Re: CF and Orientation .
At 1:19 AM 12/3/4, Harry Veeder wrote: After reading some more, it seems to me a more accurate name for this field is non-inertial-chemistry. Gravi-chemistry is misleading unless you are endorsing the general theory of relativity which assumes that an accelerating or non-inertial frame of reference and a gravitational field are indistinguishable. Gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable *at a point*, not a complete inertial frame. Unless one is in a uniform gravitational field, gravity and linear acceleration are distinguishable by tidal effects. In the famous elevator, it is possible to tell if the elevator is in free-fall in a gravitional field or floating in space. It is possible to tell if it is resting on a gravitational body, being spun about (gravity due to centrifugal force), or being accelerated by a rocket. All assumes you have sufficiently fine equipment to detect the tidal forces. Gravi-chem should work fine in a high gravity field, it's just the machine design that changes. The fundamental principle is still bouyancy, at least for the electrolyte environment. Regards, Horace Heffner
US review rekindles cold fusion debate : Nature Magazine
According to the report, the panel was "split approximately evenly" on the question of whether cold experiments were actually producing power in the form of heat. But members agreed that there is not enough evidence to prove that cold fusion has occurred, and they complained that much of the published work was poorly documented. http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041129/full/041129-11.html Emeka www.timbuktuchronicles.blogspot.com
Recent message from Physics Today
Here is a hysterical message about Physics Today. Frankly I am surprised Physics Today responded at all. Maybe they are feeling the heat? - Jed Below is the information submitted on Dec-2-104 17:5 EST realname: Guy Richards username: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Telephone: 815-963-6340 message: I read a recent editorial in Physics Today journal where the editor was interviewing a physicist of some repute on what criteria he would accept the LENR/cold fusion phenomenon as worthy of further research and DOE funding. The physicist replied that if the LENR/cold fusion community could demonstrate an input/output energy ratio of 1/10, 100% repeatability and economic feasibility he would recommend going ahead. Since I found this hurdle to be artificially high I wrote a letter to the editor asking him the following question: How many hot fusion experiments, trials or prototypes in the last 55 years after spending hundreds of billions of dollars and using the best minds in the scientific community had even claimed to have an energy ratio of even 1/1? The reply I received from the editor is as follows:The editors and staff of Physics Today do not have time to answer questions like these. Thank you for your interest in Physics Today. This just seemed to sum up the attitude of the physics community and I thought it worth sharing. Closed minds, bad for science. Regards, Guy Richards
Re: CF in everyday life
Robin, The tile is 1 representing a potential of 1 water column pressure against the surface of the tile. As the water touches the tile an audible sucking sound occurs indicating a vacuum forms at the surface. A pressure greater than 1 w.c. psid is required to produce an audible sound.. Regarding the water olla temperature, the differential temperature cannot be reconciled using the math I learned in school.. of course, in Texas, there have been cases of finger and toe counting where paper was in short supply. Regards Richard - Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 7:27 PM Subject: Re: CF in everyday life In reply to RC Macaulay's message of Thu, 02 Dec 2004 15:11:47 -0600: Hi, [snip] nightime temp of 70 degrees F. The water temperature inside the olla will fall to 70 degrees F as it surrenders heat to the clay wall of the olla. Comparing the differential potential for giving up heat to atmospheric conditions external to the olla is usually explained via evaporation due to the breeze. There is NO breeze in the desert. The lowering of the olla water temperature must be caused by what? It is caused by evaporation. Even without wind, the thin layer of air against the wall of the vessel will be saturated with water vapour, which makes it lighter than the surrounding air. That makes it rise up, and it gets replaced by heavier dryer air, which in turn absorbs more moisture from the vessel. So this works, even in the complete absence of wind. However even on so called wind still days, there are usually occasional small air movements, which help out with the process. The indians dont worry about it.. they just enjoy the fact. Now consider a 12 X 12 X 1 Mexican Saltillo tile , red clay with small amounts of volcanic and flint rock. After firing the tile, it is extremely dry. Keep the tile dry but allow it to completely cool and sprinkle a small amout of water on the tile and watch it boil as it is absorbed into the porous tile. Why does the water momentarily boil? This boiling is more likely to be air bubbling up through the water, as the water soaks into the porous tile, and replaces the internal air. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: Recent message from Physics Today
