Re: Manufacturing going to China..off topic
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-11/29/content_395728.htm The world's largest retailer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc, says its inventory of stock produced in China is expected to hit US$18 billion this year, keeping the annual growth rate of over 20 per cent consistent over two years. That's billion American, not British.
Keefe's engine
Speaking of magneto-caloric and/or electro-kinetic effects... which well-known effects are suggested as amenable to being translated into something completely different And the lack of success in getting others others to appreciate the precise focus of the issues ...;-) This poor bloke has been pounding his head against the wall for a quarter century with a pretty good idea (related to the above) and no takers http://www.keefengine.com/ Mr Keefe might opine that it is no fun being slightly ahead of his time... especially in a society which doesn't afford lawyers much sympathy these days (wonder why?), even if they are physics-teacher-turned-lawyer.
Re: Parametric capacitance
Hey Nick, Nice experiment. One wonders why you did not try to get the spacing down to a very minimum, since the ouptut is directly related? Couldn't the contacts be rearranged somehow such as on the circumference to get below the 3mm? Jones
DoE decision will be posted today
Dave Nagel wrote to me: I am told that the results of the review will be posted on a DoE web site this afternoon. I will let you know, when I know more. - Jed
Re: DoE decision will be posted today
Terry Blanton wrote: No hint as to the results, eh? I would not want to hazard a guess, but Dave Nagel is confident the decision will be positive. He is the closest CF person to the review, so he should know. Here's an interesting DOE press release (Nov. 30): . . . This achievement demonstrates high-temperature electrolysis which utilizes heat to decrease electricity needed for splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen. Instead of conventional electrolysis, which uses only electric current to separate hydrogen from water, high-temperature electrolysis enhances the efficiency of the process by adding substantial external heat . . . They replicated Mizuno! I'll bet they did not tell him. - Jed
Re: DoE decision will be posted today
Jed Rothwell wrote: I would not want to hazard a guess, but Dave Nagel is confident the decision will be positive. He is the closest CF person to the review, so he should know. I hope this is true. I'm preparing a mass-emailing for http://bertc.com/three_crows.htm ;-)
Astounding statement in upcoming paper by Cirillo and Iorio
Here is an ICCF11 paper describing an Ohomori-Mizuno replication: Cirillo, D. and V. Iorio. Transmutation of metal at low energy in a confined plasma in water. in Eleventh International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2004. Marseille, France. Quote: Once a stable plasma has been achieved for more than 500 sec., we can compare the input energy, electrical power, with the quantity of energy necessary to warm up and evaporate the solution water. Omitted from this calculation is energy associated with chemical reactions; energy related to the heating-up and fusion of the tungsten; energy used in expanding gas and steam leaving the cell; energy lost by thermal and electromagnetic radiation; and loss of heat through the insulation. Even though this extra energy is omitted from the calculation, the cell is found to produce more energy than is being applied. That is astounding. Quite a robust result! The paper should be ready today or tomorrow. - Jed
Re: Astounding statement in upcoming paper by Cirillo and Iorio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This paper is already posted in my web site since Nov 6, 2004 at : http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cfr/files/Electroplasma-eng.pdf see also the full slides at : http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cfr/lorio/index.htm I suggest you replace it with the version I will upload, which has been edited by Ed Storms and by me. We have improved the English. - Jed
RE: Parametric capacitance
Hi Nick Jones. This is a field mill. http://www.precisionstrobe.com/jc/fieldmill/fieldmill.html It should look familiar. A parametric oscillator would involve an inductor in the circuit to resonate it at a multiple of the chopping frequency. What was the total change in capacitance of your large rotary system? K. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 10:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Parametric capacitance Hey Nick, Nice experiment. One wonders why you did not try to get the spacing down to a very minimum, since the ouptut is directly related? Couldn't the contacts be rearranged somehow such as on the circumference to get below the 3mm? Jones
Re: Astounding statement in upcoming paper by Cirillo and Iorio
Dans un e-mail daté du 01/12/2004 18:48:18 Paris, Madrid, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : I suggest you replace it with the version I will upload, which has been edited by Ed Storms and by me. We have improved the English.- Jed Ok Jed,I shall soon replacethe "english-italian" version with your latest improved English version. Thanks for your suggestion. For your info, you will find also two videos of the Iorio-Cirillo's experiment at the bottom of the page at : http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cfr/lorio/index4.htm Best Regards,Jean-Louis NaudinEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Web site : http://www.jlnlabs.org
DoE recommendations are posted
