RE: [Vo]:simulation of fractional hydrogen ashless
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:22:07 Jones Beene wrote Fran, The large spheres are diatomic hydrogen when outside the cavity, but become monatomic after apparent shrinkage from our perspective, due to time dilation, then releasing the photon, is that correct? To cover more actual experimental results, one might also suggest that on occasion, nuclear reactions can occur with the walls of the cavity, even if that is not the main source of excess energy. In fact, this type of reaction might only be a QM balancing act . One never knows, do one? Jones, You are correct that on occasion nuclear reactions do occur - much more so than normal for 2 reasons, first time dilation means that the normal low probability Of this occurring at ambient is already multiplied by Gamma and secondly the cavity represents a 3rd body that accelerates atoms to different inertial frames just like the collisions shown in the BLP animation except there is no need for a collision -the non radiative transfer of energy is occurring constantly with changes in Casimir force that constantly reshape the orbitals to new fractional values based on local geometry (Thanks to Robin for making me investigate the 3rd body). I believe BLP included this collision in their animation to simplify their explanation but I am saying the quantum effect of Casimir geometry negates the need for an actual collision because the entire cavity is already working to transfer energy from the atoms at different rates based on local geometry/zones, you call this negative energy because time is occurring faster than the ambient isotropic value we consider the baseline outside a cavity. It doesn't matter if you consider time dragging behind inside the cavity or we outside the cavity are racing ahead in time the absolute difference is the energy potential we have the opportunity to exploit when inertial frames diverge. My posit is that the translation between frames is not symmetrical for different bond states of the atom, the nonradiative energy transfer is opposed by bound atoms and not by unbound atoms turning these bond states into a rectifier mechanism. Cheers Fran
[Vo]:OT (sort of): Why Wikipedia Should Be Trusted As A Breaking News Source
Title: Why Wikipedia Should Be Trusted As A Breaking News Source Begins with: Most any journalism professor, upon mention of Wikipedia, will immediately launch into a rant about how the massively collaborative online encyclopedia can't be trusted. It can, you see, be edited and altered by absolutely anyone at any moment. But how much less trustworthy is the site for breaking news than the plethora of blogs and other online news sources? ... http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/why_wikipedia_should_be_trusted_or_how_to_consume.php http://tinyurl.com/ybq3xbv The commentary concerning how the Mumbai Terror Attacks was interesting: ** ...by the end of the first day of the Wikipedia article's life, it had been edited more than 360 times, by 70 different editors referring to 28 separate sources from news outlets around the web. While this could seem like a situation rife for misdirection and misinformation, the constant discussion swirling around the creation of an article, Pantages explained, is really similar to what you would think should be in a newsroom. Nonetheless, we still disparage Wikipedia as an untrusted source of news. ** I get the feeling the same mechanisms didn't work as well in regards to the WIKI Cold Fusion article. Apples versus oranges? ...Or are they really the same thing??? But if both really are apples, why did it not work for CF but apparently did work for reporting on the Mumbai Terror Attacks? As always, there is a comments section at the end of the article where you can add your two cents. Mr. Lomax, try to keep your comments down to a page length! ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT (sort of): Why Wikipedia Should Be Trusted As A Breaking News Source
Some Wikipedia articles are better than others. The format is good for some subject areas, but not so good for others. I think controversial subjects that call for expert knowledge probably fare worst. Especially subjects that attract self-appointed experts. That also happens in the science-oriented mass media articles in newspapers and the Scientific American. There is a lot of bunk published about global warming, for example. In the newspaper crowdsourced blogs today, I get the sense that just about everyone with a driver's license considers himself an expert in Toyota's technical problems and the role of software versus hardware in cars. The institution and rules it follows make a large difference, but individual people also make or break an institution. All banks in the U.S. operate under the same set of detailed rules and strictures. Yet some are honest, profitable, and socially constructive, while others loan money to dead people, and still others appear to be set up mainly to rob the stockholders and FDIC. It depends on the people in charge. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Lomax ideas for cheap SPAWAR type cell: Murray 2010.03.12