This is a form letter that is sent in response to any such question. If the physicist who was interviewed responded, that would be important. Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: Here is a hysterical message about Physics Today. Frankly I am surprised Physics Today responded at all. Maybe they are feeling the heat? - Jed Below is the information submitted on Dec-2-104 17:5 EST realname: Guy Richards username: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Telephone: 815-963-6340 message: I read a recent editorial in Physics Today journal where the editor was interviewing a physicist of some repute on what criteria he would accept the LENR/cold fusion phenomenon as worthy of further research and DOE funding. The physicist replied that if the LENR/cold fusion community could demonstrate an input/output energy ratio of 1/10, 100% repeatability and economic feasibility he would recommend going ahead. Since I found this hurdle to be artificially high I wrote a letter to the editor asking him the following question: How many hot fusion experiments, trials or prototypes in the last 55 years after spending hundreds of billions of dollars and using the best minds in the scientific community had even claimed to have an energy ratio of even 1/1? The reply I received from the editor is as follows:The editors and staff of Physics Today do not have time to answer questions like these. Thank you for your interest in Physics Today. This just seemed to sum up the attitude of the physics community and I thought it worth sharing. Closed minds, bad for science. Regards, Guy Richards
Re: comments on the Cirillo paper
Horace Heffner writes I have done plenty of tritium counting using liquid scintillation counting. I think it is more difficult to count water borne tritium by other means. Scintillation couters can reliably and automatically discriminate between tritium and say carbon 14. There is almost no penetrating power for 20 keV beta particles, so counting 201 Tl without interference from tritium is easy. Despite your expertise, your conclusion is debatable, depending on the sophistication of the detector... and perhaps depending on an operator with less extenisive background ;-) . See below. BTW, my handbook shows 201 Tl decaying by electron capture (1.36 MeV) with Hg and K shell x-rays of 135.28 keV and 167.40 keV. This stuff should stand out like the sun on a clear day. Let me direct your attention to Thallium online http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/thallium.htm You will see that over 95% of the gammas in this situation would have a mean energy between 68-80 KeV but are coming from the transitory mercury isotope as the Tl life is so short. After an extended run, and with such a small amount used, and with a starting half-life of only 70+ hours, there is almost no Tl left to measure at the end of the run. As you say, the end point for tritium betas is around 20 KeV and nearly all would be absorbed in the water. The Radiation Yield (Y) from bremsstrahlung can be calculated using the following Y=(6x10^-4(ZT))/(1+6x10^-4(ZT)) Where Z is the atomic #; T is the Kinetic E. of the beta in MeV. for an average energy of 6keV you get: Y=(6x10^-4(4*.006)/(1+6x10^-4(4*.006)) =1.44x10^-5 Which is the fraction of the 6 keV converted to photons as the Beta particle slows down. ...or, the standard approximation is ZE/3000 where E is the maximum beta energy i.e. 0.0186 MeV. From Evan's The Atomic Nucleus ... This gives (for Be) 4 x 0.0186/3000 or 2.5 E-5, roughly twice the value above. Anyway if lots of tritium was being produced, a fair amount of the bremsstrahlung gamma photons of about 3-6 keV would be seen. This should be easily discriminated from the Tl emission, but not necessarily so - depending on the detector used and how the results were interpreted. That is why I asked the question. Jones
RE: Recent message from Physics Today
