[Vo]:Triumph looks in the mirror
A bit of realistic sci-fi.. January 6, 2028- my grandson who was educated in the spirit of new energy, cold fusion is wonderful - has succeeded to work out the perfectly reproducible energy generating method. In the frame of a Pd - D2O system. He is a respected citizen and as it is almost compulsory in the New Moneytheistic society- a billionaire. He calls the Chief Economist of his company: Mark, please buy the reserves of palladium any gram you can we are going to conquer the world of energy, to replace any dirty fossil fuel.. you see itis winter and it is so warm... In two weeks the economist succeeds to buy 150 tonnes of palladium. a real wizard. My grandson's system releases 100 W per 1 sq.cm of palladium, which is in the form of a thin layer of 0.2 millimetres i.e 1 x 0.02 x 12 = 0.24 grams. It is now simple to calculate that if 0.24 g. give a power of 100 W, 200,000,000 g. will give- 8.4 10 exp 10 W or 8.4 10 exp 7 kW. in a more pragmatical language 84 millions of kWatts Or 84,000 MWatts. (US consumes now appr. 270,000 MWatts electricity) Next step- how many kWatts is Mankind consuming. Oh not so much, we are clever and are back at the value of 2008. But this value is a bit greater-than what can CF give He concludes: the CF system can contribute but cannot conquer the market of energy. He visits my grave and has a long imaginary discussion with me. I ask him to do better mathematics and use the best data. Can you help him? Thanks!
Re: [Vo]:Stimulus Suspension Would Put 85,000 Wind Jobs at Risk
No wonder, the cold fusion experimenters say my cell makes excess heat but they won't let skeptics see it with their own calorimeter. Michel 2010/3/25 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: I should have added -- Nothing like what I have described has happened so far because no one in the energy business realizes that cold fusion exists. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Triumph looks in the mirror
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 6:00 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Can you help him? Thanks! Sure. Make it 0.1 mm thick and double the surface area. T
[Vo]:McKubre on NPR Science Friday
Mike McKubre will be interviewed on NPR's Science Friday with Ira Flatow. See: http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201003261 I think this will be 20 minutes into the broadcast. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Triumph looks in the mirror
Nice to hear from you, Terry. The trouble is that 0.1 mm is too thin, Pd overheats, melts- losses, problems etc. Can you calculate the surface temperature of the metal at a heat release of 100 Watts per square centimenter? On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: A bit of realistic sci-fi.. January 6, 2028- my grandson who was educated in the spirit of new energy, cold fusion is wonderful - has succeeded to work out the perfectly reproducible energy generating method. In the frame of a Pd - D2O system. He is a respected citizen and as it is almost compulsory in the New Moneytheistic society- a billionaire. He calls the Chief Economist of his company: Mark, please buy the reserves of palladium any gram you can we are going to conquer the world of energy, to replace any dirty fossil fuel.. you see itis winter and it is so warm... In two weeks the economist succeeds to buy 150 tonnes of palladium. a real wizard. My grandson's system releases 100 W per 1 sq.cm of palladium, which is in the form of a thin layer of 0.2 millimetres i.e 1 x 0.02 x 12 = 0.24 grams. It is now simple to calculate that if 0.24 g. give a power of 100 W, 200,000,000 g. will give- 8.4 10 exp 10 W or 8.4 10 exp 7 kW. in a more pragmatical language 84 millions of kWatts Or 84,000 MWatts. (US consumes now appr. 270,000 MWatts electricity) Next step- how many kWatts is Mankind consuming. Oh not so much, we are clever and are back at the value of 2008. But this value is a bit greater-than what can CF give He concludes: the CF system can contribute but cannot conquer the market of energy. He visits my grave and has a long imaginary discussion with me. I ask him to do better mathematics and use the best data. Can you help him? Thanks!
Re: [Vo]:Triumph looks in the mirror
Hi, Peter-in-the-grave :) Since CF is a surface effect, how about plating just a few microns of Pd onto some cheaper metal? 2010/3/26 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: Nice to hear from you, Terry. The trouble is that 0.1 mm is too thin, Pd overheats, melts- losses, problems etc. Can you calculate the surface temperature of the metal at a heat release of 100 Watts per square centimenter? On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: A bit of realistic sci-fi.. January 6, 2028- my grandson who was educated in the spirit of new energy, cold fusion is wonderful - has succeeded to work out the perfectly reproducible energy generating method. In the frame of a Pd - D2O system. He is a respected citizen and as it is almost compulsory in the New Moneytheistic society- a billionaire. He calls the Chief Economist of his company: Mark, please buy the reserves of palladium any gram you can we are going to conquer the world of energy, to replace any dirty fossil fuel.. you see itis winter and it is so warm... In two weeks the economist succeeds to buy 150 tonnes of palladium. a real wizard. My grandson's system releases 100 W per 1 sq.cm of palladium, which is in the form of a thin layer of 0.2 millimetres i.e 1 x 0.02 x 12 = 0.24 grams. It is now simple to calculate that if 0.24 g. give a power of 100 W, 200,000,000 g. will give- 8.4 10 exp 10 W or 8.4 10 exp 7 kW. in a more pragmatical language 84 millions of kWatts Or 84,000 MWatts. (US consumes now appr. 270,000 MWatts electricity) Next step- how many kWatts is Mankind consuming. Oh not so much, we are clever and are back at the value of 2008. But this value is a bit greater-than what can CF give He concludes: the CF system can contribute but cannot conquer the market of energy. He visits my grave and has a long imaginary discussion with me. I ask him to do better mathematics and use the best data. Can you help him? Thanks!