At 06:00 PM 3/13/2010, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: 2. Oxygen is being evolved at the cathode. There is no stirring mechanism in these cells. How an oxygen bubble would get from the anode, where oxygen gas is being evolved, to the cathode is unstated. Mitchell Swartz kindly pointed out my error. Of course, I contradicted cathode in the next sentence, but As Mr. Swartz pointed out, the concentration of oxygen at the cathode is zero. So we have to imagine an oxygen bubble somehow making it from the anode to the cathode, contrary to two flows, the flow of deuterium gas is away from the cathode, but the flow could carry oxygen from below the cathode to the cathode -- how would it get down there? -- and then somehow penetrating the palladium matrix to mix with the deuterium so that it can burn rapidly enough to generate enough heat to melt palladium. Quite a trick. Now, I sympathize with Rich. He spent quite a bit of time presenting the skeptical position a decade ago. It's hard to switch gears. But there comes a point where one realizes that there isn't even room to stand on one's head any more. Certainly it is possible to think up some different explanation for anything. But at some point it's appropriate for resistance to collapse and say, okay, maybe it is possible. Maybe there might be something new here, that we didn't realize was possible, maybe the mechanism is something that we didn't even dream of. What *are* the established experimental facts? Yes, there are errors. Fleischmann made a huge one with his neutron reports. Texas AM got egg all over their face. But ... does that mean that every neutron report is therefore error? Returning with a fresh perspective, we can look at all that so-called negative result from some prominent groups as part of the experimental evidence. Those negative reports showed that if the loading ratio (D/Pd atom ratio) isn't high enough, you don't see much, if any, reaction. They showed that if you don't get a reaction as shown by calorimetry, you don't get radiation or other products. They showed that palladium structure was critical, that not just any solid palladium would work. And they showed how ready the physics community was to jump to conclusions that were politically convenient. That's a valuable lesson too! The 1989 DoE report concluded that cold fusion was not proven. Somehow that got translated into shown to be pathological science. When you have huge numbers of people investigating a new phenomenon, with very little solidly known, and with exciting possibilities, you will indeed see a lot of poor experimental technique, wild speculation, exaggeration of the significance of results, all that. But it can happen on both sides, positive and negative. The problem of publication bias is real, i.e., negative results tend to be set aside as uninteresting. That is just as harmful, in my opinion, as publication of negative results as proof against positive results. In real science, all the evidence accumulates. The process is never complete, though reality can become so obvious that not much more happens. N-rays were rejected properly because the reason to suspect that they existed was shown, conclusively, to have a simple, ordinary explanation. Did that disprove N-rays? Not exactly. It meant that the rug was pulled out from under the evidence. Polywater collapsed because spectroscopic analysis showed the origin, very well. Could some new form of water exist? Can't rule it out, it's merely unlikely. The polywater evidence was misleading, an error that simply took more than a few months to find and correct. Was the rug pulled out from under cold fusion? When? The evidence that caused Flesichmann to even look for neutrons was heat. Maybe what sealed it was that meltdown, an event like that can tend to get one's attention, when you have to repair the floor and replace the lab bench and you wonder what might have happened if it had been a little stronger. From the very beginning, the only reason to seriously doubt that this was a nuclear reaction was theory, and the theory involved was an informal one, not explicitly tested thoroughly, that the calculations of two-body quantum mechanics would accurately predict nuclear behavior in the condensed matter environment, where the math is horrific but the idea was that nuclear distances are such that the influence of third bodies would be negligible. Fleischmann and Pons agreed to test this, Fleischmann later claimed that he expected to find nothing. My guess is that they didn't put a lot of money into the earliest work, it was only when they started to see heat that they then set to try to regularize and characterize the effect, and they weren't ready for publication, he claims. In other words, the theory that was contradicted by cold fusion was one which had never been experimentally proven, and, indeed, such a proof would probably be
FW: [Vo]:Imagine that!
