Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Feb 21, 2011, at 6:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: As a double check on concepts, if you plug x=0.02856 into x/((x+(1- x)*0.0006)) then you get 0.98. That is to say, 98% of the mass of the volume expelled is water, and 2% steam - your starting assumptions. As a double check on this discussion, you should note that they have now run the cell with hot water only, no phase change, and they found it recovered even more heat than with the phase change. So this speculation about wet steam and greatly reduced enthapy is incorrect. Evidently Dr. Galantini was correct, and the steam was dry. Either that or these estimates of the enthalpy of wet steam are incorrect. I do not know which true, and it does not matter. A different method has now been used to confirm the original conclusion. - Jed I look forward to the report. This is obviously well beyond chemical if the consumables actually are H and Ni. The energy E per H is: E = (270kwh) /(0.4 g * Na / (1 gm/mol)) = 2.52x10^4 eV / H = 25 kEv per atom of H. On Feb 21, 2011, at 8:47 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: This morning I have received this from Giuseppe Levi re this test : Average flux in that test was 1 liter per second (measured by me many times during the test). No steam. MINIMUM power measured was 15 kW for 18h. 0.4g H2 consumed. This means that a 270 kWh = 972 MJ where at least produced. This is an under estimation. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 03:01 PM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: By whom? Maybe you're new to the field. Well, not exactly. It was a joke. Promises have been made by Pons Fleischmann first in 1989 (just watch their interviews on youtube, where they claim it is the ideal energy source: clean and unlimited and simple) and then by just about every cold fusion advocate since, including McKubre on 60 minutes promising cars that don't need refueling, Rothwell's entire book of promises, and promises from shady characters like Dardik and Rossi. There are endless promises every time the topic arises. Pons and Fleischmann made no such promise. They noted the potential, *if* this could be developed. First of all, has promise normally has a built in hypothetical. The child showed remarkable promise in the recital. That's the way the promise of CF has been voiced. It's what I meant. Secondly, from an interview in 1989: Macneil / Lehrer: This is being hailed as the ideal energy source. Is that the case? Fleischmann: Yes. There would be many advantages in using it as an energy source. Because, as was referred to in the run-in to this program, the reaction would be clean, ... the fuel supply would be plentiful, and it could ... be carried out in a very simple manner. That's an expression of promise for the field of cold fusion. Fleischmann wrote that it would take a Manhattan-scale project. This is not an easy problem. Unlike the original Manahattan project, there is no explanatory theory, making engineering extremely difficult. And that has nothing to do with the science. It certainly has nothing to do with whether or not there is measurable excess heat, since we can measure heat in milliwatts and the experiments often generate heat in the 5 or 10 watt range, sometimes much more. Sometimes the heat generated is well in excess of all energy put in to electrolyse the deuterium. In gas-loading experiments, there is no input energy, beyond the natural heat of formation of palladium deuteride. I.e., we definitely get excess heat, over input energy, with gas-loading, but this is still small, overall, and it's difficult to scale. This is where a lot of current work has gone. The difficulty in scaling robs those experiments of credibility. The gas loading experiments have to detect nuclear heat above considerable chemical heat, and the results are far from convincing. If a trace amount of Pd produces a watt or so of power, why would 10 or 100 times as much not produce 10 or 100 times the power? Why does it only work when the measurements are dubious. And why can't Arata pressurize a small cell with his magic powder, isolate it from all external connections, and demonstrate that the thing gives off heat indefinitely? Quite simply, that an effect is commercializable -- or not -- could affect decisions about research funding, for sure, but it has nothing to do with whether it is real or not. Agree? Disagree. If an effect is not real, it is not commercializable. If it is real, it may be. If nuclear reactions in cold fusion experiments are producing measurable heat, it would be daft to think that it is not commercializable. Cold fusion is a natural phenomenon, it promises nothing unless a way can be found to make it happen reliably and with sufficient return on energy input to cover losses. Well, yes, but there are many claims of reliability (100%) with huge returns (10, 20, even hundreds), but still no delivery on the promise. There is a single, easily-describable, repeatable experiment. It has nothing to do with huge returns, which are, themselves, anomalous, i.e., generally not repeatable. It is pure science, i.e., it establishes that there is an effect, excess heat correlated with helium. You do, I hope, understand that correlation can establish this kind of thing even if the effect itself is quite unreliable. Right? Muon-catalyzed fusion, when discovered, was first thought to be a possible energy source. That remains as a possibility, but, the problem was, nobody knows how to make muons and keep them active long enough to recover the energy cost. Muon-catalyzed fusion was discovered by the associated radiation (neutrons). Cold fusion was claimed on the basis of excess energy. That's a big difference. If you start with excess energy, then there's no need to find a way to get excess energy. No, muon-catalyzed fusion was predicted first, before it was confirmed. Yes, it was then confirmed through neutrons, I understand. Cold fusion was not predicted and was not claimed on the basis of energy alone. That's a myth of the history. What was actually claimed was an unknown nuclear reaction. Yes, unknown nuclear reaction was claimed on the basis of the energy *density.* You're not contradicting me. Muon-catalyzed fusion started (experimentally) with neutrons, cold fusion started
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
OK, gentlemen, now you have a steamless- Wasser uber alles experiment too. Peter On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: On Feb 21, 2011, at 6:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 02/21/2011 09:48 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:40 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.nethheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: On Feb 21, 2011, at 5:50 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: |One should also bear in mind that it takes only 2% steam by mass to make up 97.5% of the expelled fluid by volume. And |since the steam is created in the horizontal portion, it is forced up 50 cm of pipe through liquid, which would |presumably turn the liquid into a fine mist after a few minutes. The above appears to to be a typo. It was probably meant to say: One should also bear in mind that it takes only 2% steam by *volume* to make up 97.5% of the expelled fluid by *mass*. | Well maybe a question of semantics, and some rounding errors. | Try this: It takes only 2% of the H2O by mass, in the form of steam, to make up 97% of the expelled water by volume. Better. It is a matter of definitions. However, I think 2% steam by mass in your original statement means 2% wet steam that is to say 2% of the mass is water, 98% is steam, by mass. It wouldn't make any sense vice versa, i.e. 2% by mass vapor, and 98% mass in liquid. But that last formulation makes perfect sense, I think, .. and I said I thought it was better. and is surely what Joshua wrote. In Joshua's scenario, each gram of effluent consists of 980 milligrams of liquid water, in the form of tiny droplets taking up just under a milliliter of total volume, and just 20 milligrams of vapor, in the form of gas. None the less, the 20 milligrams of vapor, being enormously less dense, constitute nearly all the *volume* of the effluent -- thus, it's 97.5% vapor, by volume, because the vapor is taking up about 39 milliliters of space, to the single ml being consumed by the liquid. By *volume*, this stuff Joshua is describing would be 2.5% liquid water, or, one might say, 97.5% dry steam. Only 2.5% of the *mass* of the water has been vaporized in this scenario, so the heat of vaporization required will be about 40 times *smaller* than that required to fully vaporize the water. What doesn't make sense? Is it that the expansion factor for liquid-vapor Joshua used is too large? No, it is a matter of definitions, as I said. Such a 2% wet by mass steam takes 98% of the vaporization energy to create vs dry steam. What I provided were the numbers for 2% wet by volume steam, that is to say 2% of the volume of the ejected fluid being liquid. I think you and Joshua were talking about the same thing, really. Yes, I merely pointed out what appeared to be a typo - of the kind I make often, exchanging terms. Or maybe I'm just tired. I should go to bed. I think Joshua and I both have a grasp on the basic principles involved, and both of us know it. I provided both forwards and backwards calculations of the values in question (but which were unfortunately cut above), so that should be good enough to demonstrate that I understand the principles I think. Below are the values discussed regarding this experiment in tabular form. Liquid LiquidGas Portion Portion Portion by Volume by Mass by Mass - --- --- 0.010 0.9439 0.0560 0.020 0.971440.02856 0.028560.98 0.02 The problem, to me, centered on the meaning of 2% steam. When this phrase is used it typically (AFAIK) means 2% wet steam, i.e 2% of the steam is water. That can be by 2% water of total mass or 2% water of total volume, but I think is usually expressed in terms of water by mass. Therefore, when I saw 2% steam by mass, it appeared Joshua was talking about 2% water by mass, and 98% vapor by mass. I doubt that anyone normally talks abut 98% steam, especially when talking about dry steam, because that quickly will be pure water, i.e. it is 98% water by mass, and probably unmistakable to the eye as dry steam. In the case of Rossi's experiment there was some doubt and discussion about how accurate the measurement could be, because the value was determined by steam capacitance, and thus might be by volume. All talk of relative humidity (RH), which the instrument actually measured in a limited range which did not include 99-100%, seemed nonsensical when applied to dry steam. A 1% error by volume could mean a 94.4% error in heat, and the instrument was rated as only 2.7% accurate in its valid range. In any case Joshua's statement did not make sense to me as written, but made total sense as corrected, given a very small error in the third place. Note in the table that 2% steam by volume is coincidentally 97.144 % steam by mass (but not 98% or 97.5%). That is to say, if 2% of
Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: Excess heat is an experimental result. Excess heat is an interpretation of experimental results. If it is the result of an artifact, it should be possible to identify the artifact. Maybe, but it takes time and effort. Time and effort that skeptics are not inclined to commit because they do not find the results compelling enough. If the result is not an artifact, the thinking goes, a better experiment should be possible. This is the point, Joshua: There are hundreds of researchers who have reported significant anomalous heat from palladium deuteride. The large number is actually disturbing. So many experiments, and they never get better. They can't come up with one that captures the attention of mainstream. They can't make an isolated device that generates heat. In fact, consistent with other pathological science, the size of the effect (with the exception of the dubious Rossi device) has become smaller over the years. Science doesn't work that way. Pathological science does. It's like hundreds of thousands of alien and ufo sightings, but none quite good enough to be convincing. The better the photography, the less convincing the image. My question to you is, it seems that you believe there is no excess heat. From what does this belief stem? You haven't been listening. From the absence of any progress. From the inability to generate heat indefinitely from and isolated device. Most likely, if you are reasonable, you think that there is something that appears to be excess heat, fooling the researchers. But, something is not a scientific explanation. If there is something fooling this many researchers, it should be possible to figure out what it is. Lots of people have tried, you know. However, did they try hard enough? Most people gave up trying a long time ago. Most no longer care what the something is or what the many things are. They are satisfied that if there is excess heat, someone will find a way to demonstrate it conclusively, with an isolated device that generates heat indefinitely. Cold fusion is often classed with N-rays and polywater, but in each of those examples, the artifact was rather quickly found, once there were enough people looking and running controlled experiments. Actually an artifact was not found for N-rays. Wood failed to reproduce the results, and debunked them by sabotaging Blondlot's experiment, effectively forcing a blinded experiment, and proving cognitive bias. In spite of the debunking, Blondlot continued to be convinced of N-rays for another 20 years. In any case, there are also examples of marginal disciplines that will likely never be accepted by science, and never be disproven to the satisfaction of its adherents. Homeopathy and perpetual motion are two examples. Not all fields are the same. When scientists do not believe an effect is present, they have no motivation to waste their time trying to find other people's mistakes. At least in the case of N-rays, the time required was minimal. Wood complained he had wasted a whole morning on the experiment, before he was enlisted to go to France for his famous sabotage. You can't do CF in a morning, and sabotage is not as simple in CF. A credible double-blind test in CF would be telling, but it would require the cooperation of believers and skeptics, something not likely to happen. Was the artifact ever identified with cold fusion, Joshua? You seem to believe that there must be one. But what does the preponderance of the evidence show at this time? How would you judge? Like N-rays, it may just be cognitive bias. The preponderance of evidence, the absence of progress, the diminishing size of the effect, suggest the absence of excess heat. And how can you explain the helium correlation, that magically happens to appear at the right value for fusion? (Huizenga was amazed that it was within an order of magnitude of that value, Miles' helium measurements were relatively crude compared to what was done later.) I don't believe there is excess heat, and I don't believe there is a correlation with helium. Miles measurements were relatively crude, but judging by peer-review, they were the best so far. The only more recent peer-reviewed results admit helium is not definitive. And those who found it at least somewhat compelling, not a single one was compelled enough to recommend special funding for the field. That would be criminal if they thought there was even a slight chance of solving the world's energy problems. So there is no way you can say the evidence is overwhelming, based on the DOE panel. No. See, this is a conclusion from your opinion about practical application. My own opinion is that the field is not ready for a massive special program. The problem is that we don't know what's happening! We could easily throw endless amounts of money at this, and end up with
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: That said, let's proceed on with your defined problem where 2% of the water is vaporized, i.e. the ejecta is 98% liquid by mass, 98% wet by mass. |For an input flow rate of 300 cc/min = 300 mg/min, The above should read g/min, i.e. grams per minute, not milligrams per minute. Oops. Yes, that should have been grams, and similarly 6 g/min for the steam flow rate, and the density should have been .6 mg/cc (not micrograms). Fortunately, my kiloerrors cancelled and the conclusion was still right. As you verified.