Hi. It is written: message: I read a recent editorial in Physics Today journal where the editor was interviewing a physicist of some repute on what criteria he would accept the LENR/cold fusion phenomenon as worthy of further research and DOE funding. The physicist replied that if the LENR/cold fusion community could demonstrate an input/output energy ratio of 1/10, 100% repeatability and economic feasibility he would recommend going ahead. This is exactly my point 1 from my last post. Jed says it is unreasonable. Yet with 15 years and 1000's of papers it's hardly an unexpected response. I would agree with Jed's position IF my point 2 was not in effect, but it is, the USPTO will not issue patents on this technology. If that were not so, this physicist would probably have his demonstrator already. It's interesting that Mike Carrell brings up Randy Mills, who perhaps will go down as one of the few people politically astute enough to fund a serious commercial research effort in this field. It's also instructive to see how he was torpedoed when things were really getting interesting, with a mad dash to the patent office to prevent the USPTO from giving him protection from the one easily commercialized byproduct of his research, the chemical waste from the reaction. It didn't seem to matter that he was willing to provide actual samples of the new chemicals to labs for testing; as was broadly demonstrated in the last general election reality has no relevance or bearing on the affairs of men. Jed writes: Since I found this hurdle to be artificially high I wrote a letter to the editor asking him the following question: How many hot fusion experiments, trials or prototypes in the last 55 years after spending hundreds of billions of dollars and using the best minds in the scientific community had even claimed to have an energy ratio of even 1/1? Just to play devils advocate, I would answer this question in the same fashion as Wilbur and Orville Wright. I would point at the sky. See that white feathery thing zooming around up there? That's a bird, a functioning prototype of an airplane. See that big yellow thing next to it? That's a functioning prototype of a hot fusion reactor. Every once and a while a few of us here start banging away on possible natural CF reactions, such as the famous Kevran chicken experiment. There is a method to our madness, notwithstanding the infrared lunar radiation so beloved by Fred (grin). If the phenomena is real it's quite likely it will show up somewhere in nature. The famous natural fission pile in South Africa (?) is a good example. A nice natural example of CF would be a good stick for whomping the critics. K.
Re: comments on the Cirillo paper
At 9:16 AM 12/3/4, Jones Beene wrote: [snip] Let me direct your attention to Thallium online http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/thallium.htm You will see that over 95% of the gammas in this situation would have a mean energy between 68-80 KeV but are coming from the transitory mercury isotope as the Tl life is so short. After an extended run, and with such a small amount used, and with a starting half-life of only 70+ hours, there is almost no Tl left to measure at the end of the run. OK, I see you were referring to the Hg gammas at 80 keV. Yes, these too have a good penetraing power and are readily discriminated from tritium betas. They too can be counted by ordinary geiger counters. Also, a 70 hour half-life is plenty good for a tracer for water drops. A test of whether a cell is vulnerable to water drop entrainment shouldn't take more than an hour. BTW, I see the referenced medical web site uses KeV. The prefix k (small k) is the standard prefix for kilo-, even though M is the standard prefix for mega-. [snip] ...Anyway if lots of tritium was being produced, a fair amount of the bremsstrahlung gamma photons of about 3-6 keV would be seen. These gamms have almost no pentrating power in water. This is why organic solvents are used for liquid scintillation counting. The water is kept to a few percent in the counting vials. This should be easily discriminated from the Tl emission, but not necessarily so - depending on the detector used and how the results were interpreted. That is why I asked the question. I think it would be nearly impossible to confuse tritium with either 201Tl or 201Hg. You don't even need a multi channel analyser. I think the important thing here is not to lose sight of the fact that Cirillo's and various other boil-off enthalpy data may be suspect due to the problem which P.J van Noorden so kindly pointed out. This is an important fact to consider when designing future boil-off experiments. Regards, Horace Heffner
Dual electron catalysed fusion
If a pair of deuterium hydrinos fuse, or if two electrons are involved in D + D catalysis, without the electrons falling into the Coulomb well and thus gaining kinetic energy, the resulting highly *de-energized* neutral nucleus resulting from multiple quantum wavefunction collapse would be momentarily free to migrate into heavy nucleii. Thus is obtained heavy nucleus LENR without any characteristic gamma or particle signatures. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: comments on the Cirillo paper