AND GO FIGURE: www//http:DARPA-HISTORY of the Internet. The original DARPA-NET was further 'released' by the .gov; more or less. However: not to be Ludite/flat-earther; but, Da ya think that DARPA may have 'retained' the 'back-door/skeleton keys?' Yea I know: It's a little late in the game to be worried about the 'above.' MORE HISTORY of the 'Internet' world wide web-communitcations super-network(of which I most definitely am also an 'addict' of): During the '60's-70's' it was NOT COOL to be 'publically' invested as being in any way nor form a constituent element(corporate /or private) of the DEFENSE-CONTRACT sector of 'business' aka THE INDUSTRIAL MILITARY COMPLEX. However UTAH-Inc. volunteered enthusiastically in a HUGE WAY to become the HOME OF DEFENSE-DEPT/aka DARPA/NSA/CIA-TECH Corp. Mega-Conglomerate as R D capital of the world. TODAY: Virtually every internet-software/hardware innovation on planet earth exists via HEAVY INVOLVEMENT---RD--/or---MEGA-CAPITALIZATION via UTAH-BASED INVESTORS. P.S.: This is 'not' exactly some whacko-paranoid 'conspiracy theory.' MEHOPES that our UTAH-Fine-fellow citizens LIKE-US. FYI-UTAH-CAVERNS-DATA-COMPLEX is the WORLDS LARGEST INSTALLATIONs of online SUPER-COMPUTERS(Cray Fibre-Optics state of the art) on planet Earth by a VERY LONG SHOT. These folks are hardly 'backwards' relative the HIGHEST-TECH(everything-anything) on planet earth. FOR EXAMPLE: An alarming combination SUPER-DATA-BANK of the Union of the HUMAN-GENOME-PROJECT combined which UP TO THE SECOND CENSUS data is compiled there. This amounts to a MEGA-COMPREHENSIVE FULL-CREDIT/SSAN/MEDICAL/RESIDENTIAL/GENOLOGICAL history dossier center for virtually EVERY HUMAN IN THE MODERN DATA-RECORDED PLANET and this baby traces you up to SECONDS AGO. Aw shucks; that's just plain old ridiculous! DOES DARPA, for instance get to share this info(SPONSOR) with our earstwhile 'Mormon' brethren? Am only I just a 'wee-bit' uncomfortable with this SUPER-CENSUS being kept up-to-date on a VIRTUALLY MOMENT BY MOMENT BASIS upon ---ALL OF US?!? METHINKS the 'knee-jerk' trusting of either organized-super-goverment bureacracy /or super organized-religious govermental-scale bureacracy is a 'tenuous' proposition at best. The shadowy union of both of these is as alarming as when the Roman Catholic Church signed a 'full-cooperation information sharing' CONCORDAT with the 3rd REICH circa late 1930's/20th Century. ?BUT WHAT TO DO? Honestly; I haven't a clue. But just the sameIT KIND'VE SUCKS just the same. . . Jack Harbach O'Sullivan Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 11:55:44 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: stev...@newenergytimes.com Subject: [Vo]:Imagine that! Can you believe this??? The Federal Communications Commission is proposing an ambitious 10-year plan that will reimagine the nation’s media and technology priorities by establishing high-speed Internet as the country’s dominant communication network. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/business/media/13fcc.html?themc=th _ We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/
Re: [Vo]:OT (sort of): Why Wikipedia Should Be Trusted As A Breaking News Source
At 10:27 AM 3/16/2010, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: Title: Why Wikipedia Should Be Trusted As A Breaking News Source Begins with: Most any journalism professor, upon mention of Wikipedia, will immediately launch into a rant about how the massively collaborative online encyclopedia can't be trusted. It can, you see, be edited and altered by absolutely anyone at any moment. But how much less trustworthy is the site for breaking news than the plethora of blogs and other online news sources? Better than a blog, probably, unless it's an expert blog or edited, some blogs are subject to editorial supervision. Wikipedia is pretty good for non-controversial information, but, then, it can become deadly boring, as articles accumulate facts without discrimination. My sense is that Wikipedia is collapsing under its own weight, I see signs that the community process, which never worked truly well, is breaking down. The Wikipedia model was quite interesting, much better than many imagine, but it was missing certain elements and thus was ultimately way too inefficient, it shouldn't take any work at all to maintain a good article! New work on the same article should be channeled through procedures that make it harder for an article to slide back, but which allow the article to remain open to true improvement. It's known how to do it, but the Wikipedia community structure froze into a highly dysfunctional one, attached to the status quo, for reasons I won't explain here, but it's generic, it could have been expected. And anyone who sees the problem and tries to fix it, working within the system, is disruptive and is at continual risk of ejection, it's happened over and over. Part of the problem