Nothing to get excited about. See: http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2004/low_energy/ http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2004/low_energy/CF_Final_120104.pdf Quotes with footnotes: Charge Element 3: Determine whether there is a scientific case for continued efforts in these studies and, if so, to identify the most promising areas to be pursued. December 1, 2004 The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few eV. These proposals should meet accepted scientific standards, and undergo the rigors of peer review. No reviewer recommended a focused federally funded program for low energy nuclear reactions. [1] Reviewers identified two areas where additional research could address specific issues. One is the investigation of the properties of deuterated metals including possible effects of alloying and dislocations. These studies should take advantage of the modern tools for material characterization. A second area of investigation is the use of state-of-the-art apparatus and techniques to search for fusion events in thin deuterated foils. Several reviewers specifically stated that more experiments similar in nature to those that have been carried out for the past fifteen years are unlikely to advance knowledge in this area. [2] Conclusion While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review. [3] The current reviewers identified a number of basic science research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field, two of which were: 1) material science aspects of deuterated metals using modern characterization techniques, and 2) the study of particles reportedly emitted from deuterated foils using state-of-the-art apparatus and methods. The reviewers believed that this field would benefit from the peer-review processes associated with proposal submission to agencies and paper submission to archival journals. Attachment 1: Review document submitted by requesters, New Physical Effects in Metal Deuterides. Attachment 2: Charge letter to reviewers - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Comments by Jed: [1] This is nice pat on the head and dismissal. In plain English it means: keep struggling without funding, and someday we may look at your work. [2] This indicates they do not understand the subject. [3] This indicates they are clueless idiots.
oomments on DOE report
To all, Now the wait is over and we are provided with an evaluation of the DOE, but not an evaluation of LENR. A cross section of experts used by the DOE to evaluate all proposals submitted to this agency have demonstrated for the world to see a profound lack of imagination and an indifference to a real need for new ideas in science. I'm not sure which is worse, the use of people having such a lack of imagination to evaluate proposals or the missed opportunity to develop a new scientific discovery. It would seem that incompetence has reached into many levels of the US government. Having gotten that off my chest, I do think the review will encourage imaginative people to support the field. The next test will come when individual proposals, as recommended, are submitted and evaluated. Regards, Ed Storms
Cirillo paper uploaded
The Cirillo paper I mentioned earlier is now uploaded. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CirilloDtransmutat.pdf - Jed
LENR-CANR official statement about DoE review
[From our News section] DoE publishes review of cold fusionThe Department of Energy, Office of Science, has completed its review of cold fusion and published a report online. See: Report of the Review of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. See http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2004/low_energy/ http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2004/low_energy/CF_Final_120104.pdf Overall, the review is inconclusive. It says, for example: Two-thirds of the reviewers commenting on Charge Element 1 did not feel the evidence was conclusive for low energy nuclear reactions, one found the evidence convincing, and the remainder indicated they were somewhat convinced. Many reviewers noted that poor experiment design, documentation, background control and other similar issues hampered the understanding and interpretation of the results presented. Many in the cold fusion field share this complaint. However, this is a strawman that was not part of the charge given the reviewers. The reviewers were asked whether the claims, taken in total, are real and whether further study should be encouraged using a level of funding required to overcome these handicaps. To this charge, the response was lukewarm. Nevertheless, like the ERAB Panel report, the reviewers recommended well designed proposals be submitted by individuals. This recommendation should be taken seriously, if for no other reason than to test the intent of the recommendation. The DOE now knows which of its reviewers will be fair in implementing such a recommendation and which will not. Therefore, DOE officials, who have the require imagination and who are concerned about developing the promise of this energy source, can now fund submitted proposals by using sympathetic reviewers. This is a big step forward. The review has been added to our Library, see: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DOEreportofth.pdf
RE: DoE recommendations are posted