Re: [Vo]:Triumph looks in the mirror
Thank you for calling CF a surface effect, perhaps we have to add that it is a local effect, only separate point like active sites generate the heat. Unfortunately micron thin layers evaoprate immediately- can you imagine how much is 100W.sq.cm? And can you tell me a single* real example of heat excess obtained with such layers in the Pd/D2O system?* I have not lied when I was alive, should strat do it now? Should I give non-usable examples, advices to my grandson??? On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, Peter-in-the-grave :) Since CF is a surface effect, how about plating just a few microns of Pd onto some cheaper metal? 2010/3/26 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: Nice to hear from you, Terry. The trouble is that 0.1 mm is too thin, Pd overheats, melts- losses, problems etc. Can you calculate the surface temperature of the metal at a heat release of 100 Watts per square centimenter? On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: A bit of realistic sci-fi.. January 6, 2028- my grandson who was educated in the spirit of new energy, cold fusion is wonderful - has succeeded to work out the perfectly reproducible energy generating method. In the frame of a Pd - D2O system. He is a respected citizen and as it is almost compulsory in the New Moneytheistic society- a billionaire. He calls the Chief Economist of his company: Mark, please buy the reserves of palladium any gram you can we are going to conquer the world of energy, to replace any dirty fossil fuel.. you see itis winter and it is so warm... In two weeks the economist succeeds to buy 150 tonnes of palladium. a real wizard. My grandson's system releases 100 W per 1 sq.cm of palladium, which is in the form of a thin layer of 0.2 millimetres i.e 1 x 0.02 x 12 = 0.24 grams. It is now simple to calculate that if 0.24 g. give a power of 100 W, 200,000,000 g. will give- 8.4 10 exp 10 W or 8.4 10 exp 7 kW. in a more pragmatical language 84 millions of kWatts Or 84,000 MWatts. (US consumes now appr. 270,000 MWatts electricity) Next step- how many kWatts is Mankind consuming. Oh not so much, we are clever and are back at the value of 2008. But this value is a bit greater-than what can CF give He concludes: the CF system can contribute but cannot conquer the market of energy. He visits my grave and has a long imaginary discussion with me. I ask him to do better mathematics and use the best data. Can you help him? Thanks!
Re: [Vo]:Stimulus Suspension Would Put 85,000 Wind Jobs at Risk
Michel Jullian wrote: No wonder, the cold fusion experimenters say my cell makes excess heat but they won't let skeptics see it with their own calorimeter. So, you would not believe the Wright brothers unless they let you fly their airplane? Actually, for most experiments, this demand makes no sense. Look at the schematics from SRI, China Lake or Energetics Technology. The cell and the calorimeter are the same thing. They are one and the same object. One calorimeter cannot be or replace another, any more than you can take a marble statue out of the statue and put it in another piece of marble. Or than you can take the 7x magnification out of a pair of binoculars and put it into a I-pod to test it out. The calorimetry is a function of how the cell operates. Some of the experiments Ed Storms has run use a small cell placed in a Seebeck calorimeter, where the two are separate objects. It might be possible to move something like this into the EarthTech MOAC, but I still doubt it would work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Stimulus Suspension Would Put 85,000 Wind Jobs at Risk
2010/3/26 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Michel Jullian wrote: No wonder, the cold fusion experimenters say my cell makes excess heat but they won't let skeptics see it with their own calorimeter. So, you would not believe the Wright brothers unless they let you fly their airplane? A better analogy is that I would not believe them unless I saw them flying it with my own eyes. Actually, for most experiments, this demand makes no sense. Look at the schematics from SRI, China Lake or Energetics Technology. The cell and the calorimeter are the same thing. They are one and the same object. One calorimeter cannot be or replace another, any more than you can take a marble statue out of the statue and put it in another piece of marble. Or than you can take the 7x magnification out of a pair of binoculars and put it into a I-pod to test it out. The calorimetry is a function of how the cell operates. Some of the experiments Ed Storms has run use a small cell placed in a Seebeck calorimeter, where the two are separate objects. That's a more sensible way to do things IMHO. It might be possible to move something like this into the EarthTech MOAC, This would be so nice, I am sure it would make Scott's day to witness excess heat at last! but I still doubt it would work. Why? Michel
Re: [Vo]:Triumph looks in the mirror
Why would a micron thin layer evaporate if it's plated on a heat conducting metal ?? 100W/cm2 is not that much really, it's roughly what the tip of my soldering iron dissipates happily, even though it's in air rather than in water. An example of a thin Pd layer that works? I coudn't even give you an example of a thick one that works with certainty! Michel 2010/3/26 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: Thank you for calling CF a surface effect, perhaps we have to add that it is a local effect, only separate point like active sites generate the heat. Unfortunately micron thin layers evaoprate immediately- can you imagine how much is 100W.sq.cm? And can you tell me a single real example of heat excess obtained with such layers in the Pd/D2O system? I have not lied when I was alive, should strat do it now? Should I give non-usable examples, advices to my grandson??? On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Peter-in-the-grave :) Since CF is a surface effect, how about plating just a few microns of Pd onto some cheaper metal? 2010/3/26 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: Nice to hear from you, Terry. The trouble is that 0.1 mm is too thin, Pd overheats, melts- losses, problems etc. Can you calculate the surface temperature of the metal at a heat release of 100 Watts per square centimenter? On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: A bit of realistic sci-fi.. January 6, 2028- my grandson who was educated in the spirit of new energy, cold fusion is wonderful - has succeeded to work out the perfectly reproducible energy generating method. In the frame of a Pd - D2O system. He is a respected citizen and as it is almost compulsory in the New Moneytheistic society- a billionaire. He calls the Chief Economist of his company: Mark, please buy the reserves of palladium any gram you can we are going to conquer the world of energy, to replace any dirty fossil fuel.. you see itis winter and it is so warm... In two weeks the economist succeeds to buy 150 tonnes of palladium. a real wizard. My grandson's system releases 100 W per 1 sq.cm of palladium, which is in the form of a thin layer of 0.2 millimetres i.e 1 x 0.02 x 12 = 0.24 grams. It is now simple to calculate that if 0.24 g. give a power of 100 W, 200,000,000 g. will give- 8.4 10 exp 10 W or 8.4 10 exp 7 kW. in a more pragmatical language 84 millions of kWatts Or 84,000 MWatts. (US consumes now appr. 270,000 MWatts electricity) Next step- how many kWatts is Mankind consuming. Oh not so much, we are clever and are back at the value of 2008. But this value is a bit greater-than what can CF give He concludes: the CF system can contribute but cannot conquer the market of energy. He visits my grave and has a long imaginary discussion with me. I ask him to do better mathematics and use the best data. Can you help him? Thanks!