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: As a double check on concepts, if you plug x=0.02856 into x/((x+(1-x)*0.0006)) then you get 0.98. That is to say, 98% of the mass of the volume expelled is water, and 2% steam - your starting assumptions. As a double check on this discussion, you should note that they have now run the cell with hot water only, no phase change, and they found it recovered even more heat than with the phase change. So this speculation about wet steam and greatly reduced enthapy is incorrect. Evidently Dr. Galantini was correct, and the steam was dry. Either that or these estimates of the enthalpy of wet steam are incorrect. I do not know which true, and it does not matter. A different method has now been used to confirm the original conclusion. So the flawed public demo has been vindicated by a private unofficial demo. As David Letterman used to say when Dick Cheney said the war in Iraq was going well: That's good enough for me.
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 2:04 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: I look forward to the report. This is obviously well beyond chemical if the consumables actually are H and Ni. The energy E per H is: E = (270kwh) /(0.4 g * Na / (1 gm/mol)) = 2.52x10^4 eV / H = 25 kEv per atom of H. On Feb 21, 2011, at 8:47 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: This morning I have received this from Giuseppe Levi re this test : Average flux in that test was 1 liter per second (measured by me many times during the test). No steam. MINIMUM power measured was 15 kW for 18h. 0.4g H2 consumed. This means that a 270 kWh = 972 MJ where at least produced. This is an under estimation. A few questions come to mind. If they consume only .4 g hydrogen, did they still have a 14 kg bottle of H2 connected? Only about 1 /40 of that hydrogen is needed to produce the energy claimed if the reaction is nuclear. What happens to the rest of the hydrogen? How many of those hours did it run without input electricity?
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Joshua: A few clarifications from you would be helpful... Jed wrote: You do have to trust Levi, Celani and Dufour and some other people. To which Joshua stated: Why? They were hand-picked by Rossi. Where is your evidence that the scientists that were there to instrument the demo were 'hand-picked by Rossi? The demo was by invitation only. I assumed Rossi okayed the invitations. Maybe it was his partner. Same objection applies though. Joshua stated: And since the steam is created in the horizontal portion, it is forced up 50 cm of pipe through liquid, which would presumably turn the liquid into a fine mist after a few minutes... Again, where did you get this detail about the operation of the reactor? I have not seen ANY description of how the water is circulated inside the reactor, nor, and more importantly, the location of where the intense heat source is that actually vaporizes the water. Read the reports. Levi's labels the horiz part as the reactor, and that of course is where the radiation detector is placed, and he calls the vertical part a pipe. In Villa's report, he writes: ... horizontal metallic tube (...) as the reaction chamber, a vertical tube for steam output They could be wrong, but that's where it came from.
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 5:28 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Joshua, Perhaps *a possibly flawed demo* would be more fair and more technical. It was flawed in that data to prove the steam was dry was not given, the pump model was not provided, the hydrogen bottle was left connected, and the input electricity could not be turned off. I am convinced that: - a) the steam was bone dry; Regardless of what is happening in the unofficial demo, I will remain convinced the steam was sopping wet until someone explains how a system that takes 30 minutes to go from 0 to 1 kW can go from 1 kW to 10 kW in a minute or so, why it remains pinned at the boiling point, and how the temperature can dip briefly below 100C if the steam was dry, requiring toggling between 10 kW and 1 kW power in a few minutes.
Re: [Vo]:an unofficial Rossi E-cat test
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: This morning I have received this from Giuseppe Levi re this test : Average flux in that test was 1 liter per second (measured by me many times during the test). 1 liter per second?! Is that supposed to be per minute? Please ask the input and output temperatures. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:an unofficial Rossi E-cat test
I just have asked confirmation. On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: This morning I have received this from Giuseppe Levi re this test : Average flux in that test was 1 liter per second (measured by me many times during the test). 1 liter per second?! Is that supposed to be per minute? Please ask the input and output temperatures. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:an unofficial Rossi E-cat test
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 7:30 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: This morning I have received this from Giuseppe Levi re this test : Average flux in that test was 1 liter per second (measured by me many times during the test). 1 liter per second?! Is that supposed to be per minute? Please ask the input and output temperatures. At that rate, 64,800 liters would flow (flux) in 18 hours. Assuming 972 MJ was really produced, you should see a temp rise of, what, 3.58 degrees Celsius? T
RE: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?
From: Joshua Cude From Lomax: This is the point, Joshua: There are hundreds of researchers who have reported significant anomalous heat from palladium deuteride. The large number is actually disturbing. So many experiments, and they never get better. They can't come up with one that captures the attention of mainstream. They can't make an isolated device that generates heat. In fact, consistent with other pathological science, the size of the effect (with the exception of the dubious Rossi device) has become smaller over the years. Science doesn't work that way. Pathological science does. I've read enuf... Now, I know why I have not wanted to dwell too much on this particular thread. Life's too short. I try to dispense what limited resources I have left in my life wisely. Mr. Lomax: There's an old saying. I'm sure you've heard of it. Do not cast pearls before swine. Mr. Cude: Relying on subjective circular reasoning to validate your POV is no way to go through life, win friends and influence people. But by all means, continue to hug your cactus. My two cents. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
This is a resend test. I sent this yesterday, but it did not show up in the archives. Something is going wrong with vortex-l. On Feb 21, 2011, at 6:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 02/21/2011 09:48 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Feb 21, 2011, at 1:40 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Feb 21, 2011, at 5:50 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: |One should also bear in mind that it takes only 2% steam by mass to make up 97.5% of the expelled fluid by volume. And |since the steam is created in the horizontal portion, it is forced up 50 cm of pipe through liquid, which would |presumably turn the liquid into a fine mist after a few minutes. The above appears to to be a typo. It was probably meant to say: One should also bear in mind that it takes only 2% steam by *volume* to make up 97.5% of the expelled fluid by *mass*. | Well maybe a question of semantics, and some rounding errors. | Try this: It takes only 2% of the H2O by mass, in the form of steam, to make up 97% of the expelled water by volume. Better. It is a matter of definitions. However, I think 2% steam by mass in your original statement means 2% wet steam that is to say 2% of the mass is water, 98% is steam, by mass. It wouldn't make any sense vice versa, i.e. 2% by mass vapor, and 98% mass in liquid. But that last formulation makes perfect sense, I think, .. and I said I thought it was better. and is surely what Joshua wrote. In Joshua's scenario, each gram of effluent consists of 980 milligrams of liquid water, in the form of tiny droplets taking up just under a milliliter of total volume, and just 20 milligrams of vapor, in the form of gas. None the less, the 20 milligrams of vapor, being enormously less dense, constitute nearly all the volume of the effluent -- thus, it's 97.5% vapor, by volume, because the vapor is taking up about 39 milliliters of space, to the single ml being consumed by the liquid. By volume, this stuff Joshua is describing would be 2.5% liquid water, or, one might say, 97.5% dry steam. Only 2.5% of the mass of the water has been vaporized in this scenario, so the heat of vaporization required will be about 40 times smaller than that required to fully vaporize the water. What doesn't make sense? Is it that the expansion factor for liquid-vapor Joshua used is too large? No, it is a matter of definitions, as I said. Such a 2% wet by mass steam takes 98% of the vaporization energy to create vs dry steam. What I provided were the numbers for 2% wet by volume steam, that is to say 2% of the volume of the ejected fluid being liquid. I think you and Joshua were talking about the same thing, really. Yes, I merely pointed out what appeared to be a typo - of the kind I make often, exchanging terms. Or maybe I'm just tired. I should go to bed. I think Joshua and I both have a grasp on the basic principles involved, and both of us know it. I provided both forwards and backwards calculations of the values in question (but which were unfortunately cut above), so that should be good enough to demonstrate that I understand the principles I think. Below are the values discussed regarding this experiment in tabular form. Liquid LiquidGas PortionPortion Portion by Volume by Mass by Mass - --- --- 0.010 0.9439 0.0560 0.020 0.971440.02856 0.028560.98 0.02 The problem, to me, centered on the meaning of 2% steam. When this phrase is used it typically (AFAIK) means 2% wet steam, i.e 2% of the steam is water. That can be by 2% water of total mass or 2% water of total volume, but I think is usually expressed in terms of water by mass. Therefore, when I saw 2% steam by mass, it appeared Joshua was talking about 2% water by mass, and 98% vapor by mass. I doubt that anyone normally talks abut 98% steam, especially when talking about dry steam, because that quickly will be pure water, i.e. it is 98% water by mass, and probably unmistakable to the eye as dry steam. In the case of Rossi's experiment there was some doubt and discussion about how accurate the measurement could be, because the value was determined by steam capacitance, and thus might be by volume. All talk of relative humidity (RH), which the instrument actually measured in a limited range which did not include 99-100%, seemed nonsensical when applied to dry steam. A 1% error by volume could mean a 94.4% error in heat, and the instrument was rated as only 2.7% accurate in its valid range. In any case Joshua's statement did not make sense to me as written, but made total sense as corrected, given a very small error in the third place. Note in the table that 2% steam by volume is coincidentally 97.144 % steam by mass (but not 98% or 97.5%). That is to say, if 2%
Re: [Vo]:Revised version Celani reports on gamma emission from Rossi device
This is a resend test to see if this shows up in the archives this time. On Feb 21, 2011, at 6:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: As a double check on concepts, if you plug x=0.02856 into x/((x+(1- x)*0.0006)) then you get 0.98. That is to say, 98% of the mass of the volume expelled is water, and 2% steam - your starting assumptions. As a double check on this discussion, you should note that they have now run the cell with hot water only, no phase change, and they found it recovered even more heat than with the phase change. So this speculation about wet steam and greatly reduced enthapy is incorrect. Evidently Dr. Galantini was correct, and the steam was dry. Either that or these estimates of the enthalpy of wet steam are incorrect. I do not know which true, and it does not matter. A different method has now been used to confirm the original conclusion. - Jed I look forward to the report. This is obviously well beyond chemical if the consumables actually are H and Ni. The energy E per H is: E = (270kwh) /(0.4 g * Na / (1 gm/mol)) = 2.52x10^4 eV / H = 25 kEv per atom of H. On Feb 21, 2011, at 8:47 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: This morning I have received this from Giuseppe Levi re this test : Average flux in that test was 1 liter per second (measured by me many times during the test). No steam. MINIMUM power measured was 15 kW for 18h. 0.4g H2 consumed. This means that a 270 kWh = 972 MJ where at least produced. This is an under estimation. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Abd being censured?