is that the community does not know how to deal with disruption other than by trying to exclude it! Which very process guarantees more disruption, it's like a repressive government that tries to stomp out dissent, the effort creates more dissent. Meanwhile, the winners, those who ejected the others, end up burned out from the continual effort, not realizing that they created the very problem that burned them out they blame it on the others, the disruptive editors that they are tired of dealing with. There is one editor, originally called Scibaby, who has created many hundreds of sock puppets (600 by now), because, some three years ago or so, he was abusively treated by the Global Warming cabal (he's a skeptic.) He was blocked by cabal administrators (cabal here just means an informal group who work together in pursuit of some point of view or content or content-philosophical position), in decisions that would no longer be allowed today. Scibaby fought back, he realized that it was actually impossible to completely block editors, so he continually registers new accounts, it's become a game. He's routinely identified and detected, but the process takes up administrator time, and there is no end to it in sight. All because of a few relatively harmless edits. Actual Scibaby edits are generally harmless. Mostly, they aren't appropriate, and they are quickly reverted. Far more effort goes into keeping him out than would be involved in simply watching a known account! It's a really good example of how inefficient exclusion is at control of a community. Cold fusion? All the experts have been blocked or are severely constrained. And the blocks were all out-of-process, technically improper, but Wikipedia doesn't actually recognize rule of law, decisions are ad-hoc, and precedent is explicitly denied. It's quite a trap. The latest issued ban was of Pcarbonn, once again, this time by the community. I.e., JzG, who is no longer an administrator, but who was an old enemy of Pcarbonn and who was behing Pcarbonn's original ban by a poisonous framing of a very good article on Wikipedia process published by New Energy Times in 2008, I think it was, when Pcarbonn came off his ArbComm ban, and was thus allowed to edit Cold fusion, went to the Administrator's Noticeboard and requested a ban of Pcarbonn for pushing the same point of view as before. Problem was, Pcarbonn wasn't banned for pushing a point of view, that was JzG's opinion, not the actual ArbComm decision. Pcarbonn had become employed in the field, and was now a Conflict of Interest editor, thus obligated to stay away from contentious edits to the article, but allowed to make suggestions in Talk, which is the proper role of experts, actually. JzG didn't mention that there were no contentious edits to the article. And it's very easy for ignorant editors to look at a suggestion for a source on cold fusion, which is what Pcarbonn was doing, and assume that, since cold fusion is a rejected fringe science, there can't be any sources, this must be bogus for some reason, hence Pcarbonn is pushing a point of view, hence he should be banned. Shallow thinking and the making of
Re: [Vo]:Re: Lomax ideas for cheap SPAWAR type cell: Murray 2010.03.12
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: As Mr. Swartz pointed out, the concentration of oxygen at the cathode is zero. So we have to imagine an oxygen bubble somehow making it from the anode to the cathode, contrary to two flows, the flow of deuterium gas is away from the cathode, but the flow could carry oxygen from below the cathode to the cathode -- how would it get down there? -- I know four ways to do this: 1. With intense mixing some oxygen may reach the cathode. 2. Pump the electrolyte through the cell, like the Patterson cell. I believe the oxygen damaged the cathode beads in this configuration. 3. Put the cathode above the anode. The bubbles rise and attach to it. I have seen people make cells with this configuration. Why they did that, I cannot imagine. 4. With glow discharge electrolysis at intense heat some of the water decomposes at the cathode. A mixture of hydrogen and oxygen leaves the cell from cathode. Mizuno confirmed this by separating the cathode and anode with a glass hood: a funnel placed with the large end down over the cathode, with the anode on the outside. I expect some of the oxygen reaches the cathode. - Jed
[Vo]:Focardi and Rossi patent
