RE: CF on NPR

[John Steck]

You 
really expect a fair shake on NPR?  They are about as unbiased in their 
agenda "reporting" as 60 Minutes.  I really wouldn't get your 
undies in a bundle over it though.  The bulk of the audience will 
mentally tune out the report because it's not a social injustice issue or an 
environmental scare tactic.  
 
IMO 
the Scientific American position is far more damaging to winning the hearts and 
minds of the mainstream  scientific community.  After all it has to be 
true because it's published in a respectable magazine (is Jayson Blair by chance working over there 
now?)  8^) 
 
Also, 
with regard to your volley to Wikipedia... maybe read the Wired article you 
linked in your post.  It explains how the system works and how the 
subject champions really control the info presented there.  It's an open 
source project.  The only time they lock edits from pages is when the 
"changers" and "fixers" become relentless and irrational in their attempts to 
only their side of the story posted and it starts dragging down 
bandwidth.
 
-john
 
 
-Original Message-From: Jed Rothwell 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 
4:26 PMTo: vortex-l@eskimo.comSubject: Re: CF on 
NPRThe Flatow segment was linked to a really 
idiotic segment on sonofusion, which is full of insults toward CF:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4520833- 
Jed

The CoFu Bomb Game

[Grimer]

Why not develop a computer game in which you 
first have to kidnap various scientists such 
as Dr Bones and Professor Fleshman and then 
"persuade" them using various macabre instruments 
(which I'll leave to your imagination) into 
developing a Cold Fusion Bomb. Various exotic 
metals and pieces of equipment would replace 
the treasures and instruments of traditional 
games and there would be a scale of points for 
evading the Men In Black and vapourising various 
high profile targets.

I'm sure it would have immense appeal amongst 
Bart Simpsonesque teenagers who want to needle 
their irritatingly PC bleeding heart liberal 
parents. 

For the younger children you could be politically 
correct and have Sonic the Hedgehog fighting 
Doctor Robotnik.  Once Robotnik was a scientist 
named Kintobor, until the explosion of his R.O.C.C. 
machine turned him into the evil Robotnik who 
joins Osma Bin Liner and his gang. 

For the kiddies' game the characterizations are 
already in existence. The Brotherhood of Metallix 
for example is the group name for an 


"elite brotherhood of badnik robots, the Metallixes. 
Initially designed by Robotnik's Chief Scientist 
Grimer to defeat Sonic the Hedgehog, they disobeyed 
their master and now pose one of the greatest 
threat ever for both Sonic and Robotnik." 


With any luck the PTB would throw the adult version 
in the Briar Bush thereby making it as popular as 
moonshine liquor during the days of prohibition. 
Sales in other countries would rocket.

Banning would certainly bring the whole subject to 
public attention and probably make the writers a 
shedfull of money.

Cheers

Grimer

[Robotnik's Chief Scientist and assistant]
 
and if you don't believe me, go google.  ;-)

Re: Permeabivity

[RC Macaulay]

Surely if Sir Isaac were around today he would enjoy the 
internet and Grimer's post. Leave it to an Englishman to sort the flaws  
with a sense of humor.
 
Richard
 
<>

Re: Correa, etc.

[revtec]

I captured forward pulses in up to six 5600 
mfd 350v caps in parallel.  I kept these from over charging with a load 
bank of series/parallel 40 watt bulbs that I switched in and out as needed to 
limit maximum voltage.  Reverse pulses could easily reach 700v which is 
well above my 600vdc supply even though there is no inductor in the 
circuit.  I also have a clip on ammeter on the 120vac power cord. This 
crude arrangement could only identify massive OU performance if it was factor of 
two or more.  Reverse pulses are much rarer.   You will need two 
350v caps in series to capture them.
 
Jeff 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Zell, Chris 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:25 
  PM
  Subject: RE: Correa, etc.
  
  How did you handle capturing the pulses? 
  Batteries?
  
  
  From: revtec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:26 PMTo: vortex-l@eskimo.comSubject: 
  Re: Correa, etc.
  
  I have been doing PAGD experiments off and on 
  since 1996.  I saw a lot of interesting things in the tube, and captured 
  energy pulses on diode/capacitor circuits, but over unity eludes me.  
  Keith Nagle posted some pictures of my apparatus on his web site.  They 
  may still be there.  It was a whole lot of fun working with this 
  phenomena.  I hope you try it and let us know what you find.
   
  Jeff Fink
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Zell, Chris 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 4:31 
PM
Subject: Correa, etc.

  
Has anybody replicated any of Correa's PAGD overunity claims?  I got a 
vacuum pump and other gear in hopes of building 
something
  
that apparently nobody is pursuing. (???)
 
  
On a separate note,  I just got done reading "Confessions of an 
Economic Hitman". It is an astounding book.
  
I have little doubt that anyone who stands in the way of our oil based 
economic order could be killed.  If you have 
serious
  
free energy findings, please be careful.  You could end up like Mallove 
, whatever his 
flaws.

Re: Correa, etc.

[Mike Carrell]

- Original Message - 
From: Zell, Chris
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:25 PM
Subject: RE: Correa, etc.


How did you handle capturing the pulses? Batteries?

MC: Chris, if you are asking this question you are in no position to attempt
the Correa PAGD experiments. You need to obtain the relevant patents and
study them thoroughly, and then do your best to duplicate exactly what is in
them. Don't try to be different, or 'improve' on what is disclosed. Jeff
made a sincere effort, saw many effects, but not the key PAGD OU discharge.
I wrote about this for IE some years ago.

Mike Carrell




From: revtec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:26 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Correa, etc.


I have been doing PAGD experiments off and on since 1996.  I saw a lot of
interesting things in the tube, and captured energy pulses on
diode/capacitor circuits, but over unity eludes me.  Keith Nagle posted some
pictures of my apparatus on his web site.  They may still be there.  It was
a whole lot of fun working with this phenomena.  I hope you try it and let
us know what you find.

Jeff Fink
- Original Message - 
From: Zell, Chris
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 4:31 PM
Subject: Correa, etc.


  Has anybody replicated any of Correa's PAGD overunity
claims?  I got a vacuum pump and other gear in hopes of building something
  that apparently nobody is pursuing. (???)