I have seen responses to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax in my vortex-l email, but have seen no original email from him since 26 Jan, 2011. I just discovered that I can see that he is posting if I go to the archives at: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/ I checked email rejected by my ISP's spam filter and every folder in my system, and Abd is not there. Perhaps I have some kind of virus? Perhaps Abd is being censured at some intermediate site? This is very weird. Also, some of my email is not showing up in the archives, yet is being responded to by some. Also newer posts by others are showing up in the archives. It is as if random emails are dropping into a bit bucket somewhere when coming from vortex-l. BTW, those who are new here or using new email software, or newly using rich text, should look at what shows up in the archives. All text is converted to plain text, so all author attribution (quotes) based on text attributes like color or font are lost. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:an unofficial Rossi E-cat test
From Peter Gluck: As I wrote in my Ego-Out blog 2011 is a very bad year for skeptics. By the way Bob Park is ignoring the subject with great enthusiasm. Yes indeed. More than a month has passed by and Park's conspicuous silence on this matter strikes me personally almost as if it is a kind of passive endorsement of the proceedings. But of course I would also speculate that if pressed, the good doctor would vehemently deny any such endorsement. I presume it continues to feel more comfortable hiding in the Serengeti bush where he still hopes to bag an ailing wildebeest. Growl! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:an unofficial Rossi E-cat test
I will ask good old Bob again- why? On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 4:46 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: From Peter Gluck: As I wrote in my Ego-Out blog 2011 is a very bad year for skeptics. By the way Bob Park is ignoring the subject with great enthusiasm. Yes indeed. More than a month has passed by and Park's conspicuous silence on this matter strikes me personally almost as if it is a kind of passive endorsement of the proceedings. But of course I would also speculate that if pressed, the good doctor would vehemently deny any such endorsement. I presume it continues to feel more comfortable hiding in the Serengeti bush where he still hopes to bag an ailing wildebeest. Growl! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:List of Rossi 18-hour test parameters
A source close to the recent 18-hour test of the Rossi device gave me the following figures. These are approximations. Flow rate: 3,000 L/h = 833 ml/s. Input temperature: 15°C Output temperature ~20°C Input power from control electronics: variable, average 80 W, closer to 20 W for 6 hours Notes from Jed 5°C temperature difference * 833 ml = 4,165 cal/s = 17,493 W 3,000 L/h seems like a lot but it is 793 gallons/h, which is how much a medium-sized $120 ornamental pond pump produces. Peter I think it would have been better to throttle back the flow rate somewhat. 15°C is probably tap water temperature. A 5°C temperature difference can easily be measured with confidence. The control electronics input of ~80 W is in line with what was reported for tests before Jan. 14. Input was high on that day because something went wrong with the controls, with cracked welding as described in the Levi report. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?
On 02/21/2011 03:01 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: Promises have been made by Pons Fleischmann first in 1989 (just watch their interviews on youtube, where they claim it is the ideal energy source: clean and unlimited and simple) and then by just about every cold fusion advocate since, including McKubre on 60 minutes promising cars that don't need refueling, Rothwell's entire book of promises, and promises from shady characters like Dardik and Rossi. There are endless promises every time the topic arises. [...] Cold fusion [...] has not delivered. That's true in a field I've spent some time working in, too. People promise all sorts of things, and then the things show up years late, or more often never show up as promised, at all. In fact, I've made promises which later turned out to be impossible to deliver on, weren't even possible in theory, as we figured out much later. So, I guess the stuff I work with is all bunk, all just phony-baloney, it's lies and coverups, it can't be real, because we don't succeed in delivering on our promises. It's really too bad, if the sort of stuff I worked on were real, it would make a big difference to the world. But we miss on our promises, so it's all hokum; that's totally conclusive, air-tight reasoning, Joshua sure hit the nail on the head there. Too bad. I'm a programmer, by the way.
Re: [Vo]:List of Rossi 18-hour test parameters
More notes I do not know if they used a pump, or simply let the water flow from the tap. I have used both methods at various times, and so has Dennis Cravens, although not for such a large flow rate. They said they checked the flow rate several times which I assume means it was measured manually, with a bucket and stop watch. You might think that the flow rate would fluctuate significantly over 18 hours, but in my experience, using either tap water pressure or something like a 700 gallon/hour (gph) pond pump, the flow rate is quite stable over many hours. With a pond pump, you can use a small plastic throttle to set a lower flow rate. It stays constant longer than you might think. I have tested this out of curiosity. With an actual outdoor pond, it will change gradually over a week, as gunk accumulates in the pump. I do not have a 700 gph pond pump. I have a 170 gph circulation pump, and also a 1/3 HP sump pump that I think is rated 25 gpm, about twice the flow of the Rossi test. As far as I can see, the only likely error with this setup would be measuring the temperature too close the energy source within the gadget. Based on the photo, McKubre thought the outlet thermocouple was too close to the likely source of energy. As I mentioned, the NRL 10 kW test bed system has much better arrangement of temperature sensors and flow meters. However, with input power of only ~80 W and a flow rate of 833 ml/s, without excess heat the temperature difference would be 0.02°C. I doubt you could detect that with this arrangement. The difference between 0.02°C and ~5°C is gigantic. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: On 02/21/2011 03:01 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: Promises have been made by Pons Fleischmann first in 1989 (just watch their interviews on youtube, where they claim it is the ideal energy source: clean and unlimited and simple) and then by just about every cold fusion advocate since, including McKubre on 60 minutes promising cars that don't need refueling, Rothwell's entire book of promises, and promises from shady characters like Dardik and Rossi. There are endless promises every time the topic arises. [...] Cold fusion [...] has not delivered. So, I guess the stuff I work with is all bunk, all just phony-baloney, it's lies and coverups, it can't be real, because we don't succeed in delivering on our promises. It's really too bad, if the sort of stuff I worked on were real, it would make a big difference to the world. But we miss on our promises, so it's all hokum; that's totally conclusive, air-tight reasoning, Joshua sure hit the nail on the head there. It's hard to comment without specifics. But I also gave an example of a technology that has not delivered on its promises (high temp superconductivity), which is nevertheless a legitimate phenomenon. But it is able to demonstrate proof-of-principle on a small scale. In the case of cold fusion, it's not the failure to replace fossil fuels after 20 years that's the problem. It's that in spite of grandiose promises, even proof-of-priciple has eluded the field. Yes, advocates will say it has been proven beyond a doubt, but the fact is that it has not been proven to the DOE or to mainstream science. They can't even make an isolated device that generates unambiguous heat in obvious excess of its own weight in rocket fuel. That, I submit, is a very small barrier to legitimacy. If the world accepted proof-of-principle, it would forgive failure to deliver on the big stuff for a very long time. Look at hot fusion for proof of that.
Re: [Vo]:Counter-strike launched in textbook controversy
At 03:50 PM 2/21/2011, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Mon, 21 Feb 2011 09:40:47 -0500: Hi, [snip] But the result that is known is that helium is produced, and the observed energy supports the conclusion that the primary fuel is deuterium. unknown nuclear reaction would bring us full circle. That is what Pons and Fleischmann actually claimed, not fusion.) [snip] Even hot fusion operates on tunneling rather than overcoming the Coulomb barrier by brute force. (The latter would require about 30 MeV). I think 30 MeV is vastly overstated. But, regardless, the Coulomb barrier is really a probability of fusion, which varies with incident energy. At room temperature, forgeddabout it. But this is not relevant to what was quoted from me.
Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?