Dec. 01, 2004 Vortex, Perhaps we could invoke The Freedom of information Act to see what the various selected reviewers wrote in their overviews of the state of CF results fifteen years after 1989. Their identities could be kept confidential. And it is not a top National Security issue. -ak- [Original Message] From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 12/1/2004 11:40:38 AM Subject: DoE recommendations are posted Nothing to get excited about. See: http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2004/low_energy / http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2004/low_energy /CF_Final_120104.pdf Quotes with footnotes: Charge Element 3: Determine whether there is a scientific case for continued efforts in these studies and, if so, to identify the most promising areas to be pursued. December 1, 2004 The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few eV. These proposals should meet accepted scientific standards, and undergo the rigors of peer review. No reviewer recommended a focused federally funded program for low energy nuclear reactions. [1] Reviewers identified two areas where additional research could address specific issues. One is the investigation of the properties of deuterated metals including possible effects of alloying and dislocations. These studies should take advantage of the modern tools for material characterization. A second area of investigation is the use of state-of-the-art apparatus and techniques to search for fusion events in thin deuterated foils. Several reviewers specifically stated that more experiments similar in nature to those that have been carried out for the past fifteen years are unlikely to advance knowledge in this area. [2] Conclusion While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review. [3] The current reviewers identified a number of basic science research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field, two of which were: 1) material science aspects of deuterated metals using modern characterization techniques, and 2) the study of particles reportedly emitted from deuterated foils using state-of-the-art apparatus and methods. The reviewers believed that this field would benefit from the peer-review processes associated with proposal submission to agencies and paper submission to archival journals. Attachment 1: Review document submitted by requesters, New Physical Effects in Metal Deuterides. Attachment 2: Charge letter to reviewers - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Comments by Jed: [1] This is nice pat on the head and dismissal. In plain English it means: keep struggling without funding, and someday we may look at your work. [2] This indicates they do not understand the subject. [3] This indicates they are clueless idiots.
RE: DoE recommendations are posted
Akira Kawasaki wrote: Perhaps we could invoke The Freedom of information Act to see what the various selected reviewers wrote in their overviews of the state of CF results fifteen years after 1989. Their identities could be kept confidential. And it is not a top National Security issue. Bad idea! Robert Park is probably frantically doing the same thing right now, to find the turncoat who is convinced CF is real. Whoever it is is already in enough trouble. Let's not make it any worse. The report is what I expected. Nothing to get excited about, and nothing to get upset about either. At least it wasn't another rabid attack. It will be interesting to hear what Dave Nagel or Mike McKubre thinks. They put an awful lot of work into this. It seems like slim pickings to me, but perhaps they have some reason to celebrate. - Jed
RE: DoE recommendations are posted
Hey Jed. You write: Bad idea! Robert Park is probably frantically doing the same thing right now, to find the turncoat who is convinced CF is real. Whoever it is is already in enough trouble. Let's not make it any worse. Good point. Given the current political climate, the outcome was the best that could be expected. The fact remains that the USPTO still refuses to issue patents based on this technology, so until that changes no commercial activity will occur. It is the case that the log jam will break when a researcher 1) Develops a cheap, easily reproducible robust CF device ( not an experiment, an actual functioning device ). 2) Reveals that device without patent protection, effectively giving it away. I think 1) will occur soon enough, 2) however is going to keep the device out of public use for a long time to come. It could be worse. Prometheus had his liver pecked out for years before finally being rescued by Hercules. http://messagenet.com/myths/bios/promethe.html K.
Re: DoE recommendations are posted
Keith Nagel wrote: Given the current political climate, the outcome was the best that could be expected. Are youse guys kiddin'? This is nothing short of phenomenal. "A similar line of investigation involved counting deuterium loaded foils to observe the products for the standard fusion reaction channels, proton + triton or neutron + 3He, with particle detectors and coincidence techniques. Indications of purported detection of proton-triton coincidences at a low level were presented. Even skeptical reviewers cited this work as one line of investigation that could be pursued to a clear conclusion." Even the SEPTICS!! What more could we possibly ask? "One is the investigation of the properties of deuterated metals including possible effects of alloying and dislocations. These studies should take advantage of the modern tools for material characterization. A second area of investigation is the use of state-of-the-art apparatus and techniques to search for fusion events in thin deuterated foils." This an admission of guilt! Big, 32 pt. headlines saying, "WE WERE WRONG!" will not happen. This comes damned close, IMO. Hell, it really doesn't matter what we do now. If LENR is a viable source of energy, the Chinese will be the first with marketable products.