  On a separate note,  I just got done reading "Confessions
of an Economic Hitman". It is an astounding book.
  I have little doubt that anyone who stands in the way of
our oil based economic order could be killed.  If you have serious
  free energy findings, please be careful.  You could end up
like Mallove , whatever his flaws.

Re: Message sent to wikipedia editor

[Steven Krivit]

At 03:31 PM 3/3/2005 -0900, you wrote:
Why not simply make a short statement that is not arguable.  Something
like: "A differing minority view is held by over 200 retired scientists and
university professors who are working on cold fusion energy.   For related
publications see: ."
If such a clearly true statement is deleted then the cause is pure
prejudice.  Maybe we could get together a vigilante team to repost that
short statement whenever it is deleted.

I agree. Further, if you can
a. Make clear, highly-objective, easily verifiable statements and
b. Defend it with vocal proponents (Vortex community > Wiki)
it should work.
s

Re: Permeabivity

[Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.]

I think this is a wonderful article about  dimensional analysis:

http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/ce/dimmot.htm

Grimer wrote:

  ...I recommend any reader who does not understand the previous paragraph to read a book on dimensional analysis if he wants to fully appreciate the next section. As for readers who believe in the fundamental nature of mass, length and time as firmly as they believe in their God (or gods), then I suggest they delete this post now. I wouldn’t want to endanger their simple faith. When one expresses the dimensions of permeability and permittivity in terms of [M]ass , [L]ength and [T]ime one finds that they are very different creatures. Not the type of people likely to get on with each other in fact. No wonder their kid is out of sorts; all screwed up as you Americans might put it.   Now let's lead c's mother and father gently into the dimen-analyst’s consulting rooms for some marriage guidance counseling. Combining the two words, permeability and permittivity with no space <
br>in between them gives permeabilitypermittivity . Since this is a bit of a mouthful we can take the permeab- bit of permeability and the -ivity part of permittivity to give us Permeabivity, the name for the Mother and Father united, the name for the couple as one. To emphasize that it is a group name, and because it’s easy to get it confused with the two other names, I’ve given Permeabivity a capital letter, as you can see. To recap, we now have, the equation  light speed   =  the square root of Permeabivity, I’ve not bothered to put this equation in symbols as well as words. To do so would mean introducing a new symbol for Permeabivity and that could lead to confusion. We can now write down the dimensions for the property, the quality, of Permeabivity, in terms of the conventionally fundamental dimensions, the properties, the qualities, of mass, length and time. ...
  
  
Hoyt Stearns
Scottsdale, Arizona
  
  

Re: Message sent to wikipedia editor

[Horace Heffner]

Why not simply make a short statement that is not arguable.  Something
like: "A differing minority view is held by over 200 retired scientists and
university professors who are working on cold fusion energy.   For related
publications see: ."

If such a clearly true statement is deleted then the cause is pure
prejudice.  Maybe we could get together a vigilante team to repost that
short statement whenever it is deleted.

Regards,

Horace Heffner  

Re: CF on NPR

[Jed Rothwell]

The Flatow segment was linked to a really idiotic segment on
sonofusion, which is full of insults toward CF:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4520833
- Jed

RE: Correa, etc.

[Zell, Chris]

How did you handle capturing the pulses? 
Batteries?


From: revtec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:26 PMTo: 
vortex-l@eskimo.comSubject: Re: Correa, etc.

I have been doing PAGD experiments off and on since 
1996.  I saw a lot of interesting things in the tube, and captured energy 
pulses on diode/capacitor circuits, but over unity eludes me.  Keith Nagle 
posted some pictures of my apparatus on his web site.  They may still be 
there.  It was a whole lot of fun working with this phenomena.  I hope 
you try it and let us know what you find.
 
Jeff Fink

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Zell, Chris 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 4:31 
  PM
  Subject: Correa, etc.
  
    
  Has anybody replicated any of Correa's PAGD overunity claims?  I got a 
  vacuum pump and other gear in hopes of building something
    
  that apparently nobody is pursuing. (???)
   
    
  On a separate note,  I just got done reading "Confessions of an Economic 
  Hitman". It is an astounding book.
    
  I have little doubt that anyone who stands in the way of our oil based 
  economic order could be killed.  If you have serious
    
  free energy findings, please be careful.  You could end up like Mallove , 
  whatever his flaws.

Re: Correa, etc.

[revtec]

I have been doing PAGD experiments off and on since 
1996.  I saw a lot of interesting things in the tube, and captured energy 
pulses on diode/capacitor circuits, but over unity eludes me.  Keith Nagle 
posted some pictures of my apparatus on his web site.  They may still be 
there.  It was a whole lot of fun working with this phenomena.  I hope 
you try it and let us know what you find.
 
Jeff Fink

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Zell, Chris 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 4:31 
  PM
  Subject: Correa, etc.
  
    
  Has anybody replicated any of Correa's PAGD overunity claims?  I got a 
  vacuum pump and other gear in hopes of building something
    
  that apparently nobody is pursuing. (???)
   
    
  On a separate note,  I just got done reading "Confessions of an Economic 
  Hitman". It is an astounding book.
    
  I have little doubt that anyone who stands in the way of our oil based 
  economic order could be killed.  If you have serious
    
  free energy findings, please be careful.  You could end up like Mallove , 
  whatever his flaws.

CF on NPR

[Jed Rothwell]

Here is the usual revolting garbage, but not quite as bad as
normal:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1805623
I would very much like to punch NPR's Madeleine Brand in the
nose. Ira Flatow does his best, but he could have said more if he were
not such a chicken. I wonder if he knows what DoE did to Miles?
- Jed

Re: Message sent to wikipedia editor

[Jed Rothwell]

By the way, I see no point to creating a second article
under the title of "LENR," because as I understand it the
skeptics will be free to trash that article too. I am not going to work
on this project for a week only to have some idiot trash it.
- Jed

Message sent to wikipedia editor

[Jed Rothwell]

Subject: Your article on cold fusion has a strong POV, for
obvious reasons
Dear Mr. Wales,
Greetings.
I work as an editor and translator for a group of roughly 200 retired
scientists and university professors who are working on cold fusion
energy. I maintain a web page on the subject:
http://lenr-canr.org/