At 03:31 PM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: I've seen what they write. Practically every review is preoccupied with defending the reality of the field. I know you've read Storms' abstract to his latest review, because you are acknowledged in the paper. It's 2010, and most of it reiterates the reality of the evidence for the effect. That's desperately trying to prove it's real. Try to find another 22-year old field that adopts that sort of defensive tone in the abstract. Thanks, Joshua. I'm seeing better critique here than I've seen from any ordinary pseudoskeptic. First of all, reviews cover a field. If they cover a field, and if the reviewer concludes that the field is investigating a real phenomenon, the review is going to be proccupied with defending the reality of the field. Further, people who believe that a field is bogus are going to read any review that accepts it as real as preoccupied with defending. Storms' 2010 Review, however, is concerned with presenting the overall status of the field. That's what he does. The abstract is a sober presentation of the state of research. No review of cold fusion could present it as being uncontroversial, because, obviously, there is still some controversy among people. Storms focus in that paper, though, is in presenting the breadth of the evidence. He puts a lot of attention into the heat/helium evidence. Any review of an effect that is not trivial to observe will reiterate the evidence for the effect. You state this as reiterating the reality. You are writing polemic, you know that, right? You are *advocating* a position. I'm asking you why. Storms and 18 other reviews have been published in mainstream journals. I didn't decide that these were mainstream, Britz, a skeptic, did. You've missed something huge. Cold fusion is now routinely accepted as a reality by the peer reviewers at mainstream publications, and it is the purely skeptical view that is being rejected. On which planet? Cold fusion papers appear in a tiny subset of the peer-reviewed literature, mostly second-rate, non-physics journals. They do not appear in APS journals, and certainly not in the prestigious journals like Phys Rev, PRL, Science or Nature, where discoveries of this magnitude would automatically appear if they were accepted as a reality Any field is going to publish in journals that consider work in the field relevant to their readership. Second-rate journals are not interested in trashing their own reputation by publishing fringe nonsense. Presumably you know the history behind the effective blackout in certain journals. However, Naturwissenschaften is not a second-rate, non-physics journal. It's Springer-Verlags flagship multdisciplinary journal. Cold fusion is not a physics field, it's more chemistry, but is cross-disciplinary. This is not the place to go into the shameful history of what became the automatic, non-reviewed rejection of cold fusion research papers in certain journals. It's a well-known scientific scandal, covered in sociological sources. There is a law called Moulton's Law: when a bureaucracy makes a mistake, it is impossible to fix. That's because bureaucracies defend what decisions they made in the past, and I've seen this operate even when the decision is utterly preposterous. Editors reject a paper becauseof A and B. When it's pointed out that A and B are errors, they then reject it because of C and D. And, besides, our readers aren't interested in this nonsense. This is what is really happening: the two largest scientific publishers in the world, Springer-Verlag and Elsevier, are now publishing substantial material on cold fusion. The largest scientific society in the world is now regularly hosting seminars on cold fusion, and publishing, with Oxford University Press, the Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook. The prestigious journals you mention are *holdouts.* The discovery is old news, and current work is not designed to prove that cold fusion is real. Hagelstein's review, also published in Naturwissenschaften last year, covers a detail, setting an upper limit on routine charged particle emission from the reaction (which is of high interest for theoretical work, it kills a whole pile of theories). The work that was recommended by both DoE reviews, but which the DoE never funded, is being done, slowly. And it's being published, because the blackout journals can't control the world. But some people, living in their own peculiar dream, think those journals are the world. Especially U.S. physicists. Cold fusion is just a small field, though there is potential for something big. It's not nuclear physics, in how the research is done. It's chemistry and materials science. It has implications for physics only in a certain detail: it is a demonstration of how the approximations of two-body quantum mechanics break down in condensed matter, which really should have been no
Re: [Vo]:Counter-strike launched in textbook controversy
At 03:54 PM 2/21/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: What about in the core of the sun? What mechanism operates there, if not brute force? All that is necessary is that the temperature be great enough that some level of fusion occurs. It's enough that the Boltzmann tail allows enough nuclei to have enough energy to start tunneling, so, yes, practical fusion would not require the average energy to be brute force. Nor that, even the fusion be taking place by nuclei that run up the hill and make it to the goal, based on the simplified model of a barrier.
Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?
At 02:51 PM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: Yes, I am aware that I do not belong here. I joined because my critique of Levi's interpretation in the Yahoo group was cross-posted here, and was being (ineptly) challenged. I felt I had a good reason to come and defend it. I have joined only conservations relevant to the Rossi device, although inevitably, they tend to stray to the field in general. I will stay to defend things I've written, but will look for an opportunity to bow out. The upshot of this is that, as far as I'm concerned, Joshua is welcome here if he stays within sober consideration of the issues and doesn't use participation here as an excuse to ridicule people holding views he considers fringe. He's made some very cogent commentary, but he may also have strayed over the edge, I'm not judging that. He may also, if he wishes, invite my participation in the Yahoo group, of which I'm unaware. I specifically invite him to help develop educational materials on cold fusion on Wikiversity. It's important that skeptical points of view be represented there, and especially the evidence favoring skeptical positions be covered. http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion I make mistakes. Someone who disagrees with me is more likely to find them, as Joshua may already have done.
[Vo]:Rossi Wrap-up
Nothing new here but a decent wrap up, quoting Rothwell and Krivit: http://www.technewsworld.com/story/Cold-Fusion-It-May-Not-Be-Madness-71916.h tml And there is a slightly contrarian but non-skeptical perspective on the big-picture situation, as it now stands going into Spring 2011. Like or not, unless another experimenter or group - more open to disclosure of the operational details, can approximate the Rossi results of extremely high COP at the kilowatt level, in the next few months leading up to the promised MW demonstration, then it is going to be a frustrating period for LENR researchers at many levels. .since almost no other typical incremental results, especially with deuterium and palladium at the few watts level, are going to generate interest (or funding) . that is, with this 800 pound gorilla in the closet, waiting to get out. This situation could discourage a significant percentage of competent researchers from continuing with what they were doing. The demo in Bologna, from that perspective, could be a net negative for the field in general, on the short term. However, the one thing that would turn that around, and turn it into a huge positive, would be good results at decent power levels - using what may turn out to be a good guess as to what Rossi was thought to be doing - even if the guess is ultimately wrong, but the results are equally strong. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Abd being censured?
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, Horace Heffner wrote: I have seen responses to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax in my vortex-l email, but have seen no original email from him since 26 Jan, 2011. I just discovered that I can see that he is posting if I go to the archives at: Might be eskimo.com recent crash. Or being flaky. Or spam filters at ISP level. Vortex-L ISP has them (eskimo.com) and I'm frequently having to ask eskimo admin to put particular people on their internal whitelist. If yours or Abd's provider becomes a source of spam, and ends up on one of the system-wide RBL blacklists, their mail will stop getting through in some places which use the RBLs to block spammers. Supposedly this happens to enough people on the offending domain so that the admin will be forced to take action against spammers using their system. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
RE: [Vo]:Abd being censured?
I think I've been rcving all the postings... I've got duplicates of the last two of Horaces' where he reposted because he didn't see the original... -Mark -Original Message- From: William Beaty [mailto:bi...@eskimo.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 9:58 AM To: Vortex-L Subject: Re: [Vo]:Abd being censured? On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, Horace Heffner wrote: I have seen responses to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax in my vortex-l email, but have seen no original email from him since 26 Jan, 2011. I just discovered that I can see that he is posting if I go to the archives at: Might be eskimo.com recent crash. Or being flaky. Or spam filters at ISP level. Vortex-L ISP has them (eskimo.com) and I'm frequently having to ask eskimo admin to put particular people on their internal whitelist. If yours or Abd's provider becomes a source of spam, and ends up on one of the system-wide RBL blacklists, their mail will stop getting through in some places which use the RBLs to block spammers. Supposedly this happens to enough people on the offending domain so that the admin will be forced to take action against spammers using their system. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
[Vo]:News section updated with 18-hour Rossi demonstration info.
See: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm Let me know if you don't see this. Google Chrome does not seem to accept the force reload HTML. As far as I know that is supposed to be: meta http-equiv=Pragma content=no-cache meta http-equiv=Expires content=0 Maybe that is out of date? If anyone knows better please contact me. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?
To summarize Cude's position: He does not believe in the scientific method, replication, high signal to noise ratios, peer review, calorimetry or the laws of thermodynamics. To be exact, he believe that whatever pops into his own mind, or what he says I believe, automatically overrules all of the above and the other 400 years of academic science. He does believe in ESP. He thinks that people operating mass spectrometers in blind tests can magically know whether heat was produced in a given experiment. They are biased by this magically-acquired knowledge. You would think that people with such awesome mental powers would also be imbued with a modicum of objectivity and self-knowledge too, but maybe not. I don't know enough about ESP to judge. Very interesting! But not science, as I said. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:News section updated with 18-hour Rossi demonstration info.
From: Jed Rothwell Let me know if you don't see this. Hmm ..
Re: [Vo]:List of Rossi 18-hour test parameters
Here is some additional info on the 18-hour test. I do not think I will add this to the News section. It can wait for a paper from Levi. This may have been reported here by Cousin Peter: Approximately 0.4 g of hydrogen was consumed in 18 hours. This is based on what sounds like a crude estimate to me: measuring the weight of the hydrogen tank before and after the test with the electronic weight scale. The weight scale has a margin of error of 0.1 gram. They measured a 0.3 g difference and they assume it was actually closer to ~0.4. Total energy production was ~1,037 MJ. This seems like much less than you get from a fusion reaction with 0.4 g of hydrogen. Hydrogen fusion yields 1.35 * 10E7 per kilogram says this source, Table 1: http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/1996/TM-107030.pdf So for 0.4 g that would be 54,000 MJ. This is ~1000 MJ, so it is off by a factor of 54. I guess that isn't such a big difference given the crudeness of these measurements. My guess is that hydrogen leaking or absorbing into the materials far outweighs the hydrogen consumed by the reaction. Unless . . . UNLESS! . . . I don't know . . . unless Mills is right? Or the W-L theory is right? It ain't my bailiwick. The experts in theory such as Krivit can hash this out. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:News section updated with 18-hour Rossi demonstration info.