RE: [Vo]:Triumph looks in the mirror
From: Peter Gluck * And can you tell me a single real example of heat excess obtained with such layers in the Pd/D2O system? No . but . the Arata-Zhang system uses nanometer sized spheres of Ni-Pd alloy, embedded in zirconia. It is stable over extended periods in a heated deuterium gas. The small alloy spheres are way, way below micron geometry - but probably would not work in a liquid, true. But there is no need for a liquid if we can dispense with electrolysis. IMHO this is probably a significant way in which LENR is maturing mature - gas phase. Why not? There is little advantage to electrolysis as it actually hinders loading. The ~4:1 loading ratio of Arata (D:Pd) has been confirmed numerous times by independent experimenters. Efforts are underway from a few of those experimenters (at least one, anyway) to increase the low delta-T of A-Z by means of other energy input. That is obviously the way to proceed, as commercialization will demand a useable spread, even if advanced TEGs become available. The easiest way to move beyond A-Z would be high voltage, but coherent light would certainly be interesting. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Stimulus Suspension Would Put 85,000 Wind Jobs at Risk
Michel Jullian wrote: So, you would not believe the Wright brothers unless they let you fly their airplane? A better analogy is that I would not believe them unless I saw them flying it with my own eyes. If that is what you want, you should be satisfied with Rob Duncan going out to see the calorimeter at Energetics Technology. He is an expert, much better at determining whether it is working than you or I would be. This is actually closer to Wright brothers test than most people realize. For a non-expert observer, the early flights were difficult to distinguish from an uncontrolled powered hop. Many people in the early 1900s put powerful internal combustion engines onto various contraptions and managed to fly them in the same sense you can fly a washing machine if you put a large-enough propeller on it. This was not actually flight. The Wrights rigorously defined the technical attributes of what constitutes flight carefully in their lectures and papers. At Kitty Hawk in 1903 they flew before the Coast Guard rescue team. Those people were experienced sailors and experts at small craft, but probably not qualified to determine this was a flight. In 1904 - 05 in Dayton they flew before hundreds of people, and they got ~50 leading citizens such as a bank president to sign affidavits. By this time they were a 100 feet in the air, flying for 40 minutes. However, a bank president is not an engineer or aviation expert, so an expert might still question his judgment. In 1908 they flew before a bunch of reporters at Kitty Hawk, but as usual the reports were garbled and unreliable, much like today's mass media reports of cold fusion. It wasn't until August 8, 1908 that Wilbur flew before real aviation experts, at Le Mans: Bleriot, Archdeacon, Zens, Henri de Moy and others. Those people had been trying to fly for years, but they could barely stagger off the ground. When they saw Wilbur fly, they were astounded. Speechless. The difference between what Wilbur could do and what they could do was analogous to a cold fusion cell producing 100 mW of 15% excess heat, and a working 10 kW cold fusion power reactor. These were highly egotistical people but they said (for example) We are beaten. We don't exist! The next day every newspaper in France declared that the Wrights were masters of the air -- which they were. What Rob Duncan saw in Israel was a lot closer to a working 10 kW power reactor than it was to a 1989 style 100 mW reaction. Some of the experiments Ed Storms has run use a small cell placed in a Seebeck calorimeter, where the two are separate objects. That's a more sensible way to do things IMHO. I like Seebeck calorimeters for many reasons, but the other kinds are fine too. Not particularly less sensible. It might be possible to move something like this into the EarthTech MOAC, This would be so nice, I am sure it would make Scott's day to witness excess heat at last! He should go to other people's labs, and learn from them. but I still doubt it would work. Why? It is fragile. It probably needs Ed to actually operate it. It might need the temperatures and conditions inside the Seebeck, which might be quite different from those of the MOAC. (I don't know. I am not familiar with the latter.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Triumph looks in the mirror
Imagine a 2kWh heater with a surface of 20 sq.cm. Quite intense... On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.comwrote: Why would a micron thin layer evaporate if it's plated on a heat conducting metal ?? 100W/cm2 is not that much really, it's roughly what the tip of my soldering iron dissipates happily, even though it's in air rather than in water. An example of a thin Pd layer that works? I coudn't even give you an example of a thick one that works with certainty! Michel 2010/3/26 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: Thank you for calling CF a surface effect, perhaps we have to add that it is a local effect, only separate point like active sites generate the heat. Unfortunately micron thin layers evaoprate immediately- can you imagine how much is 100W.sq.cm? And can you tell me a single real example of heat excess obtained with such layers in the Pd/D2O system? I have not lied when I was alive, should strat do it now? Should I give non-usable examples, advices to my grandson??? On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Michel Jullian michelj...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Peter-in-the-grave :) Since CF is a surface effect, how about plating just a few microns of Pd onto some cheaper metal? 2010/3/26 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: Nice to hear from you, Terry. The trouble is that 0.1 mm is too thin, Pd overheats, melts- losses, problems etc. Can you calculate the surface temperature of the metal at a heat release of 100 Watts per square centimenter? On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: A bit of realistic sci-fi.. January 6, 2028- my grandson who was educated in the spirit of new energy, cold fusion is wonderful - has succeeded to work out the perfectly reproducible energy generating method. In the frame of a Pd - D2O system. He is a respected citizen and as it is almost compulsory in the New Moneytheistic society- a billionaire. He calls the Chief Economist of his company: Mark, please buy the reserves of palladium any gram you can we are going to conquer the world of energy, to replace any dirty fossil fuel.. you see itis winter and it is so warm... In two weeks the economist succeeds to buy 150 tonnes of palladium. a real wizard. My grandson's system releases 100 W per 1 sq.cm of palladium, which is in the form of a thin layer of 0.2 millimetres i.e 1 x 0.02 x 12 = 0.24 grams. It is now simple to calculate that if 0.24 g. give a power of 100 W, 200,000,000 g. will give- 8.4 10 exp 10 W or 8.4 10 exp 7 kW. in a more pragmatical language 84 millions of kWatts Or 84,000 MWatts. (US consumes now appr. 270,000 MWatts electricity) Next step- how many kWatts is Mankind consuming. Oh not so much, we are clever and are back at the value of 2008. But this value is a bit greater-than what can CF give He concludes: the CF system can contribute but cannot conquer the market of energy. He visits my grave and has a long imaginary discussion with me. I ask him to do better mathematics and use the best data. Can you help him? Thanks!