(It has a contentious headline at present, but that is only
temporary. For the past two years we have avoided political statements of
this nature, and we expect our disagreement with the DoE to be resolved
soon.)
Your article on cold fusion expresses a strongly partisan point of view,
which is contrary to your published policy. This is probably unavoidable.
Cold fusion is a very contentious field, and most professional scientists
believe the effect does not exist. Although your article is more
open-minded and comprehensive than statements published by the Scientific
American and some other mainstream journals, cold fusion researchers
still feel it is biased.
Some of my colleagues have attempted to change the article, but these
changes have been deleted by skeptics. I understand that you can
"lock" articles, making them read-only, and you can impose a
measure of informal editing or peer-review. Because cold fusion is so
controversial, and there is such hostile skeptical opposition to it, and
because those who support it are a small minority in the scientific
community, I suggest you do so in this case.
I am in contact with all of the major researchers in this field,
including the discoverer Professor Martin Fleischmann. If you can offer
reassurances that contributions written by these researchers will not be
erased or defaced, I would be happy to write some material representing
their point of view. Here is what I propose to do:
I will write a revised version of your article, but before I upload it, I
will circulate it to the researchers whose papers I cite in the
footnotes, to confirm that I have accurately described their work. I will
not delete any of the skeptical comments now in your article, although I
may modify them slightly for clarity and to show that they are, in fact,
skeptical. I would be quite willing to circulate the draft to whoever
wrote the skeptical comments, to be sure their point of view is
accurately represented.
This would be a lot of work. Frankly I am not inclined to do it unless
you can offer assurances that my efforts will not be trashed and erased.
Nor will I ask these busy researchers to take time out of their work to
review the paper that will probably be erased.
Here is one example of what I think needs to be said. The article now
reads:

"Energy source vs power store
While the output power is higher than the input power during the power
burst, the power balance over the whole experiment does not show
significant imbalances. Since the mechanism under the power burst is not
known, one cannot say whether energy is really produced, or simply stored
during the early stages of the experiment (loading of deuterium in the
Palladium cathode) for later release during the power burst.
A "power store" discovery would yield only a new, and very
expensive, kind of storage battery, not a source of abundant cheap fusion
power."

I would change that to something along these lines:
Skeptics claim that while the output power is higher . . .
. . .
Cold fusion researchers point out a number of flaws in this
argument:
1. There is no significant chemical fuel was present in the solution. The
potential chemical energy and chemical storage of cells has been
carefully inventoried [McKubre, Bockris] and it shown to be less than 500
joules, whereas cold fusion cells have produced between 50 and 300
million joules.
2. No chemical process can produce (or store) more than 10 eV per atom of
reactant, [cite elementary chemical bond article] whereas many cold
fusion reactions have produced between 1,000 and 100,000 eV per
atom.
3. Many cells have produced significant excess heat after a short
incubation period, so if there were energy storage, it would show up
quite clearly as an energy deficit (an endothermic reaction). Small
endothermic reaction such as the initial formation of palladium deuteride
are readily observable with most calorimeters. For example, with some
cells, about a week after the experiment begins, 10% to 30% excess heat
begins and it continues for about a month continuously. If this were
caused by a storage mechanism, there would have to be an energy deficit
large enough to capture all of the heat during the one-week start up
phase. Roughly 60% of the input energy would have to be absorbed by the
palladium, presumably in the formation of an exotic deuteride. As far as
anyone knows, this scenario is chemically impossible, and there is
absolutely no evidence that such deuterides have been formed, but if they
were, the 60% deficit would show as clearly as the 30% positive excess
does (at sigma 50 to 90, depending on the calorimeter).
4. Some cold fusion reactions have started up with litt

Re: Wisp update

[George Holz]

Nick,

SiC coated is certainly interesting but I was thinking
of solid carbide tools that are available and reasonably
priced. Solid carbide tools are very rigid compared to
coated steel tools but are easily broken. The rigidity
creates larger forces on the tool during machining so
that a fine dense structure of the carbide is required
to avoid fracture. I've certainly broken my share of 
small solid carbide tools on my small NC mill.

I'm surprised that the thermocouple is reading such
high temperatures. A passive mechanical meter 
on the thermocouple output would
perhaps be less precise but might integrate the noise
and be more readable at high power.
Thanks for the temperature data.

George 


--
> George,
> 
> Thats a good suggestion.  Unlike the stainless or
> nickel or tungsten cathodes, the SiC looked like
> rather than having been corroded or burned away, it
> was sort of spalled or broken apart.  So once
> mechanical stability is assured, (as with a mill or
> drill that is hex-SiC coated) some really good
> performance might be noted.
> 
> During the TC sheath runs, the plateau temperature
> given about 100 watts, and the mass of the couple,
> ended up between 400 and 450C typically. (Averaged out
> over LOTS of noise)  Very jumpy.  Toward the end of
> the D2O run, I cranked the voltage up to about 75V and
> as the plasma went to pinkish white, I saw some
> sporadic momentary jumps up past 850C.  I'm sure the
> actual temperature at the plasma interface was
> phantastically higher, but the temp as read by the
> nested couple buried in MgO within the stainless
> sheath was attenuated.
> 
> NR
> 
> 

Re: Wisp update

[Nick Reiter]

George,

Thats a good suggestion.  Unlike the stainless or
nickel or tungsten cathodes, the SiC looked like
rather than having been corroded or burned away, it
was sort of spalled or broken apart.  So once
mechanical stability is assured, (as with a mill or
drill that is hex-SiC coated) some really good
performance might be noted.

During the TC sheath runs, the plateau temperature
given about 100 watts, and the mass of the couple,
ended up between 400 and 450C typically. (Averaged out
over LOTS of noise)  Very jumpy.  Toward the end of
the D2O run, I cranked the voltage up to about 75V and
as the plasma went to pinkish white, I saw some
sporadic momentary jumps up past 850C.  I'm sure the
actual temperature at the plasma interface was
phantastically higher, but the temp as read by the
nested couple buried in MgO within the stainless
sheath was attenuated.