Jones Beene wrote: *From:*Jed Rothwell Let me know if you don't see this. Hmm Or, as the professor said, raise your hand if you are not here. I meant if you don't see anything in the News section at LENR-CANR.org about the 18-hour test. If you see nothing, press Refresh. The HTML is supposed to reach out and press it for you. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:News section updated with 18-hour Rossi demonstration info.
It showed fine, first pass, with Chrome. T
Re: [Vo]:News section updated with 18-hour Rossi demonstration info.
Terry Blanton wrote: It showed fine, first pass, with Chrome. Hmm . . . Maybe I have set some parameter wrong in my copy of Chrome. As long as most people can see it, no big deal - Jed
Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?
At 04:31 PM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: If you examine what's being published, you don't find an attempt to prove it's real, not lately, anyway. You find, in primary research, reports of phenomena that imply reality, discussion of possible explanations that assume CF is possible, etc. In secondary reviews, and there have been nineteen published since 2005, you find acceptance of the phenomenon as a reality. The 19 reviews outnumber the primary research, an indication of a moribund field. The reviews do read like they're trying to convince, and not like the field is already accepted. What's important about the reviwers is their acceptance by peer reviewers. Many of the reviewers themselves are trying to convince, that's true. You are arguing with a straw man, Joshua. It's obvious that many scientists do not accept cold fusion. So people write to explain it. That's somehow unusual or suspicious? The reviews do not outnumber the primary research publications. If we look at recent publications, they are anomalously high, that's true, but the reviews are covering a vast body of literature, not just peer-reviewed work, they cover, as well, conference papers. I don't have a count for the primary papers, but mainstream peer-reviewed publication for the period of the 19 reviews is about 50 papers, using the Britz database. The latest is Storms (2010) published in Naturwissenschaften, Status of cld fusion (2010). That review now represents what mainstream reviewers will accept. It represents what reviewers at Naturwissenschaften will accept ... in a review. The dearth of primary research in peer-reviewed journals, and the fact that Storms references, especially later ones, are mostly to conference proceesings, represents how little mainstream reviewers accept. So you can present a negative side. Science moves on, Joshua, and we are seeing what science does when a political faction in the scientific community manages to bypass the scientific process and sits on research. It starts to leak out. There were many negative replications published. Later work shows that those replication attemps could be expected to fail to find anything, because they did not, in fact, replicate, they did not reach the apparently necessary 90% loading. At that time, 70% was considered to be about the maximum attainable. To go above that took special techniques that the replicators did not know and understand. Well, good. But this loading requirement has been known since the very early 90s, and still, in reviews as late as 2007, reproducibility of 1/3 is reported. And still they can't make enough power to power itself. 1/3 is plenty for correlation studies. You, and others like you, have invented an non-existent standard that scientific research should meet. If there is a drug that will cure a disease one-third of the time, there will be great excitement! You are now stating the low end of reproduction (without specific reference) and neglecting the high end. I don't have much data on the Energetics Techologies primary work, but it was replicated by McKubre and ENEA, reported in the American Chemical Society Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook, 2008. 23 cells were run and reported by McKubre. Excess power as a percentage of input power was given. They only gave specific excess power results if they reacjed 5% of input power, though their calorimetry has, I think, substantially better resolution than that. Of the 23 cells, 14 showed excess power at or above 5%. Two were at 5%, two were above 100% (200% and 300%), and the rest were intermediate. Only six cells were reported from ENEA, in a common but frustrating practice of only reporting successful cells. We do not understand the success of a technique unless we understand *how often* it's successful. One of those cells, it's claimed, showed 7000% of input power. I can look at reports like this and find many deficiencies in what is reported, as I've hinted above with ENEA. This is very complex work, and I understand that the relatively brief publications in work like the Sourcebook must be abridged. But the lack of detail leaves me unable to assess the statistical significance of the ENEA results. They ran hydrogen controls (how many? several What's wrong with stating numbers?) I look at Table 1 in this paper and wish that it had simply presented the actual results, instead of filtering it and summarizing part. I'd want, for every cell, the actual measured or estimated excess energy. The chart presents excess power, but filters out *most* data below 5% of input power (presumably steady state input power at the times of the appearance of excess power). Filtering out the low end disallows understanding how the phenomenon operates under marginal conditions. In some work, helium is
Re: [Vo]:Rossi credibility
At 05:38 PM 2/21/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: His strategy might be reasonable. But a consequence of that strategy is that I'm not going to believe that Rossi is a demonstration of cold fusion. That's rather short-sighted of you. It would be, perhaps, if I needed to know. I don't. You will soon, if we get a better report from Levi. I think you can be 95% sure it is real now. The fraud hypothesis is awfully far fetched, and getter farther fetched with each new test. Frankly, I don't think it is worth worrying about. I'm not leaning on the fraud hypothesis. I'm merely noting that it exists, and that, given some aspects of this affair, it's not entirely unreasonable. You are now reporting a general confirmation, i.e., someone else reporting high levels of power with NiH. Hey, we might have to toss BlackLight Power in there, too. Again, depending on so many details about which we know nothing, so far, and may not ever know. What do you mean we Kemo Sabe? (Quoting the old joke about the Lone Ranger surrounded by hostile Indians.) The operative word here is may. I've argued that making a huge fuss over Rossi simply discredits the field . . . I don't see why. For one thing, other researchers are not responsible for what Rossi claims, except perhaps Focardi. Levi is not a cold fusion research. Or he wasn't before Jan. 14. this isn't how politics works, Jed. It's how things would work if the world were fair. Some of the damage will be done anyway. People are already using Rossi as an example of overblown, inflated claims. I don't see any damage. People will say that it is fraud or inflated no matter who makes what claim. Heck, they say that about Energetics Tech., even after SRI replicated them spot on with some cathodes. So far I have not seen any evidence that Rossi has made inflated claims. On the contrary, he said it was 12 kW and it was probably closer to 15 kW. That will not surprise anyone familiar with calorimetry. The method they used was very lossy, as I said. That could backfire, for them, but, then, if Rossi doesn't show up with his 1 MW reactor, we end up looking very foolish. I doubt he will complete that within a year! I am hoping we can persuade him to let the NRL and others test the smaller gadget. That's better than a 1 MW machine. More convincing, in a way. I'd agree. I sure as heck would not want to be present in Florida when they turn on the big machine! The radiation Celani detected lasted for a fraction of a second. If something like that lasts for a few seconds, I imagine it might kill everyone within 100 m. It seems like a stupendously bad idea to scale up to 1 MW at this stage. Depends on how they do it. Given that the market for a 10 KW generator might be much greater than the market for a 1 MW generator, I don't understand the thinking If someone trusts Rossi, thinks that his work is solid, great. I wouldn't trust Rossi personally as far as I can throw him. I trust calorimetry. I trust that no stage magician or con-man can fool a watt-meter or thermometer. I have never heard of an incident in which a con-man did manage to fool scientists using their own, off-the-shelf instruments. That's not quite complete. If you can bring in the instruments, but the con man controls the environment, a fraud remains possible. The game Rossi is laying excludes independent confirmation. His choice. Believe me, I have seen and heard of a wide variety of con-men and bogus over-unity energy claims. I am practically an expert on that. None of them stood up to more than a few days of tests. None were replicated, and none were replications of previous work (as Rossi is). Maybe. You say so, and that means something to me. Don't forget that Levi et al. conducted tests and calibrations for 6 weeks prior the Jan. 14 test. It there was something like a hidden thermal mass, they would have seen that in a few hours the first day. You do not have to know anything about what is in the machine to see that. Calorimetry alone tells you a great deal about a black box. As I said, so far, it is the only reliable means we have of knowing anything about the contents or inner workings of the cathode black boxes in Pd-D cold fusion. If there is a con, I don't know who would be in on it. Absolutely, I'm not making accusations against anyone here. I'm just sitting back and saying, if he does what he says he's going to do, okay, it's real. If he doesn't, the world is vast and possiblities endless. Meanwhile, I'm not rushing out to get materials for NiH experiments. I've got enough to do just keeping body and soul together. I have, as you know, some unfinished business.