Hello Horace The condenser was made out of glass and had a length of 1.5 meter and was positioned vertically. It was cooled by water which flowed around the glass condenser. Best Regards Peter - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 1:23 AM Subject: Re: comments on the Cirillo paper At 12:06 PM 12/2/4, Jones Beene wrote: Horace, you seem to be saying that the condenser was air-cooled instead of water-cooled. Of course this would introduce major errors, and it still doesn't address the issue of tritium. Actually, there is no mention of a condenser in the Cirillio paper. The standard method of doing boiloff calorimetry is to measure the weight of water boiled off (that disappears) and then multply by the energy required to boil that water (which explicitly *is* the method used by Cirillo.) It appears the plastic cylinder with pyrex lid located above the cell does the condensing. There is apparently no intent to use the condensation heat (i.e. mass flow calorimetry on the secondary coil) as a secondary calorimetric means. Cirillo's method is definitely susceptable to entrained water droplets. I would assume P.J van Noorden (he can clue us in) used an ordinary laboratory condenser. Such condensers are typically made of glass and used in either straight through mode or reflux mode. In straight through mode the steam comes in through one (elevated) end and water comes out the other. In reflux mode the condenser is usually vertical and steam is admitted in at the bottom and water comes out the bottom into an attached flask. Unless you are trying to do dual calorimetry, it doesn't matter how the condenser is cooled, by gas, by water, or by ice. The heat measurment is via the mass of water lost in the reactor. Boiloff calorimeters are typically calibrated using boil-off runs using calibration resistors for heat and cool-off runs to determine the calorimeter constant for ambient losses. P.J van Noorden certianly makes it clear that such calibration runs may be invalid becuase ultrasound or other turbulence creates entraind droplets, and tthe calibration resistor will not cause droplet entrainment like a source of ultrasound does. One solution to this problem is to include an ultrasound device in at least one clibration run to test whatever water drop barrier is used. It would not be possible to calibrate the drop formation rate itself, so some kind of drop barrier would have to be utilized. These principles have ramifications *way* beyond the Cirillo paper. They are fundamental to all boiloff calorimetry. Only if it had been water cooled could all the heat be accounted for, and that is why I assumed it was water cooled and that the thallium was turning up in the second circuit. This is a very important comment. It means that boiloff calorimetry can be very suspect without proper controls. Yes, proper controls like a second circuit with dual calorimetry. You need to account for more than just the enthalpy of condensation. A radioactive tracer would be good in labs equipped to handle them. Not unless the possibility of tritium can be eliminated, I have done plenty of tritium counting using liquid scintillation counting. I think it is more difficult to count water borne tritium by other means. Scintillation couters can reliably and automatically discriminate between tritium and say carbon 14. There is almost no penetrating power for 20 keV beta particles, so counting 201 Tl without interference from tritium is easy. Technetium counting and even imaging is readily done using 180 degrees opposed scintillation couters to track positron annihilation photon pairs. I had this procedure done to image my heart. I was signifcantly radioactive for a day. It was a bit scary to turn on my geiger counter and hear it go wild near me. or unless your tracer has a far more energetic signature than tritium. Thallium is just too close IMHO. After all, your are doing cold fusion. Cold fusion often produces tritium. Isn't the cross-connection obvious? BTW even though tritium normally has a significant spread of energy, can we be sure that tritium produced via CF is not closer to being mono-energetic? What do you mean significant spread? The peak is fairly confined. BTW, my handbook shows 201 Tl decaying by electron capture (1.36 MeV) with Hg and K shell x-rays of 135.28 keV and 167.40 keV. This stuff should stand out like the sun on a clear day. At 4:14 PM 12/2/4, P.J van Noorden wrote: Hello We used 201 Thallium in our nuclear medicine department to study the perfusion of the heart.The energy emission of radioactive thallium is about 80 eV. Now we have a technetium based radiopharmacon which gives a better image quality.( 140eV) I don't see how 80 keV enters into the picture. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: Latest from Iwamura