NR


--- George Holz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Nick,
> 
> Perhaps you might find small solid carbide end mills
> 
> or carbide drill bits useful as electrodes. They
> need to
> have high mechanical strength and appear to have a
> very dense
> fine crystal structure compared to abrasive cutters.
> The drill bits are available in very small
> diameters.
> 
> How high a temperature do you read on the enclosed
> thermocouple cathodes?
> 
> Regards,
> George Holz
> Varitronics Systems
> 
> 
> 

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: Big CF breakthrough reported

[Steven Krivit]

Jed,
Potopov is before my time. Can you say just a word or two about it?
It worked? Didn't work? Status unknown?
Thanks,
Steve
At 02:25 PM 3/3/2005 -0500, you wrote:
A Friend wrote to me:
"The people I know who have been [to visit IESI] and seen the equipment 
can't say anything other than there are big objects making lots of noise 
but no data is apparent or being offered. It smells strongly of Potopov to me."

- Jed

Permeabivity

[Grimer]

Some years ago I posted to various discussion groups 
which were taken over by Google who are now ruining 
the layout (thank heavens for Vortex - though I do 
wish Vorts would stick to the text only rule).

There was one post on Dimensional Analysis (as 
relating to permeability and permittivity) that I 
wanted to dig up. Unfortunately, I couldn't for 
then life of me remember when I wrote it or which 
of the many physics groups I'd sent it to. All I 
could remember was that I had used the pseudonym, 
Theresa [my daughter's name and an anagram of 
aethers (grin)] and that it would have the word 
dimension in it. Thanks to googling I was able 
to find it in 10 seconds flat.

I am pasting it below because of its relevance to 
another post I am preparing on the relation of the 
Beta-atmosphere/aether to EM potentials. It will 
be more convenient to refer to it in the Vortex 
Archive rather than to have to give a URL for the 
google site where it is accompanied by distracting 
stuff in both margins.

Cheers

Frank

 
==
 Subject: The Mother and Father of all Lights 
 f.grimer   Feb 26 1999, 12:00 am

Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

I have a problem that may interest the readers of this newsgroup since 
it relates to the speed of electromagnetic radiation. For simplicity, 
I will use the word light to represent all wavelengths of 
electromagnetic radiation both shorter and longer than those of 
visible radiation. 

>From a practical point of view the speed of light is a variable. 
By this I mean that its effective speed varies in different media. 
In this respect it is not unlike the speed of sound. 
Sound’s speed also varies from one media to another. 

Paradoxically, light has its highest speeds in what to us is 
relatively intangible stuff. Its speed in air is hardly less than its 
speed in the vacuum of outer space. It would be difficult to imagine 
anything more intangible than the atmospheric vacuum of outer space. 

With sound on the other hand it's the other way around. Roughly 
speaking the more tangible things are, the faster sound travels. 
I once read of someone who calculated how fast sound would be 
transmitted across an atomic nucleus. I think the speed turned out to 
be faster than the speed of light. Not really surprising considering 
the fantastic density of a nucleus. No doubt some reader will supply 
the actual speed if he knows it. 

It is rather interesting that sound and light are the inverse, so to 
speak, of each other. 

It is as though, 
John Sound lives on the 13th floor with all his walls painted black, 
and all his furniture painted white, whilst 
Janet Light lives on the 12th floor with all her walls painted white, 
and all her furniture painted black. 

It is as though, 
like Janet and John themselves, their rooms are complementary. 

It is as though  light and sound 
are the yin and the yang of information communication. 

Another interesting similarity between sound and light is the equation 
that relates speed to other physical properties. This equation is of 
the form   

X  =   (Y.Z)^(0.5) 

Or in words, X is the geometric mean of Y and Z. 

One could hardly think of a much simpler relationship than that. 

I suppose it could be argued that, 

X  =   ( Y + Z ) /2 

is even simpler since it’s easier to add than to multiply, and though 
division is harder than either, finding a square root is harder still. 

How can we clad the naked symbols of this simple Son et Lumiere 
relationship with garments to stimulate new views? 

How can we flesh out this skeletal equation to give our imaginations 
something to get hold of, something to generate new ideas? 

If we are going to flesh out things then it seems to me that the best 
flesh to use is our own. We will let our hair down, loosen up and have 
a go. Let’s view the equation as an organic process, 
the X as generated by the Y and the Z, 
as the offspring of the marrying of the Y and Z  by the multiplication 
sign.  Everyone loves a wedding. 

Also, since roots are organic things, that helps the imagery along. 
I must confess though, I’ve never seen a square one. 

Let’s imagine that Y and Z are the Mother and Father of X. Perhaps Z 
could be the father snoozing in his armchair while Y is the mother 
holding up her hands in horror because their offspring, X, is putting 
the cat in the microwave.. 

Armed with this whimsy let’s consider the equation for the speed of 
light, an equation with which all readers of this newsgroup will 
certainly be familiar. 

   light speed   =   sqr.rt (permeability x permittivity) 

or   c   =  (u.e)^0.5 

Now at this point I get a hunch that something’s not quite right. Oh 
the equation works all right. I know that. But somehow I get the 
feeling that the magnetic mother, u, and the electric father, e, are 
not getting on very well. They seem to be at odds with each other. 
And their ch

RE: Revolution 50

[John Steck]

Hello 
David,
Very 
nice to hear back from you.  There are many possibilities for such a 
device, but investing any time into applying the technology requires a better 
understanding of the operation dynamics of the device; it's strengths, it's 
weaknesses, etc.  Having been disappointed before, I try not to get too 
excited about stuff like this until I have a chance to 'kick the tires' if you 
will.  That is my primary interest in getting a unit.
 
Where do you expect the price point to be 
on your first product release?  What is your price point 
goal once you establish efficient production?  
 
Do you publish a regular news letter to keep interested 
parties informed of your developments?  If so I would like to be kept in 
the loop.
 
-john
 
 
 
-Original Message-From: Bothwell, David 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 
8:19 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: Revolution 
50

I am the Director for the Energy Systems division of 
NanoDynamics, Inc.  
 
Our Energy Systems Division is responsible for the 
development and manufacture of a Microtubular Solid Oxide Fuel Cell, 
(MSOFC).  Our first product release is focused on applications requiring 50 
to 300 watts of power and is capable of operating on propane.
 
We are weeks away from having our Revolution 50 
prototype completed.  At this point we will begin Alpha and then Beta 
testing.
 