Re: DoE recommendations are posted
Terry said: Are youse guys kiddin'? This is nothing short of phenomenal. I agree. In scientist speak, this is a recognition that there is, in fact, something, rather than nothing. The slogging ahead will be difficult, but, properly quoted, this NEW report does provide the needed respectability to get some at least to begin taking CF work seriously. We're about halfway along to Clarke's third position on the way to acceptance of a new idea. I knew it all along. Terry is right--there will not be an admission of wrong doing. They will cite the original luke-warm there might be something there conclusion of the original ERAB report as evidence of their innate fairness from the outset, and conveniently forget absolutely all the shit they poured on everyone trying to do serious work since 1989. And so it goes. Jed is right in that this is nothing to start doing jumping jacks over--not if you were hoping for coffers of $$$ to open up--but it is a step or two in the right direction, rather than a step backward. Jeffery D. Kooistra PS Terry also wrote Even the SEPTICS!! This is one of the most accurate typos I've seen in ages!
Re: DoE recommendations are posted
Terry Blanton wrote: Keith Nagel wrote: Given the current political climate, the outcome was the best that could be expected. Are youse guys kiddin'? This is nothing short of phenomenal. A similar line of investigation involved counting deuterium loaded foils to observe the products for the standard fusion reaction channels, proton + triton or neutron + 3He, with particle detectors and coincidence techniques. Indications of purported detection of proton-triton coincidences at a low level were presented. Even skeptical reviewers cited this work as one line of investigation that could be pursued to a clear conclusion. Even the SEPTICS!! What more could we possibly ask? One is the investigation of the properties of deuterated metals including possible effects of alloying and dislocations. These studies should take advantage of the modern tools for material characterization. A second area of investigation is the use of state-of-the-art apparatus and techniques to search for fusion events in thin deuterated foils. This an admission of guilt! Big, 32 pt. headlines saying, WE WERE WRONG! will not happen. This comes damned close, IMO. Hell, it really doesn't matter what we do now. If LENR is a viable source of energy, the Chinese will be the first with marketable products. MC: I'm inclined to agree with Terry. Many would have wanted some kind of blessing and call to arms, vindicating years of struggle. MC: I recall that Einstein's letter to FDR about the potential of atomic bombs elicited a lukewarm $6000 initial funding, not much even in those days when $6000 was not pocket change. The Manhattan Project followed, spenind some $6 billion of real money. What we have here is a blessing for further well designed studies. What more could one ask? No money limit is suggested. No number of studies are limited. Get to work with the proposals. Mike Carrell
Re: oomments on DOE report
In a message dated 12/1/2004 3:21:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm not sure which is worse, the use of people having such a lack of imagination to evaluate proposals or the missed opportunity to develop a new scientific discovery. It would seem that incompetence has reached into many levels of the US government. Yes, we have melting ice caps, global warming, an economy threatened by fuel prices, wars over fuel, and nowhere to turn. This is what we get. Frank Znidarsic
Re: Astounding statement in upcoming paper by Cirillo and Iorio
Jed wrote: Here is an ICCF11 paper describing an Ohomori-Mizuno replication: Cirillo, D. and V. Iorio. Transmutation of metal at low energy in a confined plasma in water. in Eleventh International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2004. Marseille, France. Quote: Once a stable plasma has been achieved for more than 500 sec., we can compare the input energy, electrical power, with the quantity of energy necessary to warm up and evaporate the solution water. Omitted from this calculation is energy associated with chemical reactions; energy related to the heating-up and fusion of the tungsten; energy used in expanding gas and steam leaving the cell; energy lost by thermal and electromagnetic radiation; and loss of heat through the insulation. Even though this extra energy is omitted from the calculation, the cell is found to produce more energy than is being applied. That is astounding. Quite a robust result! - MC: This is a very important paper, and should be studied *very* carefully. 