[Vo]:Another pick-up of Krivit's screed
http://beforeitsnews.com/news/26739/Krivit_says_cold_fusion_is_not_fusion_but_LENR.html As with a few of the citations, this one does get that Krivit is still promoting LENR. I find it fascinating that the only skeptical questions at the press conference were from Krivit; I was amazed at how many questions they allowed him to ask, but I suppose if nobody else was turned away, it could have been okay. They were not intelligible to a general audience, they seemed to be attempts to force these scientists to answer heavily loaded questions, useful only to Krivit and his agenda. It seems he's managed to alienate most of the researchers in the field. It is not the job of a reporter to challenge dogma. It is the job of a reporter to find and present facts, and of a science reporter to find and present scientific fact. Definitely, if there are inconvenient questions, they should be asked. But scientists are human; they make mistakes, and if you start trying to show that the mistakes were intentionally deceptive, or that the researcher is being intellectually dishonest and covering it up, or that the scientist is otherwise engaged in reprehensible conduct, you become a hostile prosecutor, not a reporter, mind-reading and judging, and they will stop answering your questions. There is a job to be done, to educate the public, and skeptical scientists. What is known about cold fusion? What is the state of the research, what avenues are being explored? What criticism is there of the body of work? What is the *actual scientific consensus*? Scientific consensus isn't a survey taken of all scientists, it is a social phenomenon, and we must assume that it appears among those familiar with the field. Scientists get their news from the media like everyone else, except in a field where they closely follow the journals and other current activity. A particle physicist is not an expert on what chemists are finding, and vice-versa. I'd like to leave the final say on what cold fusion involves to the theoretical physicists, those who take on the tough math of quantum field theory, necessary in condensed matter, and that will take, I predict, a lot of time. But the actual experimental work is mostly a chemistry experiment of one kind or another. Even the nuclear tools used are found, most commonly, with non-nuclear-physics work: SSNTDs, widely used for dosimetry, radiation detectors of other kinds, used for indentifying radioisotopes. Condensed matter nuclear science is a new field, a synthesis or crossover field. Who are the experts? There is little or no formal answer, but we could look to those who have published work; the peer-review process indicates a finding of some level of expertise. There are no recent published critiques of the field from outside. Kowalski may have been off in his critique of the SPAWAR work, or not, but he's not a cold fusion skeptic -- and he was at least partially right. If we look at recent published work, which would almost always be an indication of current scientific consensus, it's entirely positive on the LENR issue. There are condensed matter states which are producing nuclear reactions, unexpected from prior theory. The work has largely turned from trying to prove this to investigating details. How can we communicate this? What we are dealing with is a common human phenomenon, that people assume that what they believed twenty years ago, which was at least somewhat rational then, is still just as rational. It's frustrating to see the same canards repeated over and over, such as the one that Fleischmann's work could not be replicated. It was true for maybe a few months. Then not true any longer. The arguments against cold fusion began as normal skepticism and even cogent criticism. Fleischmann really did fall into a big error with that gamma spectrum, claiming neutron radiation. But ... where it began is not where it went. It went into standing assumptions that any report must be an error. That's politics, not science.
RE: [Vo]:Mizuno couldn't get to ACS
At 01:57 PM 3/25/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote: Jones Beene wrote: Phenanthrene works for Mizuno, and there are several possible reasons for why it might work - given the hindsight to know that it does work - and also several reasons for why it might work *far* better with D2 than H2. I do not know if he has even tried D2 yet. I think he should. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to be in the room when he does -- coward that I am. I will ask him what his plans are regarding D2. I think it might be prudent to start by mixing in a little D2 with H2, to increase the concentration above natural levels. Yes. Very little, in fact. The mixture results would be important, to follow a medical analogy, you'd want to know a dose/effect response. This kind of approach validates the measurements, you end up with correlated data. Someday, someone might happen across some process that arises suddenly and that is efficient at catalyzing fusion. That's much less likely with hydrogen than with deuterium. If it's tried with pure deuterium first, it would only take a tiny amount to take out the lab and possibly what is close to it. For our safety and the safety of our neighbors, new approaches should be tried in safe ways. Starting with the natural occurrence of the isotope in hydrogen would seem okay, processes that would create a major explosion with that seem sufficiently remote as possibilities. In other words, do the controls first, if it is outside of prior work. Are there any published works showing nuclear phenomena such as excess heat, correlated with deuterium percentage? I'm starting with 99.9% D2O (atom percent D). What would be the difference I should expect with 98% D2O, which is substantially cheaper? I've seen rumors that ordinary water poisons the reaction. If so, at what level?
Re: [Vo]:Triumph looks in the mirror
He's gonna need more Pd. In 2008, the world consumption of all types of power averaged 1.504 x 10^13 W. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption At 2.4 x 10^-3 g/W, he would need 3.61 x 10^10 g of Pd (plus about 2% growth per year) or about 36,000 metric tonnes. And he would need really good batteries to flatten out the load. :-) T On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 6:00 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: A bit of realistic sci-fi.. January 6, 2028- my grandson who was educated in the spirit of new energy, cold fusion is wonderful - has succeeded to work out the perfectly reproducible energy generating method. In the frame of a Pd - D2O system. He is a respected citizen and as it is almost compulsory in the New Moneytheistic society- a billionaire. He calls the Chief Economist of his company: Mark, please buy the reserves of palladium any gram you can we are going to conquer the world of energy, to replace any dirty fossil fuel.. you see itis winter and it is so warm... In two weeks the economist succeeds to buy 150 tonnes of palladium. a real wizard. My grandson's system releases 100 W per 1 sq.cm of palladium, which is in the form of a thin layer of 0.2 millimetres i.e 1 x 0.02 x 12 = 0.24 grams. It is now simple to calculate that if 0.24 g. give a power of 100 W, 200,000,000 g. will give- 8.4 10 exp 10 W or 8.4 10 exp 7 kW. in a more pragmatical language 84 millions of kWatts Or 84,000 MWatts. (US consumes now appr. 270,000 MWatts electricity) Next step- how many kWatts is Mankind consuming. Oh not so much, we are clever and are back at the value of 2008. But this value is a bit greater-than what can CF give He concludes: the CF system can contribute but cannot conquer the market of energy. He visits my grave and has a long imaginary discussion with me. I ask him to do better mathematics and use the best data. Can you help him? Thanks!
