, might provide some good answers also, but unless one is very fortunate or skilled, it will logically be a semi-blind effort, since there is no satisfactory underlying model. No doubt you have a personal model in the formative stages, which steers the design of ongoing work. But even though this Edisonian approach does work well sometimes, the only problem is, it may not be as efficient for others than yourself as the alternative: which is building speculative models first, and then performing experiments to prove/disprove those. 3) There are some easy-to-disprove new models, based on Quantum Mechanics, which can be put forward. No one is going to waste their time trying to disprove some one else's model. Experimentalists spend their time trying to prove their own models. 4) At least one of these models is poised to produce answers for less effort than is involved in the typical calorimetry experiment, because calorimetry is not needed-and in fact, in this model retention of excess heat in the active zone could be inhibitory to the effect. This model will depend on a newfound ability (hopefully), if the obvious extension to the Letts effect is correct, to construct the experiment in two separated steps a) loading and sealing a target, b) irradiating a stand-alone target, not with some randomly chosen frequency but with a frequency determined by the model, and irradiation the target outside of a liquid cell, so that charged particles can be collected, if they are present. Yes, that would be a good and obvious approach. However, we must first discover how to make the active sites. Right now nature does this by a random process. If charged particles are not found, and they should be easy to find if they are present, then that would be very temporarily disappointing, but might lead to a more refined model and subsequent experiment to prove/disprove the next model. A number of people are now looking for and finding charged particle emission using various methods to initiate the nuclear reactions. However, the emission rate is nearly 10 orders of magnitude below He4 production rate, causing a person to wonder if this has anything to do with the F-P effect. You are
Sending large files to LENR-CANR.org
Edmund Storms wrote: I have no idea how Mitchell thinks. I and Jed on numerous occasions have asked him for copies of his work. On the few occasions when he responded, the files were not in the right format to upload. He was told of this problem, but he never sent proper formats. To be exact, Swartz sent me a CD-ROM which I was totally unable to read. I could not even read the directory. I have had bad experiences with CD-ROMs. There seem to be three or four different, mutually incompatible formats: ISO, SIF, UDF and so on. Swartz sent to the CD-ROM because his files are very big and could not be e-mailed. When people wish to send large files now, I recommend they combine the files together with pkzip and then upload the zip file to a web page somewhere. Most web pages have 10 MB or more free space. You give me the URL and I download the file. I have done this several times successfully. I recommended this method to Swartz, and I also suggested he try another CD-ROM, but he did not respond. - Jed
Re: New light on LENR
At 04:43 PM 8/21/2004, Jed Rothwell falsely wrote: To be exact, Swartz sent me a CD-ROM which I was totally unable to read. I could not even read the directory. I have had bad experiences with CD-ROMs. There seem to be three or four different, mutually incompatible formats: ISO, SIF, UDF and so on. Swartz sent to the CD-ROM because his files are very big and could not be e-mailed. When people wish to send large files now, I recommend they combine the files together with pkzip and then upload the zip file to a web page somewhere. Most web pages have 10 MB or more free space. You give me the URL and I download the file. I have done this several times successfully. I recommended this method to Swartz, and I also suggested he try another CD-ROM, but he did not respond. - Jed Ed and Jed should not be argumentative (using Jed's previous unwarranted, improper and outrageous admonishment to a good Vortex scientist) but since they have been, here goes. Bzt. Untrue. False. Delusional. Mr. Jed Rothwell is disingenuous with a very selective memory-- again. First, we sent Jed the files he's referred to in several formats. We have proof he received them AND he received the files by email too. No mention of that in his missive. Jed also got them and said that he had them as pdf files but wanted to key word hunts all through them. No mention of that in his missive,either. Briefly, Jed got them multiple times. In addition to CD-ROM, Jed got them by email and by snail mail. In addition to the CD-ROM Jed received four formats. In addition to the CD-ROM the papers handed to him at Gene's funeral. If memory serves, he or Ed also received another copy by regular mail. So there has been a total transmission of about five formats including one or two copies of each paper in hard-copy format, and email and by CD ROM. No mention of THAT in Jed's missive, is there. The problem is that Jed said he was waiting for Ed's approval. No mention of THAT in his missive. Now, most who are familiar with Jed's antics, know that since I previously criticized his lack of thermal ohmic calibrations (and other issues including failure to consider the Bernard stability), I expected some delay, but more than a year of delay has come and gone, and more than a year has passed since Jed's second receipt of the email papers he did not mention in his missive, that