Fw: [Vo]:Rossi Wrap-up
Like or not, unless another experimenter or group - more open to disclosure of the operational details, can approximate the Rossi results of extremely high COP at the kilowatt level, in the next few months leading up to the promised MW demonstration, then it is going to be a frustrating period for LENR researchers at many levels. I agree there needs to be an independent replication of the device that offers an open demo. I fear that if Rossi fails to produce a 1MW system by Sept then the field will be harmed. I am working on a path similar to Rossi (high temp gas loading) but with only sporadic and inconsistent results. I do have the capability to work up to 1 or 2 kW with ease and higher with a little modification. I would be happy to receive help in an effort to replicate the Rossi system. I am talking actual physical support not talk or money. - material preparation, machining,... Please let me know if anyone finds out exactly what Rossi is using and the conditions. Let me know if anyone wishes to join forces. I feel we are at a tipping point. Either Rossi is correct and things will develop quickly, or he is wrong and there will be great damage to the field. Someone somewhere needs to do an independent replication or at least an attempt - hopefully with Rossi's blessings , but it needs to be done. A replication would need to be completely open to serious investigators. I am welcome to the idea of an open lab. (within reason) My guess is that Rossi will to busy between now and Sept to do such a thing himself. Dennis Cravens
Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: The massive rejection of cold fusion, which extended to rejection of a graduate student thesis solely because it involved cold fusion research, and once the news of that got around, cut off the normal supply of labor for replication work. Nobody gets a Nobel Prize for boring replication, running the same experiment that others have run, over and over, and nobody gets rich from it. As I investigated cold fusion, I saw this, and I'm working, myself, subject to my own rather severe limitations, to fix this, I'm designing and constructing a single, very specific experiment, that anyone could replicate with about $100 and a power supply. But this work is not designed to prove cold fusion. All it will do, if the replication succeeds, is show a few neutrons per hour. (The design is, I hope, insensitive to normal charged particle radiation, and will effectively exclude background.) Will that $100 include neutron detection? -- Never did I see a second sun Never did my skin touch a land of glass Never did my rifle point but true But in a land empty of enemies Waiting for the tick-tick-tick of the want A uranium angel Crying “behold,” This land that knew fire is yours Taken from Corruption To begin anew
Re: [Vo]:List of Rossi 18-hour test parameters
On Feb 22, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Here is some additional info on the 18-hour test. I do not think I will add this to the News section. It can wait for a paper from Levi. This may have been reported here by Cousin Peter: Approximately 0.4 g of hydrogen was consumed in 18 hours. This is based on what sounds like a crude estimate to me: measuring the weight of the hydrogen tank before and after the test with the electronic weight scale. The weight scale has a margin of error of 0.1 gram. They measured a 0.3 g difference and they assume it was actually closer to ~0.4. Total energy production was ~1,037 MJ. This seems like much less than you get from a fusion reaction with 0.4 g of hydrogen. Hydrogen fusion yields 1.35 * 10E7 per kilogram says this source, Table 1: http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/1996/TM-107030.pdf So for 0.4 g that would be 54,000 MJ. This is ~1000 MJ, so it is off by a factor of 54. I guess that isn't such a big difference given the crudeness of these measurements. My guess is that hydrogen leaking or absorbing into the materials far outweighs the hydrogen consumed by the reaction. Unless . . . UNLESS! . . . I don't know . . . unless Mills is right? Or the W-L theory is right? It ain't my bailiwick. The experts in theory such as Krivit can hash this out. - Jed This 270kWh per 0.4 g if hydrogen is obviously well beyond chemical if the consumables actually are H and Ni. The energy E per H is: E = (270kwh) /(0.4 g * Na / (1.00797 gm/mol)) = 2.54x10^4 eV / H E = 25.4 keV per atom of H. This is about 2.5 times the ionization energy of the innermost electron of Ni. This is well under expected conventional weak reaction energies feasible between protons and Ni, but not out of the range of feasibility for hydrino reactions, or deflation fusion reactions. Deflation fusion reactions which do not involve the weak force can trigger shuffles between electron quantum levels post reaction, due to the post fusion reaction electron escape, and thus radiate a significant amount of x-ray and EUV energy. Here are some candidate Ni + H deflation fusion reactions, not involving the weak force, all of which show a net initial energy deficit, but positive net reaction energy, thus making strong force reactions feasible which generate x- rays and EUV: 58Ni28 + 2 p* -- 32S16 + 28Si14 + 1.859 MeV [-15.209 MeV] (H_Ni:1) 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 32S16 + 30Si14 + 00.554 MeV [-16.327 MeV] (H_Ni:2) 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 34S16 + 28Si14 + 1.530 MeV [-15.351 MeV] (H_Ni:3) 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 50Cr24 + 12C6 + 00.365 MeV [-16.516 MeV] (H_Ni:4) 60Ni28 + 2 p* -- 58Ni28 + 4He2 + 7.909 MeV [-8.973 MeV] (H_Ni:5) 61Ni28 + 2 p* -- 33S16 + 30Si14 + 1.376 MeV [-15.416 MeV] (H_Ni:6) 61Ni28 + 2 p* -- 34S16 + 29Si14 + 2.184 MeV [-14.608 MeV] (H_Ni:7) 61Ni28 + 2 p* -- 47Ti22 + 16O8 + 00.026 MeV [-16.765 MeV] (H_Ni:8) 62Ni28 + p* -- 59Co27 + 4He2 + 00.346 MeV [-7.760 MeV] (H_Ni:9) 62Ni28 + p* -- 63Cu29 + 6.122 MeV [-1.984 MeV] (H_Ni:10) 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 34S16 + 30Si14 + 2.197 MeV [-14.507 MeV] (H_Ni:11) 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 48Ti22 + 16O8 + 1.057 MeV [-15.647 MeV] (H_Ni:12) 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 52Cr24 + 12C6 + 3.249 MeV [-13.455 MeV] (H_Ni:13) 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 60Ni28 + 4He2 + 9.879 MeV [-6.825 MeV] (H_Ni:14) 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 63Cu29 + 1H1 + 6.122 MeV [-10.582 MeV] (H_Ni:15) 62Ni28 + 2 p* -- 64Zn30 + 13.835 MeV [-2.869 MeV] (H_Ni:16) 64Ni28 + p* -- 65Cu29 + 7.453 MeV [-0.569 MeV] (H_Ni:17) 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 36S16 + 30Si14 + 2.576 MeV [-13.958 MeV] (H_Ni:18) 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 50Ti22 + 16O8 + 3.642 MeV [-12.891 MeV] (H_Ni:19) 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 54Cr24 + 12C6 + 4.411 MeV [-12.122 MeV] (H_Ni:20) 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 62Ni28 + 4He2 + 11.800 MeV [-4.734 MeV] (H_Ni:21) 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 65Cu29 + 1H1 + 7.453 MeV [-9.080 MeV] (H_Ni:22) 64Ni28 + 2 p* -- 66Zn30 + 16.378 MeV [-0.155 MeV] (H_Ni:23) taken from: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RptH http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt Fusion Product Chart for Ni + n p reactions Relative Percent Abs. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Z Percent El.||||||||||| 1 3.142H |*** 2 10.106 He |* 6 1.019C |* 8 00.489 O |* 14 00.804 Si |* 16 00.804 S |* 22 00.489 Ti |* 24 1.019 Cr |* 27 00.068 Co |* 28 10.038 Ni |* 29 56.507 Cu |** 30 15.517 Zn |** ||||||||||| 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7080 90 100 The above chart is merely a very approximate visual aid to show feasible reaction product probabilities by a rule of thumb estimate. Copper is visualized as a most likely product. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi credibility
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: I don't see why. For one thing, other researchers are not responsible for what Rossi claims, except perhaps Focardi. Levi is not a cold fusion research. Or he wasn't before Jan. 14. this isn't how politics works, Jed. It's how things would work if the world were fair. N. I don't see a problem here. The mass media has not heard of Rossi. If they do hear about him they will dismiss him instantly as a fraud. They will not bother to run a story. No one outside of a small number of cold fusion aficionados takes these reports seriously. Besides, we have so much political opposition already, a little extra helping will not matter. Maybe if he actually makes and installs a 1 MW reactor, people will start to take notice, but not the the mass media. They'll dismiss it as a fraud without bothering to check. Rossi thinks the 1 MW reactor will give him credibility, but I do not think so. He would gain much more credibility if he would only allow the NRL to test his machine, but I doubt that will happen. I do not understand why, but he does not want more independent tests of his machine. It sure makes him look bad, doesn't it? I cannot persuade him to do anything. Neither I nor anyone else seems to have any influence over him. He politely refuses to consider any suggestions. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:List of Rossi 18-hour test parameters
Horace Heffner wrote: The above chart is merely a very approximate visual aid to show feasible reaction product probabilities by a rule of thumb estimate. Copper is visualized as a most likely product. Izzatso? So you think the reports of copper can be explained by your theory? - Jed
[Vo]:[OT] Horseman of the Apocalypse
Watch for the next one in Wisconsin. This one appears around 1:15 on the time clock. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UKz3GVrHI8 T
[Vo]:Larsen Windom Patent - no test data?
The Larsen Windom Patent on gamma shielding: Apparatus and method for absorption of incident gamma radiation and its conversion to outgoing radiation at less penetrating, lower energies and frequencies : http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser? Sect1=PTO2Sect2=HITOFFp=1u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- bool.htmlr=1f=Gl=50co1=ANDd=PTXTs1=7893414.PN.OS=PN/ 7893414RS=PN/7893414 http://tinyurl.com/47al74f was heralded by NET: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/02/22/cold-fusioneers-complain- lenr-researchers-patent/ http://tinyurl.com/46zgbfu It is notable that, despite the huge amount of content on cold fusion and LENR, it is not a patent on a nuclear energy production method, merely a gamma shielding method. Also, unless I missed it, there does not seem to be any test data provided in the patent proving the method works. It would seem sending a gamma beam through such thin shielding material and *measuring* attenuation would be the minimal level of proof required to show that the theory is not completely bogus. Again the authors make the absurd claim that cold fusion reactions do not encompass weak reactions: Together, the four scientific papers by the present inventors comprising Attachments 1-4 can explain all of the major features exhibited in many seemingly anomalous experiments (lumped under the unfortunate term cold fusion) that have previously been regarded by many as theoretically inexplicable. In contrast to other earlier theories involving penetration of Coulomb barriers, the present Invention's methods and apparatus for creating low energy nuclear reactions are scientifically reasonable within the context of the well-accepted standard model of electroweak interaction physics. The key process responsible for producing most of the experimentally observed anomalies explained by these publications is not any form of cold fusion, nor is it any form of fission. On the contrary, the key physical processes driving the unique behavior of these systems are primarily weak interactions. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Wrap-up
What part of the country are you in? Rossi will see any work at replication as an attempt to steal his pot of gold. I wouldn't bother asking for his blessing. Sent from my iPhone. On Feb 22, 2011, at 16:18, Dennis den...@netmdc.com wrote: Like or not, unless another experimenter or group - more open to disclosure of the operational details, can approximate the Rossi results of extremely high COP at the kilowatt level, in the next few months leading up to the promised MW demonstration, then it is going to be a frustrating period for LENR researchers at many levels. I agree there needs to be an independent replication of the device that offers an open demo. I fear that if Rossi fails to produce a 1MW system by Sept then the field will be harmed. I am working on a path similar to Rossi (high temp gas loading) but with only sporadic and inconsistent results. I do have the capability to work up to 1 or 2 kW with ease and higher with a little modification. I would be happy to receive help in an effort to replicate the Rossi system. I am talking actual physical support not talk or money. - material preparation, machining,... Please let me know if anyone finds out exactly what Rossi is using and the conditions. Let me know if anyone wishes to join forces. I feel we are at a tipping point. Either Rossi is correct and things will develop quickly, or he is wrong and there will be great damage to the field. Someone somewhere needs to do an independent replication or at least an attempt - hopefully with Rossi's blessings , but it needs to be done. A replication would need to be completely open to serious investigators. I am welcome to the idea of an open lab. (within reason) My guess is that Rossi will to busy between now and Sept to do such a thing himself. Dennis Cravens
Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?