I know little about patents. As I said, that patent seems useless, mainly because everything in it was discovered by others. On the other hand . . . Maybe this combination of finely divided particles plus the use of nickel light water is unique, and maybe that makes it a viable patent. In other words, maybe if you bring together for the first time previously discovered item A plus previously discovered item B, that constitutes a newly patentable idea. I wouldn't know. As I mentioned, Rossi told me they are working hard on new publications and they plan to divulge more information in the near future. She seems gung ho and she was very courteous, which is a good sign. It goes without saying that high-temperature Ni-H cold fusion is ideal. It has many advantages over Pd-D cold fusion. The only thing better would be anomalous energy in the form of electricity, from something like a magic magnetic motor or who-knows-what. Or the David Guiles cell. I am such a stick-in-the mud, I am still not 100% convinced that Ni-H cold fusion even exists. It just hasn't been widely replicated, and the heat never seems to get above marginal levels. But if it does exist I am delighted. The same goes for the Mills cell, even if it is super-chemistry instead of nuclear. Super-duper chemistry with a cherry on top is fine with me. I couldn't care less where the energy comes from, as long as there is hundreds of thousands or millions of times more than chemical fuel of the same mass can produce. (I believe Mills once told me the upper limit based on his theory is ~100,000 times ordinary chemistry, but perhaps a hydrino-theory aficionado can verify that.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Lomax ideas for cheap SPAWAR type cell: Murray 2010.03.12
Ed Storms sometimes reads the messages here, but some technical glitch prevents him from responding. He wrote a response to this thread in a fit of pique: This discussion is totally irrelevant and pointless. The issue was resolved years ago. This is like discussing whether the earth goes round the sum or the reverse. Reaction of oxygen with deuterium in a closed cell has no effect on the results no matter where it occurs and reaction at the metal surface does not produce enough local energy to cause any change in the material. If this energy could destroy the surface, all catalysts containing nano particle Pd on which this reaction is made to occur would crease functioning because the nano particle would be destroyed, which does not happen. This issue comes up only because of total ignorance and it should be answered in the same way as if a person suggested the moon was made of cheese. Ed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Lomax ideas for cheap SPAWAR type cell: Murray 2010.03.12
I wrote: 2. Pump the electrolyte through the cell, like the Patterson cell. I believe the oxygen damaged the cathode beads in this configuration. That's when you pump from anode to cathode. As I recall, reversing the direction of the flow reduced the damage. Still, I suppose there was dissolved oxygen and hydrogen in the reservoir, that got pumped right through again. - Jed
[Vo]:add on: OU demonstrated ( with no secrets)
video of Self Runner (a variation of the Solid state generator) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sicsnUq_a4 thread for discussion of the above Self Runner http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8892 add on: see reply 49 for circuit diagram. Harry __ Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com __ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Lomax ideas for cheap SPAWAR type cell: Murray 2010.03.12
At 01:47 PM 3/16/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: As Mr. Swartz pointed out, the concentration of oxygen at the cathode is zero. So we have to imagine an oxygen bubble somehow making it from the anode to the cathode, contrary to two flows, the flow of deuterium gas is away from the cathode, but the flow could carry oxygen from below the cathode to the cathode -- how would it get down there? -- I know four ways to do this: Yeah, they are pretty obvious. But as you implied, Why do that? 1. With intense mixing some oxygen may reach the cathode. 2. Pump the electrolyte through the cell, like the Patterson cell. I believe the oxygen damaged the cathode beads in this configuration. 3. Put the cathode above the anode. The bubbles rise and attach to it. I have seen people make cells with this configuration. Why they did that, I cannot imagine. 4. With glow discharge electrolysis at intense heat some of the water decomposes at the cathode. A mixture of hydrogen and oxygen leaves the cell from cathode. Mizuno confirmed this by separating the cathode and anode with a glass hood: a funnel placed with the large end down over the cathode, with the anode on the outside. I expect some of the oxygen reaches the cathode. I can say that I thought of lining the bottom of the cell with part of the anode, hoping that palladium that falls off the cathode might end up redissolving. Probably wouldn't. This would have, of course, caused oxygen to bubble past the cathode. I don't think it would have done much of anything, though. I suspect that the bubbles would not actually reach the cathode, they would merely get very close, and if they did touch the cathode, I would expect immediate reaction, steam, that would self-limit, the bubble