he had received, either. Anyway, readdressing Jed's fantasies and zooming back to reality. Next, Rothwell later informed me, at about the time he began verbally attacking my work including here on vortex, that my papers were not acceptable based upon his discussion with Ed Storms. Jed told me that by telephone. Later, in email Jed confirmed that control of the site is by Ed Storms. Here is one of his emails purporting Jed's plausible deniability based on Ed Storms: From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 Furthermore, I have no editorial role in LENR-CANR. Ed and others make all decisions about what papers will be uploaded. All I do is OCR the papers and generate the indexes. - Jed Q.E.D. So, the record shows that Jed is disingenuous again. First, Jed got the papers on pdf and other formats. Jed waited for Ed Storms' approval. Jed and Storms also got the papers by mail on hard-copy print. Jed waited for Ed Storms' approval. Jed got the papers in hand at Gene's funeral Jed waited for Ed Storms' approval. Jed got the papers by CD-ROM, and I doubt he had trouble since we discussed the papers AND since no one else had trouble. Jed waited for Ed Storms' approval. Thus, the likelihood of censorship at the LENR site run by Rothwell and Storms, given the absence of three papers (zero of three) and the time involved (more than a year), and the multiplicity of copies received, is probably characterized by a p value by actuarial z test of at least p .01 Q.E.D. Jed has never liked papers involving calibrations because as Jed has said, We don't need no (stinking) calibrations. (Perhaps that was sarcasm, perhaps not.) In any case, Jed's readers ought to have access to his requisite warning label. Hope that helps. Dr. Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New light on LENR
At 06:30 PM 8/21/2004, Jed Rothwell evasively wrote, hand-waving to his own straw arguments, answering nothing. Rothwell of course is simply ignoring the issues of possible censorship on the LENR website. Could it be? Well, for the record, given Rothwell's evasive nonsense, here is yet another additional corroboration taken from email written by our mutual late friend, Dr. Eugene Mallove. It is about Storms/Rothwell censorship and Gene picked the title. In the missive. Dr. Mallove informed me about a vortex post which I had missed, but which HE thought important, and he wrote his thoughtful and now-relevant comment below. I wished I had looked closer before this latest denial by the Rothwell. == EMAIL from Dr. Eugene Mallove= Subject: Storms/Rothwell censorship = User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.4.030702.0 Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 Subject: Storms/Rothwell censorship From: Eugene F. Mallove [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mitch, FYI -- this was a message that Rothwell posted to Vortex about a month ago: At LENR-CANR.org we have censored out some of the controversial claims related to CF, such as transmuting macroscopic amounts of gold, or biological transmutations, along with some of the extremely unconventional theories. This is not because we (Storms and Rothwell) oppose these claims, or because we are upset by them. It is for political reasons only. The goal of LENR-CANR is to convince mainstream scientists that CF is real. This goal would be hampered by presenting such extreme views. Actually, I have no opinion about most theories, and I could not care less how weird the data may seem. At the Scientific American and the APS they feel hostility toward such things. They have a sense that publishing such data will harm their readers and sully the traditions and reputation of academic science. I am not a member of the congregation at the Church of Academic Science, and I could not care less about the Goddess Academia's Sacred Reputation. I don't publish because of politics and limited web space. - Jed This is known as science by politics -- it is disgusting. Storms doesn't have leg to stand on and he knows it. - Gene = end of missive === And so, Gene was prophetic. When the web-moderators at LENR were upset about calibrations, or noise measurement, or especially those darn calibrations that semiquantitatively correct their errors secondary to Bernard instability, or anything else as Jed posted, they censored them. Rothwell continues: There may be four formats and there may be a dozen, but I could not read a single byte. Swartz will have to do what 200 other authors have done. They had no difficulty, and neither will he. As much as I might like to make an exception and bend over backwards for him, I could not read the media he sent and I threw it away, so there is nothing more I can do. Swartz should upload the papers on his own site, and give me the URL, so I can download them and prepare them for LENR-CANR.org. For that matter, he should give everyone the URL. - Jed Actually, the offer stands exactly as before. Any vort, student, or scientist who would like a copy of the paper prepublication, please send me a private email, subject: Photoinduced Excess Heat, and I will send a copy of the manuscript thereafter by email. The paper itself runs about 2 Megabytes in a pdf file. Other papers on cold fusion science and engineering not available elsewhere but published will shortly be available at the COLD FUSION TIMES web site http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html and the JET Thermal Products web site at http://world.std.com/~mica/jet.html The second website includes a page showing our public demonstration of cold fusion, which was openly shown at MIT during the last week of August 2003 at ICCF-10. http://world.std.com/~mica/jeticcf10demo.html They will be out in the Proceedings in any case. I agree with Dr. Mallove's assessment, and do wish that I had spoken to him about this more (and so much else) when there was time, over a nice meal. Dr. Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Authors have been very cooperative