Early pre-production prototype versions of the 
Revolution 50 should be available sometime around the second half of this 
year.  As a result market pricing has not been established yet.  We 
are planning to have fully released production versions ready around the new 
year of 2006.
 
The current prototype unit will produce 50 watts at 12 
volts and will operate for 36 hours on a 14 oz tank of propane.  The 
prototype system with fuel weighs less than 10 pounds, (4.4 kgs), is 12 inches 
high, 9 inches wide, and 6 inches deep at its widest point.  Further 
development will reduce the weight and volume.  
 
If you have applications where you would like to 
increase your operating run time, (endurance), and batteries are not meeting 
your needs then a small fuel cell could provide the power and endurance you 
require.
 
I would very much welcome an opportunity to discuss our 
fuel cell concept, the status of our demonstration unit, the potential for this 
product, and any other matters that are of interest to your organization.  
If you have an application for this fuel cell I would be glad to discuss the 
requirements with you so that we can determine the applicability of the fuel 
cell as it relates to your application as well as the business marketing 
requirements. 
 
Thank you for your interest.
 
 
David Bothwell
Director-NDEnergy
NanoDynamics, Inc.
(716) 853-4900 ext 301 
-Original Message-From: John Steck 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 
2005 1:48 AMTo: ND EnergySubject: RevolutionT 50
 
Hello,
What is the current commercial/research availability of 
the Revolution™ 50?
 
-john
 
~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~
  John Steck
  High Impact Product Development 
Services
  DESIGN - ENGINEERING - MANUFACTURING - 
MARKETING
~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~
 
 Quality is never an accident; it is always 
the
 result of high intention, sincere 
effort,
 intelligent direction, and skillful 
execution.
 

Re: Hydro-polluter

[leaking pen]

http://www.lemonizer.com/upload/uploadsJuly/jeez.jpg";>
please.  yes, theres a release.  but of less than what the plant
matter took in in the first place.  its not millenia of built up co2,
its recent co2, and lets not forget that a lot of the plant co2
remains in solution, feeding alage and the like, and more stays in
sludge at the bottom.  in addition, as the levels fluctuate, plants
grow than are drowned at the waters edge.  this causes a cycling.  its
the same c02, coming in and going out.  its like claiming that the c02
emmitted by corn made alchohol burning is damaging...


On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 07:55:49 -0800, Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hydroelectric... a big greenhouse gas polluter ?
>  
> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/ns-hds022305.php
>  
> ...estimates that in 1990 the greenhouse effect of emissions from the
> Curuá-Una dam in Brazil, was more than three-and-a-half times what would
> have been produced by generating the same amount of electricity from oil...
>  
>  


-- 
"Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to
make it possible for you to continue to write"  Voltaire

Re: Big CF breakthrough reported

[Jed Rothwell]

A Friend wrote to me:
"The people I know who have been [to visit IESI] and
seen the equipment can't say anything other than there are big objects
making lots of noise but no data is apparent or being offered. It smells
strongly of Potopov to me."
- Jed

Re: Big CF breakthrough reported

[Horace Heffner]

At 10:24 AM 3/3/5, Edmund Storms wrote:
>You forget Nick, that hydrogen will be mainly obtained from water.  As a
>result, each hydrogen atom that is produced is accompanied by the
>necessary oxygen for its conversion back to water.

I think that was Nick's point too.

Also of interest is the fact that even if the primary source of energy for
the hydrogen is methane gas, and the carbon is sequestered, there is a lot
more oxygen around than the web site indicates.  Using 15 lb/in^2 air
pressure, that's rho = 1.055x10^4 kg/m^2 of atmosphere above the earth's
surface.  Using 6378 km as earth's radius R, we have area A = 4 Pi R^2 =
5.11x10^14 m^2.  Total mass of the atmosphere is M_atmos = Rho * A =
5.39x10^18 kg.  Total mass of oxygen is roughly 1/5 that or about
1.078x10^18 kg.  We can afford to lose about 1/3 of that before life gets
tough, or about 3.59x10^17 kg.  Using H2 + 0.5 O2 -> H2O + 228 kJ/mol, we
get 228 kJ per 16 g of oxygen burned, or 1.425x10^7 J/kg of O2 burned, or
1.35x10^4 Btu/kg.  Since world energy consumption is about 400 quads, or
400x10^15 Btu, that's (4x10^17 Btu)/(1.35x10^4 Btu/kg) = 3.08x10^13 kg of
O2 consumption per year.  That gives us a time T of about T = (3.59x10^17
kg)/(3.08x10^13 kg/yr) = 1.166x10^4 yrs, or about 11,660 years to get
there.  I would expect at least humans to adapt in that time, but who
knows?

I hope I got all that right.

Regards,

Horace Heffner  

Re: Wisp update

[George Holz]

Hi Nick,

Perhaps you might find small solid carbide end mills 
or carbide drill bits useful as electrodes. They need to
have high mechanical strength and appear to have a very dense
fine crystal structure compared to abrasive cutters.
The drill bits are available in very small diameters.

How high a temperature do you read on the enclosed
thermocouple cathodes?

Regards,
George Holz
Varitronics Systems

Wisp update

[Nick Reiter]

Gentlemen,

It seemed like it was about time for a short update on
experiments with the little Wisp reactor (plasma
electrolysis).  Been a couple of months now.

When we last left our hero, the Wisp, I had reported
on pretty modest results, as far as thermometry and
radiation detection.  In conversation at that time,
Sam Faile and I agreed with the majority opinion here
on vortex that thermometry of potentially anomalous
heat evolution was probably far better an indicator of
LENR than blips from a homebrew neutron detection
scheme.  In runs made since then, I have continued to
use a BN disc detector with my Geiger counter, but
haven't gone too much further with any better scheme
(on the budget available)

The course of action has been to continue looking for
anomalies pure and simple, whether it be jumps in
temperature, odd colored plasma, odd deviations in
power consumed.  This methodology has been applied to
an ongoing search for optimum materials that are
robust to the ferocious plasma at the cathode, even
with modest power levels of 50 to 100 watts.

Even our 26 ga. platinum wire cathode gets beat up and
is slowly pockmarking itself into oblivion.  We took
some suggestions tendered here, and tried some
stainless steel hypodermic needles.  Bright blue
fierce plasma, and one that seemed to give some short
burst response from the GM, but not sustainable for
more than about 3 minutes.  Needles eroded away.