NRL is now attempting to duplicate this work. This program was undertaken well before the DoE review and apparently was unknown to the reviewers. If, as expected, they replicate the Iwamura claims, the ball game will be over. Ed George Holz wrote: Hi Jed, See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYobservatiob.pdf - Jed The results described in these papers show that the impurity migration idea is even more ridiculous (if that's possible) than before. The isotope of the starting element controls the isotope of the transmuted element. Explain that by contamination! Is there any way we can have this information forwarded to the DOE reviewers. Perhaps they may find that it is time to save their reputations by admitting the obvious. Duplicating the Iwamura experiment with additional starting elements seems like a reasonable suggestion to the DOE as a proposed experiment to improve our understanding of LENR. Perhaps some of the national labs have appropriate equipment that could be used by LENR researchers to speed further work. How can anyone deny the overwhelming theoretical and practical significance of this work! Thank you Jed for obtaining and posting this material. George Holz Varitronics Systems
FW: WHAT'S NEW Friday, December 03, 2004
[Original Message] From: What's New [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Akira Kawasaki [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 12/3/2004 12:11:50 PM Subject: WHAT'S NEW Friday, December 03, 2004 WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 3 Dec 04 Washington, DC 1. COLD, COLD FUSION: SO AFTER 15 YEARS, WHAT HAS BEEN LEARNED? We've learned that DOE should stop playing games with the Federal Advisory Committee Act while shrouding its review in secrecy http://www.aps.org/WN/WN04/wn091704.cfm. Beyond that, we haven't learned much. The report released this week is an attempt to summarize individual comments from 18 unidentified reviewers. The conclusions at the end of the report were: 1) significant progress has been made in sophistication of calorimeters, and 2)conclusions reached by reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review. That's it? After 15 years we've got better calorimeters? The 1989 review called for no more cold fusion research. Good advice. Proponents now prefer low energy nuclear reactions, but no more is still good advice. 2. PROLIFERATION: IRAN IS STILL MAKING NUCLEAR-WEAPONS HEADLINES. The question is: is Iran making nuclear weapons? Nobody seems to know. Last week, WN reported that Iran said it would continue to operate 20 uranium enrichment centrifuges for peaceful research, violating a deal it had just made with European nations. The next day Iran flip-flopped again agreeing to give up the civilian centrifuges. Citing new intelligence, the International Atomic Energy Agency is now seeking access to two military locations to look for evidence of nuclear weapons development, leading to speculation that the civilian flip-flops had been a diversion. 3. PRAYER STUDY: COLUMBIA PROFESSOR REMOVES HIS NAME FROM PAPER. We have been tracking the sordid story of the Columbia prayer study for three years http://www.aps.org/WN/WN01/wn100501.cfm . It claimed that women for whom total strangers prayed were twice as likely to become pregnant from in-vitro fertilization as others; it was published in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine. At the time we were unaware of the background of the study, but knew it had to be wrong; the first assumption of science is that events result from natural causes. The lead author, Rugerio Lobo, who at the time was Chair of Obstetrics, now says he had no role in the study. The author who set up the study is doing five years for fraud in a separate case, and his partner hanged himself in jail. Another author left Columbia and isn't talking. The Journal has never acknowledged any responsibility, and after withdrawing the paper for scrutiny, has put it back on the web. Nor has the Journal published letters critical of the study. Columbia has never acknowledged any responsibility. All of this has come out due to the persistence of Bruce Flamm, MD. The science community should flatly refuse all proposals or papers that invoke any supernatural explanation for physical phenomena. THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND. Opinions are the author's and not necessarily shared by the University of Maryland, but they should be. --- Archives of What's New can be found at http://www.aps.org/WN To subscribe, send a blank e-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Latest from Iwamura