Re: [Vo]:Another pick-up of Krivit's screed
Kirvit is an investigative journalist,rather than just reporting the facts. Harry - Original Message From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, March 26, 2010 11:58:07 AM Subject: [Vo]:Another pick-up of Krivit's screed href=http://beforeitsnews.com/news/26739/Krivit_says_cold_fusion_is_not_fusion_but_LENR.html; target=_blank http://beforeitsnews.com/news/26739/Krivit_says_cold_fusion_is_not_fusion_but_LENR.html As with a few of the citations, this one does get that Krivit is still promoting LENR. I find it fascinating that the only skeptical questions at the press conference were from Krivit; I was amazed at how many questions they allowed him to ask, but I suppose if nobody else was turned away, it could have been okay. They were not intelligible to a general audience, they seemed to be attempts to force these scientists to answer heavily loaded questions, useful only to Krivit and his agenda. It seems he's managed to alienate most of the researchers in the field. It is not the job of a reporter to challenge dogma. It is the job of a reporter to find and present facts, and of a science reporter to find and present scientific fact. Definitely, if there are inconvenient questions, they should be asked. But scientists are human; they make mistakes, and if you start trying to show that the mistakes were intentionally deceptive, or that the researcher is being intellectually dishonest and covering it up, or that the scientist is otherwise engaged in reprehensible conduct, you become a hostile prosecutor, not a reporter, mind-reading and judging, and they will stop answering your questions. There is a job to be done, to educate the public, and skeptical scientists. What is known about cold fusion? What is the state of the research, what avenues are being explored? What criticism is there of the body of work? What is the *actual scientific consensus*? Scientific consensus isn't a survey taken of all scientists, it is a social phenomenon, and we must assume that it appears among those familiar with the field. Scientists get their news from the media like everyone else, except in a field where they closely follow the journals and other current activity. A particle physicist is not an expert on what chemists are finding, and vice-versa. I'd like to leave the final say on what cold fusion involves to the theoretical physicists, those who take on the tough math of quantum field theory, necessary in condensed matter, and that will take, I predict, a lot of time. But the actual experimental work is mostly a chemistry experiment of one kind or another. Even the nuclear tools used are found, most commonly, with non-nuclear-physics work: SSNTDs, widely used for dosimetry, radiation detectors of other kinds, used for indentifying radioisotopes. Condensed matter nuclear science is a new field, a synthesis or crossover field. Who are the experts? There is little or no formal answer, but we could look to those who have published work; the peer-review process indicates a finding of some level of expertise. There are no recent published critiques of the field from outside. Kowalski may have been off in his critique of the SPAWAR work, or not, but he's not a cold fusion skeptic -- and he was at least partially right. If we look at recent published work, which would almost always be an indication of current scientific consensus, it's entirely positive on the LENR issue. There are condensed matter states which are producing nuclear reactions, unexpected from prior theory. The work has largely turned from trying to prove this to investigating details. How can we communicate this? What we are dealing with is a common human phenomenon, that people assume that what they believed twenty years ago, which was at least somewhat rational then, is still just as rational. It's frustrating to see the same canards repeated over and over, such as the one that Fleischmann's work could not be replicated. It was true for maybe a few months. Then not true any longer. The arguments against cold fusion began as normal skepticism and even cogent criticism. Fleischmann really did fall into a big error with that gamma spectrum, claiming neutron radiation. But ... where it began is not where it went. It went into standing assumptions that any report must be an error. That's politics, not science. __ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/
Re: [Vo]:Triumph looks in the mirror
At 06:00 AM 3/26/2010, Peter Gluck wrote: He concludes: the CF system can contribute but cannot conquer the market of energy. This is indeed my seat-of-the-pants conclusion as to the palladium approach, unless the reaction rate can be greatly increased. At current prices I did a detailed calculation (a few scribbles on a napkin) that an Arata-effect cold fusion hot water heater might be done for, oh, neglecting development costs, $100,000. Someone might buy it for the novelty. The catalyst would probably need reprocessing from time to time, and that might cost as much as the value of the energy. As has been pointed out, we have a crackerjack operating hot fusion reactor sitting at a nice safe distance, the sun, and we can capture and harness the energy being emitted from it. But ... this analysis assumes palladium catalysis. It's not the only possibility. Vyosotskii's work is intriguing. What if proteins can pull this off? What if we could grow reactors instead of manufacturing them? They might be extremely cheap. This brings me to the main point: we need to understand the science. The experimental facts must be nailed down, we need solid, reproducible results, and aiming for practical power levels has probably kept this field back, overall. Electrolysis with palladium is interesting to me because it's the most widely replicated, and because it's easily accessible with codeposition. It takes only a tiny amount of palladium chloride; the expensive part of the experiment is the heavy water. I'm not looking for cheap energy, I'm looking for science and cheap replication of experiments, so that they become, even in a highly skeptical environment, widely replicated. I'm trying to help build a foundation, and to thus stimulate more work on theory and the testing of theory. Because of the possible fabulous wealth and glory, perhaps, too much work was done too soon on scaling up, trying to find the magic formula for a reactor for energy production. There is certainly a place for that. But to get to practical power production, as was emphasized in the ACS press conference, we need to understand the science. Probably we need to understand it first, unless someone gets very, very lucky and happens across some technique. It's more likely that someone comes up with an accurate theory and predicts high energy yield with, say, nickel under such and such conditions. In other words, that science leads, the part of the scientific process that develops theory. And that's based on knowledge of the experimental work, and the existence of a body of work that explores the parameter space, as they were saying. That's relatively boring, plodding work, compared to Solving the Energy Problems of Mankind. Of course, it could end up doing just that. But, really, do we have, for example, solid measures of how deuterium concentration affects excess heat? Not just endpoints. What I've seen, sometimes, is H2 vs D2, presumably pure or H2 at normal isotopic ratio. What happens in between? From my point of view, I'd like to try a silver wire, plated with gold, as a cathode, for codeposition. Much cheaper. I'd expect it to be the same results as gold. Would it be? It's one of the things I expect to try. (Note: I'm looking for neutrons, not excess heat, at this point. Gold wouldn't be better than palladium, particularly, as to expense, but there is a lot more gold in the world.) So: how does the reaction rate vary with the thickness of the gold, all other variables being equal? I could do my own electroplating of gold, to create silver wires with various thicknesses. Various theories might suggest various simple variations. What happens if I dope the electrolyte for codeposition with some beryllium chloride? Or preplate a beryllium layer? Any effect? Countless experiments become possible once there are standard cells, and as long as they produce results well above background (two orders of magnitude is probably enough, even lower could be useful), I don't need to scale up and if the results are robust enough, I can scale down, making it cheaper. He visits my grave and has a long imaginary discussion with me. I ask him to do better mathematics and use the best data. Can you help him? Thanks! I'll try. How old is he now? These kits, unless I fall victim to my constant vulnerability to distraction, should be available this year. I should have results within a few months. So ... Rich Murray suggested I should sell them for $200, not the $100 I expect (single heavy water cell, everything ready for current to be supplied, includes SSNTDs but not development of them). $100 includes a reasonable profit, and, with some work and volume, I can lower the costs, I expect. I expect to be working with a nonprofit (and the whole business might be sold to a nonprofit) to help subsidize kits. Assuming they work. If they don't work, back to the drawing board and, I
Re: [Vo]:Triumph looks in the mirror
You are perfectly right. The problem is that this not so friendly, moderately rich, Planet has much less palladium, we will be forced to import some thousands tonnes from other places. By the way, if you consult the news, you'll see that there are great problems in the electronic industry because other rare elements, the lantanides are scarce. It's a reason for Triumph to not like its image in the mirror. On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: He's gonna need more Pd. In 2008, the world consumption of all types of power averaged 1.504 x 10^13 W. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption At 2.4 x 10^-3 g/W, he would need 3.61 x 10^10 g of Pd (plus about 2% growth per year) or about 36,000 metric tonnes. And he would need really good batteries to flatten out the load. :-) T On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 6:00 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: A bit of realistic sci-fi.. January 6, 2028- my grandson who was educated in the spirit of new energy, cold fusion is wonderful - has succeeded to work out the perfectly reproducible energy generating method. In the frame of a Pd - D2O system. He is a respected citizen and as it is almost compulsory in the New Moneytheistic society- a billionaire. He calls the Chief Economist of his company: Mark, please buy the reserves of palladium any gram you can we are going to conquer the world of energy, to replace any dirty fossil fuel.. you see itis winter and it is so warm... In two weeks the economist succeeds to buy 150 tonnes of palladium. a real wizard. My grandson's system releases 100 W per 1 sq.cm of palladium, which is in the form of a thin layer of 0.2 millimetres i.e 1 x 0.02 x 12 = 0.24 grams. It is now simple to calculate that if 0.24 g. give a power of 100 W, 200,000,000 g. will give- 8.4 10 exp 10 W or 8.4 10 exp 7 kW. in a more pragmatical language 84 millions of kWatts Or 84,000 MWatts. (US consumes now appr. 270,000 MWatts electricity) Next step- how many kWatts is Mankind consuming. Oh not so much, we are clever and are back at the value of 2008. But this value is a bit greater-than what can CF give He concludes: the CF system can contribute but cannot conquer the market of energy. He visits my grave and has a long imaginary discussion with me. I ask him to do better mathematics and use the best data. Can you help him? Thanks!