We tried a 650nm 5mW laser shined down the center of a
hypodermic needle cathode, and at various orientations
to the Pt wire cathode.  Did not see anything
resembling a deviation from previous behavior and
values.

One cathode material that seemed to hold up better
than stainless and nickel, though not quite as well as
Pt, was sintered polycrystalline silicon carbide,
dremel ground down to a point.  The SiC seems to hold
up to the temperature, but I think infiltration and
acoustic forces shatter it apart grain by grain. 
Maybe a single crystal SiC cathode would hold up
indefinitely.  The plasma color with SiC was different
- odd - a bright sun-like yellow white.  Nice and
stable, though.

I had also made some runs using a 1/16" stainless
sheath thermocouple as the cathode - similar to what I
had reported doing from the very early days exploring
this phenomenon.  These latest runs though were
intended to compare temperatures reached by the
cathode, for heavy and normal water K2CO3 solutions. 
They weren't all that definitive - a lot of jumpiness
on the TC at higher powers... originating (my guess)
from RFI due to the cathodic plasma.  If I stretched
myself way out there, there may have been about a 10%
greater terminal temperature achieved for the D2O
solution... however jumpiness AND possible differences
in thermal conductivity of D2O solutions versus H2O
solutions (which I still do not have good reference
data for) make it quite iffy.

Being able to run a plasma electrolysis reactor for
more than about 10 minutes seems to be about the
biggest challenge of all.  Tungsten erodes, nickel
erodes, SiC spalls mechanically, stainless erodes,
platinum holds up but takes a beating.  Sam and I have
considered springing soon for some .005" iridium wire
($80 for 10 cm from Alfa Aesar)  I'm also looking for
single crystal moissanite silicon carbide that could
be diamond ground into a cathode point.

And thats where we are.

Best regards,

Nick Reiter




__ 
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! 
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web 
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/

RE: Hydro-polluter

[Zell, Chris]

Global warming doomsayers 
are also adding to the greenhouse dilemma since they emit CO2 as long as 
they're
alive.  Vegetarians are hurting the 
environment by emitting methane after eating beans.  


From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 10:56 AMTo: 
vortexSubject: Hydro-polluter 

Hydroelectric... a big greenhouse gas polluter ?
 
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/ns-hds022305.php
 
...estimates that in 1990 the greenhouse effect of emissions from the 
Curuá-Una dam in Brazil, was more than three-and-a-half times what would have 
been produced by generating the same amount of electricity from oil...
 
 

Message to Roger Stringham

[Jed Rothwell]

[I predict this will fall on deaf ears. - JR]
Subject: This company is about to market a variation of your
process
Roger:
Here is the website of a company that has reportedly developed a
variation of your technique, employing a Pd-Rh alloy.
http://iesiusa.com/
This web site is not impressive, but I have heard that some of the
leading CF researchers have visited the company and they confirm the
results.
If you sit on your invention long enough someone is bound to reinvent it,
run with it, and take it away from you. I think you should make every
effort to show it to other people, put samples into other people's hands,
and convince the world that what you have is real.
- Jed 

Re: Big CF breakthrough reported

[Jones Beene]

Hey guys

Give the guy a break. You can cleary see the "Coming Soon"
at the top of the page. None of the links are active. The
site is under construction. This errata and others will be
removed. It was not suposed to have been noticed yet.

Steve was mistaken to even mention it. The site was put up
just for testing.

I hope they change the logo first of all.

Re: Big CF breakthrough reported

[Nick Palmer]

Yes Ed, that is the point I was making - that THEY at gifnet do not seem to 
appreciate this fact. In fact they are suffering from the same delusion that 
appears to afflict many promoters of the hydrogen economy i.e. that free 
hydrogen can be found somewhere in the environment and used as a fuel 

Re: Big CF breakthrough reported

[Jed Rothwell]

Edmund Storms wrote:
You forget Nick, that hydrogen will be mainly obtained from water.  As a 
result, each hydrogen atom that is produced is accompanied by the 
necessary oxygen for its conversion back to water.
Nick was quoting the The Global Institute for New Energy Technologies web 
site. (http://www.gifnet.org/)

Imagine publishing an idiotic statement like that in a web site ostensibly 
devoted to energy. Your credibility is reduced to zero. This is a comic 
book level analysis, like when Superman flies up and then pushes on the 
earth to make it stop turning.

- Jed

Re: CF Expert?

[Horace Heffner]

At 7:51 AM 3/3/5, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
>In reply to  Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 02 Mar 2005 10:52:52
>-0900:
>Hi,
>[snip]
>>It does say, "The kinetics of the process is unclear." though. The bubbles
>>of methane form on grain boundaries, and this requires diffusion of the
>>carbon.
>[snip]
>Perhaps, it is the methane which migrates after it is formed, not
>the carbon before the methane is formed.

The methane molecule would be a bit large to fit through the lattice.  Here
is an interesting table of atomic radii in angstroms:

   Atom   Covalent bonded

H  0.79   0.32

C  0.91   0.77

Si 1.46   1.11

The covalent radius of carbon, 0.77 angstroms, is slightly less that the
stand-alone atomic radius of hydrogen, 0.79 angstroms.  Adsorbed hydrogen
generally does not have room to fit in a lattice site, though it is close,
and this is evidenced by the degree of metal swelling as 1-1 hydrogen
loading is approached.  The ionically bonded electron associated with the
adsorbed hydrogen nucleus forms a "partial orbital" which maintains
pressure on the lattice, and vice versa.  By partial orbital it is meant a
fairly large probability of finding the paired electron in an orbital and
the complimentary probability of finding the paired electron in a
conduction band.  The adsorbed hydrogen volume is thus slightly reduced
from that of an atom with a 0.79 angstrom radius.

Now for some conjectures.

It is notable that the covalent carbon radius is slightly less than the
hydrogen atomic radius.  This means that carbon should be able to diffuse
through a lattice about as easily as hydrogen, provided adjacent metal
atoms can easily exchange covalent bonds with the carbon so as to allow it
to advance when a pressure gradient is present, as in the close vicinity to
a crack in the metal.