would have to be actually trapped in some way to totally react. I don't think it would get hot enough to ignite what little mixture was formed of deuterium and oxygen; but I suppose some bubbles of oxygen might merge with bubbles of deuterium and form an explosive mixture. Small pop, that's all. The deuterium trapped in the cathode is effectively deuterium at very high pressure, and there is nothing there to oxidize it, it would tend to repel any rapidly oxidizing material at the surface. It can't explode from oxidation. And unless you get a lot of oxygen going to the cathode, perhaps a cell could be designed to cause this, it would slowly burn depending on the rate at which oxygen was being generated, which isn't high. To melt palladium, the issue here, you'd have to somehow accumulate this oxygen and keep it mixed with deuterium without oxidizing (i.e., at below ignition temperature and away from palladium as a catalyst, right?), or arrange for it to mix later somehow, again without igniting but then it ignites all at once. I don't get it, any way that this could happen if the cell is a normal one where there is horizontal separation between the electrodes, and nothing specially causing intense mixing.
[Vo]:OT: Before the Segway...
Before the Segway there was the Duoped! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7PJNM8s9yg __ Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca
[Vo]:OU demonstrated ( with no secrets)
video of Self Runner (a variation of the Solid state generator) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sicsnUq_a4 thread for discussion of the above Self Runner http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8892 Harry __ Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com
Re: [Vo]:add on: OU demonstrated ( with no secrets)
But but ... he's driving it from a honkin' big 12 volt battery, looks like a lead acid motorcycle battery or UPS battery. So, it's *not* a self runner, no matter what it says in the title. He's got it charging a couple of caps, up to 17 volts or so, above the battery voltage. He makes a big deal of the fact that the caps are above the battery voltage. But he's drawing the juice for the caps off these big coils, look like a thousand turns or so of fine wire. So, of course the output voltage can go above the input voltage! This is news? This is, like, not exactly exciting looking. It's another case where there *might* be an anomaly there, somewhere, if you dug through the circuit and carefully measured the input power to 5 digits just like he's measuring the output *voltage* (but not power) ... or, more likely, there might not. He says the battery can't be powering it. So, great, unplug the battery, man, and let's put it to the test. Don't think so. On 03/16/2010 09:24 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: video of Self Runner (a variation of the Solid state generator) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sicsnUq_a4 thread for discussion of the above Self Runner http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8892 add on: see reply 49 for circuit diagram. Harry __ Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com __ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Lomax ideas for cheap SPAWAR type cell: Murray 2010.03.12
At 04:17 PM 3/16/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote: Ed Storms sometimes reads the messages here, but some technical glitch prevents him from responding. He wrote a response to this thread in a fit of pique: Sorry, Dr. Storms. Perhaps we'll all be able to sit down to some tea or something like that, in the near future. This discussion is totally irrelevant and pointless. The issue was resolved years ago. This is like discussing whether the earth goes round the sum or the reverse. Reaction of oxygen with deuterium in a closed cell has no effect on the results no matter where it occurs and reaction at the metal surface does not produce enough local energy to cause any change in the material. If this energy could destroy the surface, all catalysts containing nano particle Pd on which this reaction is made to occur would crease functioning because the nano particle would be destroyed, which does not happen. This issue comes up only because of total ignorance and it should be answered in the same way as if a person suggested the moon was made of cheese. Ed Ed, it takes all kinds. This was questioning by Rich Murray, who has been away from the field for a decade or so. That's he's even considering that cold fusion might be real -- and he is -- is very much a good thing. He needs some space to come up with the obvious criticisms. I think he appreciated that his idea was taken seriously and responded to in detail. And that's also how we should respond to anyone who comes here with the old mistakes. You know and I know that some really stupid ideas somehow came to be widely accepted. Now, if