RE: [Vo]:Mizuno couldn't get to ACS
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Are there any published works showing nuclear phenomena such as excess heat, correlated with deuterium percentage? I'm starting with 99.9% D2O (atom percent D). What would be the difference I should expect with 98% D2O, which is substantially cheaper? I've seen rumors that ordinary water poisons the reaction. If so, at what level? With solid Pd in the conventional FP configuration, even a little light water poisons the reaction. I think even 1 or 2% but I do not recall. Storms says that with electrolysis the Pd preferentially absorbs the H atoms so the concentration of H in the lattice is soon higher than in the starting liquid. Heavy water is hygroscopic. (Try saying that word three times in a row!) Meaning it readily absorbs ordinary water from the air. You might say it wants to get back to its natural ratio of 1:6,700 atoms. Anyway, people sometimes leave bottles of heavy water open to the air during experiments, and this ruins them by reducing purity. To prevent this with open-cell experiments, Bockris recommended putting the heavy water reservoir in a plastic IV bag with an IV tube leading down to the cell, with one of those itty-bitty stopcocks at the top of the cell. You exclude air the whole way. You dump and throw away the first small amount of little heavy water that comes through the empty tube. Bockris also thought that CO2 poisons the reaction. Or any kind of carbon. Storms also used an IV bag in some tritium studies, I assume for the same reason: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEastudyofel.pdf Those bags are clean and airtight and made to high standards, since air or contamination might harm the patient. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Triumph looks in the mirror
First of all- thank you! I also think that somewhere we have to get rid of palladium and replace it with something cheaper and more abundent, And is a provocative and/or nasty assertion that now we still do not understnd the science? Should we repeat the 2005 survey? It seems that the Ni based Piantelli system works, both at the author and at Rossi and Co. It is not cold fusion but it generates heat. At a proper temperatures. That's fine. Re your question, my grandson will be 8 years old next month and his talent for scientific research is more than obvious. He will inherit the problems we could not solve yet. I wish you success with your strategy and research program. On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 06:00 AM 3/26/2010, Peter Gluck wrote: He concludes: the CF system can contribute but cannot conquer the market of energy. This is indeed my seat-of-the-pants conclusion as to the palladium approach, unless the reaction rate can be greatly increased. At current prices I did a detailed calculation (a few scribbles on a napkin) that an Arata-effect cold fusion hot water heater might be done for, oh, neglecting development costs, $100,000. Someone might buy it for the novelty. The catalyst would probably need reprocessing from time to time, and that might cost as much as the value of the energy. As has been pointed out, we have a crackerjack operating hot fusion reactor sitting at a nice safe distance, the sun, and we can capture and harness the energy being emitted from it. But ... this analysis assumes palladium catalysis. It's not the only possibility. Vyosotskii's work is intriguing. What if proteins can pull this off? What if we could grow reactors instead of manufacturing them? They might be extremely cheap. This brings me to the main point: we need to understand the science. The experimental facts must be nailed down, we need solid, reproducible results, and aiming for practical power levels has probably kept this field back, overall. Electrolysis with palladium is interesting to me because it's the most widely replicated, and because it's easily accessible with codeposition. It takes only a tiny amount of palladium chloride; the expensive part of the experiment is the heavy water. I'm not looking for cheap energy, I'm looking for science and cheap replication of experiments, so that they become, even in a highly skeptical environment, widely replicated. I'm trying to help build a foundation, and to thus stimulate more work on theory and the testing of theory. Because of the possible fabulous wealth and glory, perhaps, too much work was done too soon on scaling up, trying to find the magic formula for a reactor for energy production. There is certainly a place for that. But to get to practical power production, as was emphasized in the ACS press conference, we need to understand the science. Probably we need to understand it first, unless someone gets very, very lucky and happens across some technique. It's more likely that someone comes up with an accurate theory and predicts high energy yield with, say, nickel under such and such conditions. In other words, that science leads, the part of the scientific process that develops theory. And that's based on knowledge of the experimental work, and the existence of a body of work that explores the parameter space, as they were saying. That's relatively boring, plodding work, compared to Solving the Energy Problems of Mankind. Of course, it could end up doing just that. But, really, do we have, for example, solid measures of how deuterium concentration affects excess heat? Not just endpoints. What I've seen, sometimes, is H2 vs D2, presumably pure or H2 at normal isotopic ratio. What happens in between? From my point of view, I'd like to try a silver wire, plated with gold, as a cathode, for codeposition. Much cheaper. I'd expect it to be the same results as gold. Would it be? It's one of the things I expect to try. (Note: I'm looking for neutrons, not excess heat, at this point. Gold wouldn't be better than palladium, particularly, as to expense, but there is a lot more gold in the world.) So: how does the reaction rate vary with the thickness of the gold, all other variables being equal? I could do my own electroplating of gold, to create silver wires with various thicknesses. Various theories might suggest various simple variations. What happens if I dope the electrolyte for codeposition with some beryllium chloride? Or preplate a beryllium layer? Any effect? Countless experiments become possible once there are standard cells, and as long as they produce results well above background (two orders of magnitude is probably enough, even lower could be useful), I don't need to scale up and if the results are robust enough, I can scale down, making it cheaper. He visits my grave and has a long imaginary discussion with me. I ask
[Vo]:Listen to Science Friday on line
The show starts any minute now. It says you can listen on-line: http://www.sciencefriday.com/about/listen/http://www.sciencefriday.com/about/listen/ - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Triumph looks in the mirror
At 11:27 AM 3/26/2010, Peter Gluck wrote: Yes, nanotechnology surely will have a great role. And electrolysis is -in this case a generator of technological nightmares, we have to get rid of it. Definitely messy. I wouldn't rule it out, though. But gas phase seems more likely. I'm not working with it because the level of materials science is horrific. If I could buy the material, I might go there. Remember, I want kits or something simple. A CO2 cylinder with some of the material in it, pressurized with D2. You get, with it, the temperature profile shown as it was loaded and sealed. You feel it. It's warm. It stays warm. For a long time. But 3000 minutes probably isn't, that's only 50 hours. The Arata results show no decline in temperature at 50 hours, so I don't really know. As Jed has pointed out, Arata is frustrating. We are starting to get independent work that is more fully disclosed. The cost of that little cylinder is unknown at this point, because it's not just the palladium (there was 7 g of palladium in one of Arata's cells, it's highly processed and for all I can tell, the processing may be more expensive than the palladium.) A gas phase system is a must, heat generated 100 deg Celsius is low quality energy, 180-200 deg Celsius is OK, you can convert it in electricity via steam. Actually, hot water heater temperature is fine for direct heating, well below 100 C. Say 60 degrees? Central electrical power station, bad idea for this. Direct heating is a major consumer of energy. This is the reason for disappointment that Leslie Case's process has fizzled out. In my 1991 Topology is the key paper I have predicted it, but it has died. Lacking imagination, I think it was poisoned.. Could be. However, I'm not sure. It's like a lot of things in this field, there are many, many loose ends, caused by people varying the hell out of what they were doing, hoping to get lucky.