From: Edmund Storms NRL is now attempting to duplicate this work. This program was undertaken well before the DoE review and apparently was unknown to the reviewers. If, as expected, they replicate the Iwamura claims, the ball game will be over. Ed Hello Ed, Best guestamate as to when NRL will complete publish their findings? Assuming the findings are confirmed and the ball game IS over, what is likely to happen next? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com George Holz wrote: Hi Jed, See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYobservatiob.pdf - Jed The results described in these papers show that the impurity migration idea is even more ridiculous (if that's possible) than before. The isotope of the starting element controls the isotope of the transmuted element. Explain that by contamination! Is there any way we can have this information forwarded to the DOE reviewers. Perhaps they may find that it is time to save their reputations by admitting the obvious. Duplicating the Iwamura experiment with additional starting elements seems like a reasonable suggestion to the DOE as a proposed experiment to improve our understanding of LENR. Perhaps some of the national labs have appropriate equipment that could be used by LENR researchers to speed further work. How can anyone deny the overwhelming theoretical and practical significance of this work! Thank you Jed for obtaining and posting this material. George Holz Varitronics Systems
Re: comments on the Cirillo paper
Horace, ...Anyway if lots of tritium was being produced, a fair amount of the bremsstrahlung gamma photons of about 3-6 keV would be seen. These gamms have almost no pentrating power in water. This is why organic solvents are used for liquid scintillation counting. The water is kept to a few percent in the counting vials. First, I understand the point about boil-off calorimetry, but this is hardly news. People have been issuing similar warnings for some time. However, once again I think you may be missing the obvious. IF (big if) tritium were being produced, then you would not necessarily be comparing Tl 80 keV gammas against almost undetectable tritium gammas. This is because some of the tritium begins to outgas immediately and then can shed 20 keV radiation directly into the monitor, whereas all of the Tl (which is still immobilized in the water) would have its gamma output attenuated. So you see, to really get down to brass tacks one needs to know how these reading were taken and what the raw data showed, or else assume (as I will now do) that the experimenter knew that tritium could possibly be present and took all the necessary precautions to eliminate any possibility of a tritium signal. I see from the post just now from Peter that his condenser was water cooled, but I must assume that the Tl did not cross the pyrex glass boundary or else he would have mentioned it specifically. Jones
Re: Recent message from Physics Today
For the general reader, Dr Swartz has been asked on repeated occasions to submit his paper in a form that Jed can read. He has failed to do this, preferring instead to complain about censorship. As any one who reads LENR can plainly see, we are very open to publishing papers from all sources. Ed Dear Edmund [and to any reader of Ed Storms disingenuous comments]: Let's address your statements. First, the titles to our three papers were removed by you because you personally desired that (as is your right, as has been stated before). We have been informed by two people to whom you stated that you did this censorship of papers titles because of reasons that will be addressed in the proper forum. And so, the titles, Edmund, the titles were removed by you (as were others who presented at ICCF10) because you wanted to -- as is your right. Corroborating that, Ed, you were not even mentioned in the thread, so you must be feeling guilty. It is a little late for you to fabricate a new reason, or for you to whine about an accurate description made so by your precise actions. BTW, after the last time your censored site was brought up here in this forum, two people contacted me supporting what is now our developing mutual observation of the cf/lenr censorship (which again is entirely your right). Second, regarding the papers and your inaccurate missive-prose, the papers involved were given many times, including in hand to Jed, and in more than one format. Dr. Mitchell Swartz == The COLD FUSION TIMES - the Uncensored cold fusion site http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html Latest links to, and excerpt information from, the just-issued DOE Report, to this week's Nature, Salt Lake City, and New York Times articles about it, (and to info re: Dr. Mallove's cold case) have been updated. Links are also present to references in cold fusion which are uncensored (unlike the 'CF/LENR' site), and to robust cold fusion systems, including the JTP Phusor.