It seems like some ways to reduce hydrogen embrittlement might be to avoid
carbon steels, or alloys having metals the form hydrides, like Ni or Pd.
Also, quenching in liquids conatining hydrogen or carbon may not be so
good.  It may be that LN would be a good quenching agent, but since it has
an atomic radius of only 0.75 angstroms, it would be suspect for forming
ammonia bubbles in a hydrogen loaded lattice similar in properties to
methane bubbles.  Silicon can form silane gas, similar to methane.
However, silicon's atomic and covalent radii prevent it from diffusing.
Silicon steels thus migth be a good choice for avoiding fast embrittlement
if other bad things are not present in the alloy.

If hydrogen can get into any material, however, it just seems like some
lattice damage is likely to result.  One way to keep hydrogen out is to
impose a barrier.  For room temperature applications a copper coating might
do the trick.  Copper can readily adsorb H at 600 deg. C though, and if
quickly cooled lots of tiny spherical bubbles of hydrogen are formed in the
copper.  This might offer a useful way to prepare CF electrodes for
bombardment, by loading at high temperature and cooling prior to particle
or x-ray bombardment or other fusion triggering means.  It also raises the
question of what additional or unsuspected metals might be CF active at
ceramic oven temperatures.  New possibilites for annealing and reloading
are also provided by use of high temperatures.

Regards,

Horace Heffner  

Re: Big CF breakthrough reported

[Edmund Storms]

You forget Nick, that hydrogen will be mainly obtained from water.  As a 
result, each hydrogen atom that is produced is accompanied by the 
necessary oxygen for its conversion back to water.

Regards,
Ed

Nick Palmer wrote:
 
http://www.gifnet.org/   
   don't seem to be very scientifically 
literate - look at this extract from their front page...
 

Nevada Corporations and Texas rules

[RC Macaulay]

Under new Nevada law, a person(s) may register a new 
corporation without disclosing almost anything except the name of the lawyer 
that filed the registration. Deep pockets with savvy file in Bermuda through the 
local British banker/attorney or half empty pockets file in the Caymans. Friend 
just returned from the Caymans noting the banks are now wall to 
wall.
 
Yesterday was Texas Independence day, the day a 1835 
document was signed which explained to Mexico they were not the only people that 
could get a divorce from Spain,, although Spain was having difficulty believing 
Mexico was serious when they gave to papers to Spain back in 1810. Meanwhile, an 
obscure politico named Sam Houston suspiciously left the US congress,  got 
a divorce and became a drunk living with indians in around Oklahoma until he 
wound up in Texas just in time to blow the ink dry on the declaration. El 
Presidente ( and Generale for life) Santa Ana, took offense at someone 
trying to  rape his chickens and steal his women by promptly stomping the 
Alamo into dust along with the few fools that would dare oppose a military force 
under officers trained at Mexico's superb 200 year old military academy.  
Sweeping east from San Antonio toward what was later to be Houston, the Mexicans 
stopped long enough at Goliad to teach Col. Fannin and his troops how the game 
of  shooting fish in a barrel is played Mexico rules by granting surrender 
terms of parole and shooting the ones that couldnt  run fast enough to 
dodge bullets.
 
Meanwhile Sam was now a General leading his band of 
ragtag farmer/settlers  heading east ( the runaway scape) just ahead of 
the Mexicans. Santa Ana chased Sam and his bunch all the way to the 
Lynchburg ferry crossing ( San Jacinto)where he cornered the rabble band in 
a horseshoe pocket with their backs to the river. Worn out, run down like 
rabbits, cold, wet, demoralized and outnumbered  perhaps 5 to 1 with a well 
trained and blooded Mexican army looking down their guns at a pitiful sight and 
a backup army marching from Velasco just to make things more interesting WHEN.. 
something happened that later was described as one of the most decisive 
victories in history. Santa Ana was defeated, his troops literally wiped out and 
forced to sign a treaty.
There seems to be a consensus that Santa Ana was 
sleeping off a drug induced seista that afternoon after gloating over the fun 
fixing to happen when a bunch of horsemen with lances chase someone on 
foot.
 
According to historians, the two cannon ( twin sisters) 
owned by the Texans suddenly began to fire using wet powder and the ragtag band 
shouted something in English the Mexicans couldn't understand which is a 
terrible mistake to make to a a Texas policeman.
 
Trying to separate fact from fiction has been a futile 
task ever since. A few facts do emerge.
Sam Houston was friend of Andy Jackson , the US prez. 
Andy Jackson pulled the same type of victory over the British in 1812 at the 
battle of New Orleans. Two US Navy gunboats sailed out of New Orleans just 
before the battle at San Jacinto.Where these gunboats were headed is a not part 
of  the Navy records. The gun boats were capable of sailing up the 
river and hiding in position in the dense undergrowth just behind the horseshoe 
pocket where the Texans were trapped.
 
Andy Jackson, like Tom Jefferson was part of the 
Manifest Destiny crowd that believed it was the destiny of the USA to rule from 
sea to shining sea regardless of what Spain had to say about it.
 
Times in US politics didn't change much until after 
WW 1 when the results of sending your kids to Harvard, Yale et.al. began to 
show up in the bureaucracy in spades. These poor misguided kids now believe we 
should start playing by UN rules and give it all back. 
 
Richard
 
<>

Re: Big CF breakthrough reported

[Jed Rothwell]

thomas malloy wrote:
IMHO, if the device is producing a commercially feasible amount of energy, 
ten times the input energy, the instrumentation doesn't have to be too complex.
I agree it does not have to be complex, but it has to be present. It is so 
easy to show 10 x input, why not do it?


The above technology sounds like the Piantelli patent. IMHO, Piantelli's 
technology was great, but Fiat Allis decided not to pursue it, and Dr. 
Piantelli didn't answer my emails. I've been expecting something like this.
My Sources today say the gadget resembles Stringham's approach. *I* have 
been expecting someone to take Stringham's work and run with it.


Arrogance comes with being a genius.
Except when it doesn't. Also, arrogance usually comes with being stupid.

I read the IESI press release. Can someone explain what a heat recovery 
system has to do with a LENR process?
It is simple. If you have one, you don't need the other.
- Jed

Re: Big CF breakthrough reported

[Jones Beene]

Steve et al.