I wrote: Swartz will have to do what 200 other authors have done. They had no difficulty, and neither will he. Just to amplify that, and give credit where it is due, let me point out that two of these authors have been Nobel laureates, and several are among the greatest electrochemists who ever lived, including Fleischmann, Bockris and Oriani. Many others have had great difficulty communicating in English, especially researchers from Russia, China and Japan. As one who struggles daily with a second language, I am impressed and gratified by their efforts to prepare papers conscientiously and to correct mistakes in English grammar. Many of these researchers are elderly scientists who are not familiar with computers, but they have gone to great lengths to prepare the papers according to specifications and provide them to the ICCF conference, and to me, in the requested formats, with the proper page length. By and large, with just a few small exceptions, the researchers who have contributed papers to LENR-CANR have been the soul of cooperation, even though they are all busy people and many of them are famous busy people. If they can make the effort to prepare material in the proper format, so can Mitchell Swartz. He should stop making excuses, blaming other people, and spreading ridiculous allegations. If he does not wish to post his paper on LENR-CANR.org, he should post it on his own web site and give the readers of this forum the URL. Why is this so difficult? Why should it be the least bit controversial? - Jed
Re: Authors have been very cooperative
Mr. Rothwell remains argumentative to point away from censorship at the LENR-CANR site, about which he protests too much. The censorship has been noted by me, others, and the late Dr. Eugene Mallove. Here is yet another additional corroboration taken from email written by our mutual late friend, Dr. Eugene Mallove. It is about Storms/Rothwell censorship and Gene picked the title. In the missive. Dr. Mallove informed me about a vortex post which I had missed, but which HE thought important, and he wrote his thoughtful and now-relevant comment below. I wished I had looked closer before this latest denial by the Rothwell. == EMAIL from Dr. Eugene Mallove= Subject: Storms/Rothwell censorship = User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.4.030702.0 Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 Subject: Storms/Rothwell censorship From: Eugene F. Mallove [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mitch, FYI -- this was a message that Rothwell posted to Vortex about a month ago: At LENR-CANR.org we have censored out some of the controversial claims related to CF, such as transmuting macroscopic amounts of gold, or biological transmutations, along with some of the extremely unconventional theories. This is not because we (Storms and Rothwell) oppose these claims, or because we are upset by them. It is for political reasons only. The goal of LENR-CANR is to convince mainstream scientists that CF is real. This goal would be hampered by presenting such extreme views. Actually, I have no opinion about most theories, and I could not care less how weird the data may seem. At the Scientific American and the APS they feel hostility toward such things. They have a sense that publishing such data will harm their readers and sully the traditions and reputation of academic science. I am not a member of the congregation at the Church of Academic Science, and I could not care less about the Goddess Academia's Sacred Reputation. I don't publish because of politics and limited web space. - Jed This is known as science by politics -- it is disgusting. Storms doesn't have leg to stand on and he knows it. - Gene = end of missive === And so, Gene was prophetic. I agree with Dr. Mallove's assessment, and do wish that I had spoken to him about this more (and so much else) when there was time, over a nice meal. When the web-moderators at LENR were upset about calibrations, or noise measurement, or especially those darn calibrations that semiquantitatively correct their errors secondary to Bernard instability, or anything else as Jed posted, they censored them. Actually, the offer stands exactly as before. Jed has the papers on pdf, but does not like that he does not have access to cut and paste for his not-quite-clear reasons. As before, any vort, student, or scientist want to bypass the censored LENR-CANR site, who would like a copy of the paper prepublication, please send me a private email, subject: Photoinduced Excess Heat and I will send a copy of the manuscript thereafter by email. The paper itself runs about 2 Megabytes in a pdf file. Other papers on cold fusion science and engineering not available elsewhere but published will shortly be available at the COLD FUSION TIMES web site http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html and the JET Thermal Products web site at http://world.std.com/~mica/jet.html The second website includes a page showing our public demonstration of cold fusion, which was openly shown at MIT during the last week of August 2003 at ICCF-10. http://world.std.com/~mica/jeticcf10demo.html Dr. Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