[Vo]:Riordon wants people to bash the APS for allowing cold fusion
Someone named James Riordon, who has a rather weak grasp of the notion of academic freedom, wants people to attack the APS for allowing a discussion of cold fusion. He wrote: Cold fusion has become the iconic example of pathological science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science It's sad that people are taken in by this, and shameful that the American Chemical Society is complicit in the sham. As a Public Information Officer at the APS and the president of the DC Science Writers Association, I feel that the media office at ACS is acting irresponsibly in holding press conferences on cold fusion. Michael Bernstein is listed as the main contact on the ACS cold fusion release. It would be great if he could come to the DC Science Writers Professional Day event on April 17 (www.DCSWA.org) to explain himself during our session on ethics for PIOs. I'll happily cover his registration fee. http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2010/03/chemists-taken-in-by-cold-fusion-again.html?showComment=1269628795280_AIe9_BGTP1g6lXi0nm2IUb9zDu0d-mRBqaxA3mohI-BEjy8sWNM09bD6I7Bo_nVoidXby6s-qthr-BupKFruVqn7t7D7MAuJ57ddRxYmEKEWzwyontMtvPrffijwcVeZ1MMIdvuh31b3bn3tmzol-tnQEqUMCCDhX49Zn5AhdRqejFTaDzG3B_t7vK-6vH1_IZoYr31oIbGMUwAtFak96SIloCRfDuSY8FvhS2OFzoHfulIv79OU3KwqabiWDH8H4I-eQT6KeY0k#c5923596042018909191http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2010/03/chemists-taken-in-by-cold-fusion-again.html I wrote several comments suggesting that he tone it down, but he has not heeded them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:McKubre on NPR Science Friday
I thought Mike did pretty well! He did not say anything people here have not heard dozens of times before. I imagine Mike must have said those things thousands of times before! Poor guy. But he managed to keep it fresh and interesting. Flatow is a good interviewer. Kudos to both. - Jed
[Vo]:Flock of birds?
Flock of birds put hole in ship??? The conspiracy and UFO folks will have some fun with this one! http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62P30E20100326 http://tinyurl.com/ycdtjgy A defense ministry official later said that the unidentified object the vessel had fired at on Friday night near the western sea border that divides the two Koreas may well have been a flock of birds. An unidentified reason caused a hole in the ship, which led to its sinking. Currently 58 have been rescued out of the total 104 on board. Rescue efforts are under way, the ministry said. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Triumph looks in the mirror
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: It's like a lot of things in this field, there are many, many loose ends, caused by people varying the hell out of what they were doing, hoping to get lucky. That is exactly what they were doing. And what's worse -- far worse! -- is that they were not doing the variations I recommended. How many times have I told the Ni-H people to throw in some heavy water?!? Do they listen? No. Like many others in this field, such as -- Oh, I don't know, some guy whose initials are S. K. and that fellow with the super-calorimeter -- I feel that researchers should drop what they are doing, change their theories, and generally do as I say, because I have no hands-on experience and no qualifications. I'm just sayin'. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Flock of birds?
Yes, birds. We're talking angry birds. Terrorist birds who will stop at nothing, like the ones who brought down the U.S. Airways flight, into the Hudson. See A. Hitchcock, The Birds (1963). - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Triumph looks in the mirror
Dear Abd, I am starting the weekend rush to write my great editorial for the issue no 396 of my wekly newsletter Info Kappa ( I am working for an American Romanian ISP UPC Romania) The subject is primitive and I will use much of the book Caveman Logic But other things too. By the way, I like very much what your littel dughter has said it is bright and I will quote it in a future issue. I will ask you to tell your daughter;s name and how do you want the idea should presented. It is a great example of the wisdom of children. Best wishes, Peter PS. If to be intelligent is the ability to work with scarce, redundant, contradictory, partilly false data than CF is the place where we can exercise intelligence. It will be simply chaotic only after two steps of radical improvement. But, to quote myself The unique ambition of the Universe is to be interesting. I had a discussion with Freeman Dyson re the priority of this idea and we have discovered it independently. On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 11:27 AM 3/26/2010, Peter Gluck wrote: Yes, nanotechnology surely will have a great role. And electrolysis is -in this case a generator of technological nightmares, we have to get rid of it. Definitely messy. I wouldn't rule it out, though. But gas phase seems more likely. I'm not working with it because the level of materials science is horrific. If I could buy the material, I might go there. Remember, I want kits or something simple. A CO2 cylinder with some of the material in it, pressurized with D2. You get, with it, the temperature profile shown as it was loaded and sealed. You feel it. It's warm. It stays warm. For a long time. But 3000 minutes probably isn't, that's only 50 hours. The Arata results show no decline in temperature at 50 hours, so I don't really know. As Jed has pointed out, Arata is frustrating. We are starting to get independent work that is more fully disclosed. The cost of that little cylinder is unknown at this point, because it's not just the palladium (there was 7 g of palladium in one of Arata's cells, it's highly processed and for all I can tell, the processing may be more expensive than the palladium.) A gas phase system is a must, heat generated 100 deg Celsius is low quality energy, 180-200 deg Celsius is OK, you can convert it in electricity via steam. Actually, hot water heater temperature is fine for direct heating, well below 100 C. Say 60 degrees? Central electrical power station, bad idea for this. Direct heating is a major consumer of energy. This is the reason for disappointment that Leslie Case's process has fizzled out. In my 1991 Topology is the key paper I have predicted it, but it has died. Lacking imagination, I think it was poisoned.. Could be. However, I'm not sure. It's like a lot of things in this field, there are many, many loose ends, caused by people varying the hell out of what they were doing, hoping to get lucky.