Re: Recent message from Physics Today
Mitchell Swartz wrote: Let's address your statements. First, the titles to our three papers were removed by you because you personally desired that (as is your right, as has been stated before). I haven't the SLIGHTEST idea what this is all about, or which titles Swartz thinks were removed, or where he thinks they were removed from. I do all of the clerical maintenance of the LENR-CANR EndNote database. I did not remove any ICCF-10 papers. Not by Swartz, and not by anyone else, period. I have never removed any other real paper, for that matter. I have occasional removed duplicate entries, and accidental, incomplete, and mistaken entries (with the wrong author, etc). A few times I deleted papers that authors told me were never finished or published, yet somehow ended up being listed in the database. I am sure there are many papers missing from the database, because I am not omniscient. Many authors have been upset to find their papers are not included. Apparently they think I have ESP. Whatever the heck Swartz is talking about here, and whatever imaginary slight he suffers from, he should let bygones be bygones. He should give us the information for the EndNote database and/or the URL to the papers in his web page that he wants us to copy and upload. If he will do that, we will add these papers to our library, unless they have nothing remotely to do with cold fusion. - Jed
RE: Recent message from Physics Today
Keith Nagel wrote: and DOE funding. The physicist replied that if the LENR/cold fusion community could demonstrate an input/output energy ratio of 1/10, 100% repeatability and economic feasibility he would recommend going ahead. This is exactly my point 1 from my last post. Jed says it is unreasonable. Yet with 15 years and 1000's of papers it's hardly an unexpected response. What did I say is unreasonable? I was just forwarding the message. I did not write it. It was from Guy Richards. - Jed
Re: Latest from Iwamura
The most amazing starting point about this paper to me, and maybe it is the ending point for Iwarmura since he emphasizes it so often but refuses the temptation to go further (even at ground Zero it's called job-security)... is the nuclear transmutations of Ba into Sm but some of us (who have less job security to worry about) can go much further out on a limb. When mass-137-enriched Ba (monoisotopic Ba) was applied, the mass distribution of Sm that we obtained depended on the starting isotopic distribution of Ba. ... and the unsaid thread of this work... and the potential generalization which appears here and elsewhere is perhaps not simply an anomalous transmutation but that these high Z transmutations occur at ridiculously low energy and not simply as a small step-wise change, such as a beta decay for instance. Instead we have a MASSIVE and apparent one-step change of 12 nucleons !!!... (excuse the typo-hyperbole, but can we emphasize the importance of this finding enough?) IOW *carbon* again appears... like the smile of the Cheshire cat... peering through from another dimension. And, going even further, perhaps the waiting-to-be-discovered 'sine qua non' of this work and others similar to it... is not just the recurrence of the carbon unit but instead it is the more generic *triad accumulation of operative units*. Which is to say that the operative methodology is not just adding deuterons, or adding carbon but... just as with quarks (at the next lower scale), the nucleons here are following suit, becoming a step-up in the mirrored self-symmetry of quantum reality. ERGO it is the triad of operative units which could be the ultimate secret to high Z transmutaion, not to mention other peculiarities of LENR. Jones BTW is there a Kanji equivalent to we've gotta protect our phoney-baloney jobs and wouldn't Mel Brooks be a hoot running the Zero lab with Cleavon Little in charge of the Kan
Bursts of power.
One of the criticisms of the DOE panel was that the cells did not provide continuous excess power over the entire time span of an experiment. I think this is natural trait of CF systems, but it is not without value as the DOE panel implies. If one can learn to predict when a cell will produce bursts of power, the cell is potentially a useful source of power. Harry Veeder
Re: Bursts of power.
This is one of many statements made by the reviewers that is incomplete and based on confusion. The fact is that when solid palladium is used as the cathode, time is required for it to acquire the required high D/Pd ratio and time is required for the active material to plate on the surface. If this active surface is plated before it is put in the calorimeter and Pt or another inert metal is used as the substrate, the required time is much shorter. Cathodes once activated continue to produce energy until the surface has been covered by material dissolved from the anode. An electrolytic system is dynamic and can not be expected to perform immediately and for a long time. The method used by Arata is much more stable and long-lived, as are the ion bombardment methods. Ed Harry Veeder wrote: One of the criticisms of the DOE panel was that the cells did not provide continuous excess power over the entire time span of an experiment. I think this is natural trait of CF systems, but it is not without value as the DOE panel implies. If one can learn to predict when a cell will produce bursts of power, the cell is potentially a useful source of power. Harry Veeder
Re: comments on the Cirillo paper
At 12:31 PM 12/3/4, Jones Beene wrote: I see from the post just now from Peter that his condenser was water cooled, but I must assume that the Tl did not cross the pyrex glass boundary or else he would have mentioned it specifically. The was no mention of the Tl showng up in the cooling water, ie. secondary coil. I have assumed the Tl showed up in the distillate, since any other possibility seems to me to be unlikely in the extreme. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: Latest from Iwamura
At 12:45 PM 12/3/4, Edmund Storms wrote: The flood gates open and people in the CF field become heroes and are asked to help develop the field. Park becomes a believer and criticizes the DoE for being so slow. If that ever happens I'll send Park a painting of a pig flying over a dancing tortus. Regards, Horace Heffner