we tell people how stupid they are, we are probably wrong. There was probably some social force that trapped these people, we might have been trapped ourselves if we had started out in a different position. Cut them some slack, as you would have had them cut you some slack. He was right, almost certainly, about the electric field thing, after all. At least that's a much more cogent criticism. Could there be some non-nuclear explanation, then, of the pitting? Maybe. If I'm willing to accept that our theoretical understanding, twenty years ago, was inadequate to understand how nuclear reactions could possibly be taking place in the lattice, I must also be willing to accept that our theoretical understanding of the chemical possibilities in one of these cells might be similarly defective now. I'll be looking for pitting and light emissions from hot spots, but I don't imagine that these will necessarily prove that nuclear reactions are taking place. The most definitive and informative evidence would be heat and helium, but heat is not so easy to measure well, especially in a very small cell, I suspect, and helium is likewise quite complex to handle and measure. For me, the big game is neutrons, even though I know very well that neutrons are a small part of the picture, i.e., any neutrons are probably from secondary reactions. They just happen to be, if a gold codep cathode emits neutrons as commonly as we see from SPAWAR results, the easiest target. I'm looking for light emissions (and acoustical signals) because these are easy to monitor during the cell operation, and if I'm lucky, I'll find immediate signals that correlate with the formation of NAE, giving me more of a handle on what's going on in the cell. What if I find, for example, that there is a correlation between these accessory effects and neutron radiation? I'd have, then, a way to estimate the nuclear activity that is producing the neutrons immediately. Later work might establish correlations with excess heat and helium or other reaction products. But first things first. Just finding neutrons will make me hopping happy. Neutrons in my kitchen? See, Dr. Storms, I thought I would be a nuclear physicist when I was in high school, and that was my initial plan, going to Caltech, sitting with Feynmann and Pauling. I dropped it pretty quickly, other aspects of life beckoned quite alluringly. But now I'm coming full circle. It wasn't all for nothing. I don't expect to find much, if anything, that's new. You and other pioneers covered a lot of territory, we who follow behind will always be grateful to you and all the difficulties you faced. I'm trying to nail down some stuff, making it fully and easily and widely replicable. Simple stuff. Wish me luck. The biggest problem, in fact, is my own inertia.
Re: [Vo]:add on: OU demonstrated ( with no secrets)
Listen carefully from 5:30 to 6:00. He says the 12 volt battery feeds the pulse generator and then he points to some disconnected clips and says the battery is not attached. What does he mean? - Original Message From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, March 16, 2010 11:23:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:add on: OU demonstrated ( with no secrets) But but ... he's driving it from a honkin' big 12 volt battery, looks like a lead acid motorcycle battery or UPS battery. So, it's *not* a self runner, no matter what it says in the title. He's got it charging a couple of caps, up to 17 volts or so, above the battery voltage. He makes a big deal of the fact that the caps are above the battery voltage. But he's drawing the juice for the caps off these big coils, look like a thousand turns or so of fine wire. So, of course the output voltage can go above the input voltage! This is news? This is, like, not exactly exciting looking. It's another case where there *might* be an anomaly there, somewhere, if you dug through the circuit and carefully measured the input power to 5 digits just like he's measuring the output *voltage* (but not power) ... or, more likely, there might not. He says the battery can't be powering it. So, great, unplug the battery, man, and let's put it to the test. Don't think so. On 03/16/2010 09:24 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: video of Self Runner (a variation of the Solid state generator) target=_blank http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sicsnUq_a4 thread for discussion of the above Self Runner target=_blank http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8892 add on: see reply 49 for circuit diagram. Harry __ Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at href=http://ca.answers.yahoo.com; target=_blank http://ca.answers.yahoo.com __ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now target=_blank http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com. __ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.