Re: [Vo]:Stimulus Suspension Would Put 85,000 Wind Jobs at Risk
I am sure this is a subject no one is interested in but me, BUT, I wrote: This is actually closer to Wright brothers test than most people realize. For a non-expert observer, the early flights were difficult to distinguish from an uncontrolled powered hop. In 2003 on national television news an expert at Kitty Hawk tried to fly a replica of the 1903 airplane. In 2005 someone in Dayton tried to fly a replica of the 1905 flyer, which was far better than the '03 machine. You can see the videos on YouTube. Have a look! You will be hard pressed to determine whether these are controlled flights or washing-machine-with-propeller stunts. You can't tell if the pilot is in control of anything, or merely along for the ride. The second flight is a bit more what you expect, but it ends in what most people would call a spin-out and crash. The shaken pilot emerges and quotes the old adage: any landing you can walk away from is a good landing. When you do research into fundamentally new, unexplored subjects, it can be hard to distinguish success from failure. For a non-expert, it can even be hard to know what you are looking at. For example, people who do not understand helium or instrument errors can make drastic mistakes. (People with the initials S.K.) Imagine you are a reporter or bank president in 1906 and someone asks you did that thing really fly? You might have difficulty giving an honest and competent answer. The Wrights were superbly skilled bicycle riders and pilots and they seldom spun out or smashed to pieces, but if you happened to be there on a bad day you would get the wrong impression. In 2010 if you ask a reporter at the APS is cold fusion real after all? you should not expect a reliable or meaningful answer. Suppose a reporter or amateur reads this blog: http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2010/03/acs_cold_fusion_calorimeter.htmlhttp://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2010/03/acs_cold_fusion_calorimeter.html They would find messages from someone who does not understand helium or the W-L theory, and crackpot notions about calorimetry from Kirk Shanahan. They would be would have difficulty judging what's what. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Stimulus Suspension Would Put 85,000 Wind Jobs at Risk
2010/3/26 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Michel Jullian wrote: So, you would not believe the Wright brothers unless they let you fly their airplane? A better analogy is that I would not believe them unless I saw them flying it with my own eyes. If that is what you want, you should be satisfied with Rob Duncan going out to see the calorimeter at Energetics Technology. He is an expert, much better at determining whether it is working than you or I would be. Eyes stand for calorimeter (or more exactly energy balance measurement system) in my analogy . Duncan didn't bring in his own measurement system so he didn't see the excess heat for himself. Michel
Re: [Vo]:Flock of birds?
Horace Heffner wrote: BTW, I recall reading a year or more ago that a lab blew up in South Korea taking out a number of blocks. . . . I never heard if the cause of the Korean explosion was identified though. S! It was the birds. Don't you get it?!? Birds! Let's hope Glenn Beck doesn't find out. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Stimulus Suspension Would Put 85,000 Wind Jobs at Risk
Michel Jullian wrote: Duncan didn't bring in his own measurement system so he didn't see the excess heat for himself. Oh give me a break. That's ridiculous. The technique was replicated as SRI and ENEA. CBS sent one of the world top experts in calorimetry to confirm it. What more do you want? Do you seriously think that Scott Little with his MOAC would provide better confirmation than this? Are you suggesting that Duncan can't recognize when an instrument is malfunctioning? Or that they might have fooled him with fake instruments? That is like suggesting that you could fool me into thinking someone is speaking Japanese when they are speaking gibberish. I can tell. It is my second language. Rob Duncan speaks calorimetry the way Edward Seidensticker spoke Japanese. You come up with such improbable reasons to disbelieve these results! You are grasping at straws, the way Dieter Britz does. One day you imagine that Rossi has somehow crammed $60 million of plutonium into his cell, and the next you tell us that the world's top expert in calorimetry may be so incompetent he doesn't know amps from volts. How else can someone mistake 0.8 W for 20 W? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Stimulus Suspension Would Put 85,000 Wind Jobs at Risk
I am just stating a fact, not judging the validity of anybody's claims.There would be no airplanes today if the Wright brothers hadn't allowed skeptics to judge their claims with their own instruments (=own eyes in their case). Luckily, they were not that stupid. Michel 2010/3/26 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Michel Jullian wrote: Duncan didn't bring in his own measurement system so he didn't see the excess heat for himself. Oh give me a break. That's ridiculous. The technique was replicated as SRI and ENEA. CBS sent one of the world top experts in calorimetry to confirm it. What more do you want? Do you seriously think that Scott Little with his MOAC would provide better confirmation than this? Are you suggesting that Duncan can't recognize when an instrument is malfunctioning? Or that they might have fooled him with fake instruments? That is like suggesting that you could fool me into thinking someone is speaking Japanese when they are speaking gibberish. I can tell. It is my second language. Rob Duncan speaks calorimetry the way Edward Seidensticker spoke Japanese. You come up with such improbable reasons to disbelieve these results! You are grasping at straws, the way Dieter Britz does. One day you imagine that Rossi has somehow crammed $60 million of plutonium into his cell, and the next you tell us that the world's top expert in calorimetry may be so incompetent he doesn't know amps from volts. How else can someone mistake 0.8 W for 20 W? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Stimulus Suspension Would Put 85,000 Wind Jobs at Risk
When someone places their calorimeter in your excess heat be sure to take precautions. ;-) Harry __ 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
Re: [Vo]:Stimulus Suspension Would Put 85,000 Wind Jobs at Risk
At 07:39 AM 3/26/2010, Michel Jullian wrote: No wonder, the cold fusion experimenters say my cell makes excess heat but they won't let skeptics see it with their own calorimeter. I intend to fix that, you know. Except the first cells won't be calorimeter-ready, they might not generate anough heat, that would take a different, and more expensive design, I suspect. I'm just looking for neutrons. I know, boring. Who can solve the energy crisis with a few neutrons? Part of the point about CF is that it doesn't generate neutrons. Well, usually not. Isn't it the exceptions to the rule that are fascinating? If I had a cell that was capable of serious heat generation, I'm not sure I'd turn it over to a skeptic. I'd try to find someone reasonably neutral. (i.e., someone *normally* skeptical but dedicated to fairness and honesty and careful work.)
[Vo]:I missed Jed when he quit and now I miss Steve
Frank Znidarsic