At 05:46 AM 2/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Excess heat is an experimental result. Excess heat is an interpretation of experimental results. Sure. So are all experimental results that aren't just dumps of raw data. If it is the result of an artifact, it should be possible to identify the artifact. Maybe, but it takes time and effort. Time and effort that skeptics are not inclined to commit because they do not find the results compelling enough. Great. But skeptics will devote great time and effort to ridiculing others who do spend time actually performing those experiments, trying to ensure that work is not published, that journals which publish the work are attacked, attempts being made to get editors fired, getting a patent examiner fired because he organized an alternative energy conference, and filling the internet with obviously bogus theories that radically contradict experimental evidence, all the while claiming that it's the others who are guilty of Bad Science. Don't find results compelling, fine! Then ignore them! If the result is not an artifact, the thinking goes, a better experiment should be possible. It is always possible to design a better experiment. Joshua, look at P13/P14 from McKubre's work. The chart shown on p. 2 of the Hagelstein review paper is from that. Notice on the abscissa of that chart the scale in hours. And then realize how much time it takes to run work like that. And then sit back and suggest better experiments to the people who are actually running them. McKubre was not working for you, he was working for the Electric Power Research Institute, and he did his job. Convincing you was not part of his job. It still is not part of his job. This is the point, Joshua: There are hundreds of researchers who have reported significant anomalous heat from palladium deuteride. The large number is actually disturbing. Right. CF researchers can't win. If there are just a few experiments, they are cherry-picked and just a handful of fanatics. If there are hundreds, well, obviously this is poor work. So many experiments, and they never get better. They can't come up with one that captures the attention of mainstream. Perhaps there is no mainstream with a brain. People are people, they mostly act like ... people. Once they have made up their mind about something, they tend to not look back. That's the norm, Joshua. And scientists are ... people. Only a few are willing to set aside their prior work and look anew. You have not disclosed anything about yourself. What's your history with this topic? They can't make an isolated device that generates heat. In fact, consistent with other pathological science, the size of the effect (with the exception of the dubious Rossi device) has become smaller over the years. Science doesn't work that way. Pathological science does. This is simply not true, again. It's a common claim. This is the way this works: 1. A characteristic of pathological science is that as measurement accuracy is increased, results become less significant. 2. Cold fusion is pathological science. 3. It has happened that some cold fusion results disappeared when errors were fixed and measurement accuracy was fixed. 4. Therefore the size of the effect has become smaller over the years. The effect I'm nost concerned about is heat/helium. That's been measured over the years. The first results gave only a power of ten for helium, the measurements were crude and difficult, because of the presence of confounding D2, which has almost the same mass as He-4. Those results gave helium within an order of magnitude of the value expected for deuterium fusion as the source of excess heat. This work has been repeated with increased accuracy. The result is that the experimental value got closer to the 23.8 MeV figure expected for deuterium fusion. There is no contrary experimental evidence. Notice that this result does not depend on reliability of the excess heat effect. It only requires that helium be measured in the same experiments as excess energy. Notice, excess energy, i.e., integrated excess power. It's like hundreds of thousands of alien and ufo sightings, but none quite good enough to be convincing. The better the photography, the less convincing the image. Great. However, what I've seen is the opposite. The better the experimental techniques, the clearer the image. Deuterium fusion is what I see in this camera. My question to you is, it seems that you believe there is no excess heat. From what does this belief stem? You haven't been listening. From the absence of any progress. From the inability to generate heat indefinitely from and isolated device. But that's not relevant. Muon-catalyzed fusion is accepted as real without any progress at all, along the lines you
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Wrap-up
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com wrote: What part of the country are you in? I think Dr. Cravens remains at the Eastern University of New Mexico. T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Wrap-up
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: I think Dr. Cravens remains at the Eastern University of New Mexico. (Ruidoso is only about 80 miles from Roswell)
Re: [Vo]:List of Rossi 18-hour test parameters
On Feb 22, 2011, at 2:11 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: The above chart is merely a very approximate visual aid to show feasible reaction product probabilities by a rule of thumb estimate. Copper is visualized as a most likely product. Izzatso? So you think the reports of copper can be explained by your theory? - Jed Not 30% of *actual* copper from Ni, as I posted earlier. The predominant element from ordinary LENR is copper, but only from the lesser abundance Ni isotopes. If a 30% conversion to copper is actually observed (which seems questionable at this point), then 58Ni and/or 60Ni must be involved. This and an alternative explanation (however tenuously speculative) for high *apparent* copper percentages were posted here earlier and appended below. I should also note the feasibility of deflation fusion reactions with hypernuclei, which could have unanticipated outcomes. It is known hypernuclei can support (bind to) up to two sigma+ or lambdas. A sigma+ can decay into an ordinary proton (plus other stuff), so this could provide a direct pathway to ordinary copper. On Jan 25, 2011, at 1:40 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: If the experiment is not a boondoggle, and there was actually observed by Rossi a 30% conversion of *all* the Ni to Cu, then it could simply be the copper is not really copper. It would then seem necessary 58Ni must be involved. I showed some potential strange reactions earlier: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg41755.html You can see that one of them, as a subreaction: p (938.27 MeV/c2) + e - sigma+ (1189.3 MeV/c2) + K0 ( 497.6 MeV/ c2) + e would replace a proton in the new copper with a sigma+. The resulting hyperon copper [copper hypernuclei] would be chemically indistinguishable from copper. I have no idea how long such material might be stable, or what the trigger energy would be to force decay kinetically if it is otherwise stable. Trigger energies for light hyperons [hypernuclei], like helium, are very low, on the order of 20 kEv. As I noted earlier, the following reactions work fine creating ordinary Ni in the deflation fusion process: 62Ni28 + p* -- 63Cu29 + 6.122 MeV [-1.984 MeV] (B_Ni:28) 64Ni28 + p* -- 65Cu29 + 7.453 MeV [-0.569 MeV] (B_Ni:60) However, if 30% quantities of Cu are actually found, then some 58Ni must be transmuted to non-radioactive copper. We know 59Cu is radioactive. We don't know if 59Cu with a sigma+ replacing a proton is stable, or quasi-stable. Note also, that the neutral lambda0 reactions can both create transmuted Ni which appears to have added neutrons . This could happen numerous times per Ni. In this way 59Ni , 60Ni, 61Ni, and 62Ni hyperons [hypernuclei] containing lambda0 particles could be created. These could then be transmuted by an ordinary transmutation, or a sigma+ creating transmutation, to produce what appears to the eye to be normal Cu, but which is not. A sample from Rossi's device showing in mass spectroscopy an unusual amount of 59Ni, and no signs of EC, would be an indictor this is happening. All this is extremely speculative, especially given that we know almost nothing about Rossi's device. I do find it worrisome that the gamma counts were irregular as the counter was moved about by hand. If strange quark reactions are taking place in the device, then the signature would be K0_long particles, which in part decay into positrons. They would act like neutral neutrons close to experiment, and then can decay a meter or more away from the experiment, endangering the operators. The gamma counts might actually increase with distance up to a meter away from the experiment, if the K0's are normal, further if their low excitation energy permits a longer half-life. One thing I do now feel fairly confidant is possible, that apparently no else believes is possible, is that strange pairs exist, are created from the vacuum, within protons and neutrons, and that high mass deflated electrons, if they exist, can catalyze virtual strange quark separation into real independent quarks resident in separate fissioned particles. If this is truly feasible and safely engineerable, then infinite Isp drives are feasible, as is light speed travel, as well as an infinite source of energy. On Jan 21, 2011, at 4:23 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Jan 21, 2011, at 8:31 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: That device working for 6 months has produced approx. 50,000 kWhours heat. Can this be explained by the reaction of transmutation of Ni to Cu? Considering first 300 grams of nichel...? Rossi can tell how much Ni is uesd - if he will. Am important rough energy balance anyway. Peter There are some very fundamental issues, and mysteries involved. The fundamental questions relate to exactly what reactions are involved. Some do not produce copper, so the new copper content only
RE: [Vo]:[OT] Horseman of the Apocalypse
Coincidentally, I had just started reading The Twelfth Imam and the thought occurred - 'how would the West deal with an emergent Mahdi,' assuming that there were valid miracles being performed over there? Pat Robertson would no doubt be fouling his drawers, so to speak -Original Message- From: Terry Watch for the next one in Wisconsin. This one appears around 1:15 on the time clock. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UKz3GVrHI8
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Wrap-up
in S. N.M. (Cloudcroft) I would think that he considers himself covered or he would not have gone public with a demo. Notice that in one of his interviews he said - let others go and do the same. I doubt that the patent office will grant anything unless he fully discloses his material and methods. He should know that by now. I would think that any of his patent applications would start to appear within a year of the demo. Basically, I have to put in additives of a rare earth, Th or U to get much effect and I have to have a mix of inert material (zeolite, Al or Zr oxide, silicate...) to isolate my active particles. Mine always sintered after a few cycles if I did not. ... However I am nowhere near his levels. -only still around 1W/gram. ( about the same as presented at ICCF 14 poster session). -- From: Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 6:10 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi Wrap-up What part of the country are you in? Rossi will see any work at replication as an attempt to steal his pot of gold. I wouldn't bother asking for his blessing. Sent from my iPhone.
RE: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?
At 08:54 AM 2/22/2011, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: From: Joshua Cude From Lomax: This is the point, Joshua: There are hundreds of researchers who have reported significant anomalous heat from palladium deuteride. The large number is actually disturbing. So many experiments, and they never get better. They can't come up with one that captures the attention of mainstream. They can't make an isolated device that generates heat. In fact, consistent with other pathological science, the size of the effect (with the exception of the dubious Rossi device) has become smaller over the years. Science doesn't work that way. Pathological science does. I've read enuf... yeah, I agree. Confident assertion of what is blatantly false. And more, I went into it in detail, unfortunately. Now, I know why I have not wanted to dwell too much on this particular thread. Life's too short. I try to dispense what limited resources I have left in my life wisely. Aw, you are entirely too sensible. Mr. Lomax: There's an old saying. I'm sure you've heard of it. Do not cast pearls before swine. Yeah, I know the saying. I don't agree with thinking of people, from shallow evidence, as swine. I prefer to first hear some snorts, see some wallowing in the mud, maybe some very strange lipstick, you know, pig stuff. Besides, I think pigs are cool. I just don't lay pearls before them. They don't know what to do with them. But others do, sometimes. Nevertheless, I wasted far too much time on this today and yesterday. I was wrong. I saw sufficient cogent argument there that I thought we'd caught that rare bird in CF discussions, a genuine skeptic. Not one-o-them pseudos. Mr. Cude: Relying on subjective circular reasoning to validate your POV is no way to go through life, win friends and influence people. But by all means, continue to hug your cactus. My two cents. Mr Cude will doubtless continue to believe that his arguments are cogent and that anyone rejecting it is simply too attached to recognize True Brilliance, simple Sober Prudence, Common Sense, and Stable and Proper Belief in Established Scientific Consensus. Which means, of course, What I Believe. My remaining puzzle is Who is This Guy? I know a Joshua, real name, who might write like him. Style seemed a little different, but these kids, grad students, generally, do grow up and mature. Maybe. The line of argument was generally different, so I'm not placing bets on that ID. Joshua Cude's main argument is new, in fact, I've never heard the skeptical position stated quite like that. There is often a tinge of it, some use of the lack of the Killer Obvious Unquestionable Demo, for under $99.50, with Idiot-Proof Instructions, postpaid, as if it were a scientific proof of some kind, but never so explicitly -- since is it so obviously flawed. I have a sense of serious familiarity with CF history, combined with some very strange lacunae, which might simply represent trolling. I.e., he's stating stuff he knows to be false, or certainly very shaky, just to get a reaction. Maybe he's just a very fast study, and has done a Whole Lot of Reading this last month. Which would kinda contradict his stated position: this is totally bogus, not worth the time of day. Some mysteries may never be solved. If he had his way, cold fusion would be one of those. He does not want it solved, he's really uninterested in what the Great Artifact might be, because he wants what will make it moot so that he doesn't have to think, weigh, investigate, consider contradictory evidence, seek the harmonizing reality under it all. You know, real science, that does this with the entire lab notebook.
Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?
At 10:18 AM 2/22/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 02/21/2011 03:01 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: Promises have been made by Pons Fleischmann first in 1989 (just watch their interviews on youtube, where they claim it is the ideal energy source: clean and unlimited and simple) and then by just about every cold fusion advocate since, including McKubre on 60 minutes promising cars that don't need refueling, Rothwell's entire book of promises, and promises from shady characters like Dardik and Rossi. There are endless promises every time the topic arises. [...] Cold fusion [...] has not delivered. That's true in a field I've spent some time working in, too. People promise all sorts of things, and then the things show up years late, or more often never show up as promised, at all. In fact, I've made promises which later turned out to be impossible to deliver on, weren't even possible in theory, as we figured out much later. So, I guess the stuff I work with is all bunk, all just phony-baloney, it's lies and coverups, it can't be real, because we don't succeed in delivering on our promises. It's really too bad, if the sort of stuff I worked on were real, it would make a big difference to the world. But we miss on our promises, so it's all hokum; that's totally conclusive, air-tight reasoning, Joshua sure hit the nail on the head there. Too bad. I'm a programmer, by the way. Well, that explains it. Programs don't exist, the relationship between input and output is random, and attempts to show correlation have completely failed. If information technology were real, it would be reliable, and we would always get the same output. People are fools to believe that a hunk of sand could handle information and make decisions based on it, it's a fantasy, a product of wishful thinking, fed by 1960s science fiction. When I was young, people were still sensible enough to know that this would be impossible, but the aggressive sales forces of Intel and Fairchild and so forth overcame our common sense, and now we spend huge amounts of time and money on complete fantasy, such as these conversations, which clearly do not exist.
Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: Any review of an effect that is not trivial to observe will reiterate the evidence for the effect. I checked the abstract for a review of high temp superconductivity (which incidentally has 100,000 publications in the last 20 years), and it mentions progress in developing applications and theories, it does not say supporting evidence has accumulated, or evidence supports the claims... However, Naturwissenschaften is not a second-rate, non-physics journal. It's Springer-Verlags flagship multdisciplinary journal. Impact factor is 2.something, and it certainly is non-physics. At least, I couldn't find any physics luminaries who have published there in the last 30 or 40 years. (It was different in the 20s and 30s.) It's not an insignificant journal, it's just that publishing there is not an indication of general acceptance, but rather an indication that the paper couldn't get published in a more appropriate journal. And considering the importance of a real cold fusion effect, that means it's being largely dismissed by the mainstream. Cold fusion is not a physics field, it's more chemistry, but is cross-disciplinary. Cold fusion would revolutionize the field of fusion if it were valid. Physics journals would fight to publish the results, if they felt they were credible. It is a physics field, whether you There is a law called Moulton's Law: when a bureaucracy makes a mistake, it is impossible to fix. If cold fusion were to turn out to be real, it would of course be huge, and very embarrassing to all the skeptics. They would not take the chance unless they believed sincerely, and with high degree of certainty, that it is bogus, Moulton's law or not. This is what is really happening: the two largest scientific publishers in the world, Springer-Verlag and Elsevier, are now publishing substantial material on cold fusion. Big deal. Publishers get paid to publish. It is the editorial boards of journals that must answer to content. Elsevier publishes on the paranormal, homeopathy, and astrology too. Cold fusion is just a small field, though there is potential for something big. It's not nuclear physics, in how the research is done. It's chemistry and materials science. It has implications for physics only in a certain detail: it is a demonstration of how the approximations of two-body quantum mechanics break down in condensed matter, which really should have been no surprise, I learned from Feynman, personally, that we didn't know how to do the math in those complex environments. We have severe difficulty with anything other than the simplest three-body problems. That sounds like a pretty big detail in *physics*. But quantum mechanics is used to analyze condensed matter with more than 3 bodies. The 3-body problem in nuclear physics is more difficult, but nuclear forces are short-range; it's pretty implausible that the hugely spaced lattice has much effect on nuclear forces. But, whatever, it is definitely physics. However, the ash was found and confirmed, and the neat thing about this is that it finesses the debate over excess heat. Not sufficiently convincingly to the DOE panel, or to the physics community in general. And lots of cold fusion evidence is like that. It's a wall of fact, difficult to penetrate and understand. And yet heat is dead simple to penetrate and understand. That's my problem. The massive rejection of cold fusion, which extended to rejection of a graduate student thesis solely because it involved cold fusion research, Well, a usual criterion for a PhD is that it contributes to scientific knowledge, and is publishable. I don't know if was published or not, but one can argue that the entire field has not contributed to scientific knowledge. Nobody gets a Nobel Prize for boring replication, running the same experiment that others have run, over and over, and nobody gets rich from it. But many new avenues begin with replication. And scientists know that. That's why so many physicists from the modern physics revolution became famous. They accepted new results eagerly, replicated and extended. There was a lot of low-hanging fruit. If CF were real, the same would be true. However, as I'm sure you know, a number of Nobel Prize-winning physicists did not think it was impossible, and tried to develop theories of how it might work. One tried to develop theories, but Schwinger was in his twilight years by then, and not many physicists took him seriously. One is a number I guess. Josephson has expressed support for cold fusion, and for the paranormal. Hmmm. Who else? And if we're going to decide the matter by lining up the opinions of prestigious scientists, there are a lot more on the skeptical side. My favorite theory is Takahashi's Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate theory, but it's obviously incomplete and probably is only a clue to the
Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?
Neither Joshua nor I are implacable doctrinaire skeptics. Again, I am very impressed by the clarity and scope of Joshua Cude's assessments. Now, it is clear that he has been monitoring cold fusion adequately for many years. Cold fusion has always been a moribund field, as I observed carefully from 1997 to about 2003 -- the image that comes to my mind now is that of a random scatter of bird seed under the feeder, becoming a variety of seedlings that never thrive, mature, or leave new generations. I like Jed, and I like Abd. Joshua's replies to their arguments are convincing. Their debate deserves thoughtful and repeated study -- perhaps a classic clarifying contribution in the process of cold fusion work since 1989. Jed has rendered careful, responsible service for years by archiving full papers on all aspects of the explorations, along with some good critical work, for instance, on the Arata reports. Abd is devoting much time and effort to enable anyone to prove neutron emissions with a small, low-cost deuterium-palladium electrolysis cell. I suggest he supply a weekly post on his progress, sharing all data immediately real-time, including full high-resolution views of both sides of the sensitive plastic. Why not share duplicates of his first cell with other researchers -- Ludwik Kowalski, Scott Little, Pam Boss? Could more such scientists form a common public website for this single device? During a long meditation today, I wondered about the floor under Rossi's demo -- is there a space under it that could allow wires or thin metal tapes to carry 15 KW electric power from public electric power on a different meter than that for the building, with provision for delivery of the power up the table legs to the device -- that would be about $1.50 per hour -- the justification for this suggestion is that all ideas have to be aired in trying to assess this perplexing drama -- well, if it turns out to be a hoax, Rossi can make a bundle selling the movie rights -- but I would prefer him to be revealed as totally right on, so I can be a wrong off floating brown shiny object... Rich
Re: Fw: [Vo]:Rossi Wrap-up
Abd Lomax is devoting much time and effort to enable anyone to prove neutron emissions with a small, low-cost deuterium-palladium electrolysis cell. I suggest he supply a weekly post on his progress, sharing all data immediately real-time, including full high-resolution views of both sides of the sensitive plastic. Why not share duplicates of his first cell with other researchers -- Ludwik Kowalski, Scott Little, Pam Boss? Could more such scientists form a common public website for this single device? I'll treat you to a meal, if you show up in Santa Fe: Rich Murray 505-819-7388 rmfor...@gmail.com 1943 Otowi Road, Santa Fe, NM 87505 On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Dennis den...@netmdc.com wrote: Like or not, unless another experimenter or group - more open to disclosure of the operational details, can approximate the Rossi results of extremely high COP at the kilowatt level, in the next few months leading up to the promised MW demonstration, then it is going to be a frustrating period for LENR researchers at many levels. I agree there needs to be an independent replication of the device that offers an open demo. I fear that if Rossi fails to produce a 1MW system by Sept then the field will be harmed. I am working on a path similar to Rossi (high temp gas loading) but with only sporadic and inconsistent results. I do have the capability to work up to 1 or 2 kW with ease and higher with a little modification. I would be happy to receive help in an effort to replicate the Rossi system. I am talking actual physical support not talk or money. - material preparation, machining,... Please let me know if anyone finds out exactly what Rossi is using and the conditions. Let me know if anyone wishes to join forces. I feel we are at a tipping point. Either Rossi is correct and things will develop quickly, or he is wrong and there will be great damage to the field. Someone somewhere needs to do an independent replication or at least an attempt - hopefully with Rossi's blessings , but it needs to be done. A replication would need to be completely open to serious investigators. I am welcome to the idea of an open lab. (within reason) My guess is that Rossi will to busy between now and Sept to do such a thing himself. Dennis Cravens