1) Light water is used; 2) Potassium carbonate is the electrolyte; 3) Plasma is produced in a confined space; 4) Erosion of the tungsten cathode is observed; 5) Transmutation occurs and 6) Macroscopic excess heat is produced. Many on vortex studiously ignore the work of Mills and BlackLight Power, or try to demonstrated that Mills' results are really LENR and vice versa. I have maintained that they should be studies separately, although they may be connected at a deeper level. Postassium carbonate will be ionized uder the cell conditions, releasing K+ ions. There will also be H atoms in the plasma, and these can and do react to produce very exothermic reactions in which H atoms are reduced to a lower orbital state. Thus there is no mystery to production of excess heat with light water. Transmutation is a nuclear reaction and it is **also** occurring. The source of neutrons in this instance is a real puzzle. The authors are porperly and understandably puzzled by what they have observed. I have sent a message to Cirillo alerting him to Mills' work, and to Mills, alerting him to Cirillo's work. No significant response from either; Mills had the courtesy to acknowledge the email. I should note that a pivtoal experiment by Mills long ago involved an electrolytic cell with light water, potassium carbonate electrolyte, which showed instant turn-on and produced excess heat when peopel working with FP cells were seeing long loading cycles. Among Mills' posted experiments is a gas phase cell with a tungsten heater, potassium carbonate and hydrogen, which produces intense plasmas. These elements are also present in the Cirillo cell. Mike Carrell
Re: Astounding statement in upcoming paper by Cirillo and Iorio
Are they saying the energy required to evaporate the water solution over a certain period time exceeds the electrical input energy over the same period time + the all the energy consumed by all the other processes in the same period of time? Harry on 12/1/04 9:02 PM, Mike Carrell at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jed wrote: Here is an ICCF11 paper describing an Ohomori-Mizuno replication: Cirillo, D. and V. Iorio. Transmutation of metal at low energy in a confined plasma in water. in Eleventh International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2004. Marseille, France. Quote: Once a stable plasma has been achieved for more than 500 sec., we can compare the input energy, electrical power, with the quantity of energy necessary to warm up and evaporate the solution water. Omitted from this calculation is energy associated with chemical reactions; energy related to the heating-up and fusion of the tungsten; energy used in expanding gas and steam leaving the cell; energy lost by thermal and electromagnetic radiation; and loss of heat through the insulation. Even though this extra energy is omitted from the calculation, the cell is found to produce more energy than is being applied. That is astounding. Quite a robust result! - MC: This is a very important paper, and should be studied *very* carefully. 1) Light water is used; 2) Potassium carbonate is the electrolyte; 3) Plasma is produced in a confined space; 4) Erosion of the tungsten cathode is observed; 5) Transmutation occurs and 6) Macroscopic excess heat is produced. Many on vortex studiously ignore the work of Mills and BlackLight Power, or try to demonstrated that Mills' results are really LENR and vice versa. I have maintained that they should be studies separately, although they may be connected at a deeper level. Postassium carbonate will be ionized uder the cell conditions, releasing K+ ions. There will also be H atoms in the plasma, and these can and do react to produce very exothermic reactions in which H atoms are reduced to a lower orbital state. Thus there is no mystery to production of excess heat with light water. Transmutation is a nuclear reaction and it is **also** occurring. The source of neutrons in this instance is a real puzzle. The authors are porperly and understandably puzzled by what they have observed. I have sent a message to Cirillo alerting him to Mills' work, and to Mills, alerting him to Cirillo's work. No significant response from either; Mills had the courtesy to acknowledge the email. I should note that a pivtoal experiment by Mills long ago involved an electrolytic cell with light water, potassium carbonate electrolyte, which showed instant turn-on and produced excess heat when peopel working with FP cells were seeing long loading cycles. Among Mills' posted experiments is a gas phase cell with a tungsten heater, potassium carbonate and hydrogen, which produces intense plasmas. These elements are also present in the Cirillo cell. Mike Carrell
Re: Astounding statement in upcoming paper by Cirillo and Iorio
In reply to Mike Carrell's message of Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:02:45 -0500: Hi, [snip] Many on vortex studiously ignore the work of Mills and BlackLight Power, or try to demonstrated that Mills' results are really LENR and vice versa. I have maintained that they should be studies separately, although they may be connected at a deeper level. Postassium carbonate will be ionized uder the cell conditions, releasing K+ ions. There will also be H atoms in the plasma, and these can and do react to produce very exothermic reactions in which H atoms are reduced to a lower orbital state. Thus there is no mystery to production of excess heat with light water. Transmutation is a nuclear reaction and it is **also** occurring. The source of neutrons in this instance is a real puzzle. The [snip] Not really. A well shrunken hydrino could easily pass for a neutron when it comes to nuclear reactions. The hydrino electron would be on average much closer to the nucleus than a normal atomic electron, thus one might expect that when the tunneling event occurs, the hydrino electron goes along for the ride, leading to an almost immediate electron capture event. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Does DOE have a temperature?
The fact that the DOE panel once again diminishes the value of all the thermal observations and measurements is perplexing. Harry The DOE review concludes: While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review.