> We all remember Genesis World Energy, right? I've seen
another website
> recently about an NGO that seems to really have their
heart in the right
> place - but there's something weird about it, I can't
quite put my finger
> on it. www.gifnet.org .


Please! Do not confuse this company in any way with GWE.

I have had some long talks with Nicholas Moller about the
MAHG and find him to be extremely insightful and dedicated,
and far away from the kind of scam that GWE has tried to
perpetrate.

Unfortunately the gifnet logo needs some work, as it gives
the cheesy impression of new age utopia, which is not the
case. That may be what you are trying to put your finger on,
but I think that you have met Nicholas in France and may
have forgotten it. This will be a big breakthrough when he
gets it a little further along (self-powered).

I posted this about Moller back in October before having the
opportunity to talk to him. I believe that he has real OU
now, but it is in the form of heat and his device is not yet
self-powered. But there are indications that he has improved
the device way over the performance listed online and that
self-powered performance (to erase any doubt among skeptics)
will be feasible. He had numerous problems with Frolov (do
not !! have your prototype made by him) and in getting the
machine out of Russia, but that should have been taken care
of, hopefully. I hope to travel to Europe soon and take a
look (don't we all!) but there is some open and fairly
thorough work presented online, for anyone to see.

[From an earlier posting edited, about the MAGH of Moller,
as it appears on Naudin's site]

You may remember this poser from a year ago:
"Which is hotter -
a.) burning hydrogen in oxygen, or
b.) burning hydrogen in hydrogen?"

Well, once again Naudin has managed to provide an answer, of
sorts - this  time in conjunction with the equally
controversial Alex Frolov. See:

http://jlnlabs.imars.com/mahg/mahg1.htm

Which is a fairly elaborate experiment, apparently built by
A. Frolov in Russia to the specs of Nicholas Moller, and
showing a steady-state OU of 130% (COP =1.3) and higher on
startup. Improvements are expected.

It is based on the experiments of Langmuir, the inventor of
a hydrogen "torch" as well as being the author of the most
famous derogatory putdown imaginable to us perpmos, that
being the one known far and wide as "pathological science."

If you answered b) then you may be thinking about the
hydrino, OR are already aware of an energy "anomaly"
discovered almost 90 years ago, but is it overunity?

Ironically, Nobel chemist Irving Langmuir (1881-1957) was in
the habit of giving cautionary talks on "pathological
science", saying "There are cases where there is no
dishonesty involved, but where people are tricked into false
results by a lack of understanding about what human beings
can do to themselves in the way of being led astray by
subjective effects, wishful thinking, or threshold
interactions. These are examples of pathological science."
Apparently, he failed to issue a reciprocal warning for
pathological obedience to instituionalized orthodoxy, and
indeed he may have deliberately overlooked one of the first
well-recorded instances of overunity - and in his own work!
What should it be called, "pathological tunnel vision" or
"pathological neo-cecity" (for those who appreciate 'le mot
juste') ?

The old anomaly in question involves the thermal
dissociation of hydrogen in an electric arc, and it was
discovered by none other than Irving Langmuir himself. He
noticed that dissociation of H2 in an electric arc led to a
much higher dissociation rate than one might expect on the
basis of known thermodynamics. He invented a cutting torch
based on this discovery, which is seldom used today because
of another consideration (hydrogen embrittlement of steel).
Here is a picture of the torch.

http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/AtomicH/atomicH.html

Despite the risk of promoting even more of the dreaded
pathological science (at the expense of old Irv), there is a
good case to be made for OU in this device.

The "textbook" binding energy of the hydrogen molecule is
4.52 eV. If one compares the ratio of the dissociated
molecules to that of non-dissociated molecules in Langmuir's
torch, it turns out that the effective binding energy works
out to only a little over 1 eV for a substantial population
of the molecules involved. Of course, the distribution is
Maxwellian and we are only looking at that population on
Boltzman's tail, but so what? The population of temporarily
free protons is large (as much as a third, depending on
assumptions) and the dissociation energy-deficit is so
substantial that a "gateway" may exist for OU may here.

Unfortunately, most of Langmuir's old articles like: "The
Dissociation of Hydrogen Into Atoms," Journal of American
Chemical Society 37, 417 (1915) are not available online.
Apologists for this kind of energy deficit effect often use
the term "borrowed" to 

Re: Big CF breakthrough reported

[Nick Palmer]

 
http://www.gifnet.org/    don't seem to be very scientifically literate - look at this 
extract from their front page...
 
 

Re: Big CF breakthrough reported

[thomas malloy]

Frank Grimer posted
At 04:02 pm 02-03-05 -0500, Jed wrote:
 >would have written a scathing report saying this trip was a waste of time
in the instrumentation is meaningless. It says:
 >
IMHO, if the device is producing a commercially feasible amount of 
energy, ten times the input energy, the instrumentation doesn't have 
to be too complex.

 >
"Report on Visit to IESI
 >December 17th, 2004
 >My understanding of the principle is that the Low Energy Nuclear Reaction
is produced by cavitation of deuterium enriched water in the presence of a
metal catalyst. In addition to cavitation, the reaction is accelerated
significantly by the use of a resonating frequency in the reaction cell.
The above technology sounds like the Piantelli patent. IMHO, 
Piantelli's technology was great, but Fiat Allis decided not to 
pursue it, and Dr. Piantelli didn't answer my emails. I've been 
expecting something like this.

Cavitation, resonant frequency and catalyst could all combine in delivering
high pF. For the reasons I gave in my IE paper, that is at the basis, of CF
(and also of Mills hydrinos, incidently). Mill's problem is, he has the atoms
but not the bits, to use a Negropontean way of putting it. Incidently, I
Based on what Mike Carrell said, Mills' problem is that it works, 
kind of,  but it's complicated.

Sorry if all this seems terribly arrogant, but it's not as arrogant 
as Mills  ;-)
Arrogance comes with being a genius.
I read the IESI press release. Can someone explain what a heat 
recovery system has to do with a LENR process?

Hydro-polluter

[Jones Beene]

Hydroelectric... a big greenhouse gas polluter ?
 
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/ns-hds022305.php
 
...estimates that in 1990 the greenhouse effect of emissions from the 
Curuá-Una dam in Brazil, was more than three-and-a-half times what would have 
been produced by generating the same amount of electricity from oil...