Re: [Vo]:Rossi Ni material
On Feb 23, 2011, at 4:09 PM, Dennis wrote: I am not too good at looking at Electron microscope pictures perhaps someone here can help me understand Rossi's pictures in his patents. us20110005506A1 http://www.google.com/patents? id=84vwEBAJpg=PA1lpg=PA1dq=us20110005506A1 +Rossisource=blots=qIO9bKdbuQsig=gHJvMrVVzvM4orfP4ggDk4- D_YMhl=enei=7a1lTa_1KZCasAO68bSFBQsa=Xoi=book_resultct=resultres num=1ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepageqf=false It looks like his particle size is around 10 microns and that he labels the Si and Co peaks (he assumes the Zn is a product) Is that how others read it? So could his catalyst additives be Si and Co? Dennis Cravens Those peaks marked Si and Co look negligible. Very surprising there is no indication of copper! Sentence [0068] says FIGS. 3 and 4 are from points in FIG. 2. Sentence [0066] says the powder shown in FIG. 2 was withdrawn from the device, indicating it is an after picture. Sentence [0065] seems to confirm this by saying the FIGS. 2-5 demonstrate that the device actually provides true nuclear fusion (even though there is no FIG. 5). Should the annotation Co have been Cu?? Sentence [0069] says zinc is formed, and was not present in the original powder. Sentence [0071] says after energy generation the used powders contained Cu, S, Cl, K, and Ca. This list is mysterious. As I showed earlier, energetically feasible fusion- fission reactions for H+Ni can produce He, C, O, Si, S, Ti, Cr, Co, Cu, and Zn. Combined with a weak sub-reaction of the form p + e -- n + antineutrino - 782.353 kEv additional candidates for creation from Ni are D, T, B, N, Al, P, Sc, V, Fe, Cu. It is notable that it is not energetically possible to directly obtain K, Ca, or Cl via a single fusion-fission reaction from any isotope of Ni, even with weak reactions considered. It is notable that Cl is readily produced from S, however: 34S16 + p* -- 35Cl17 + 6.371 MeV [00.736 MeV] (H_S:1) 34S16 + 2 p* -- 35Cl17 + 1H1 + 6.371 MeV [-5.491 MeV] (H_S:3) 36S16 + p* -- 37Cl17 + 8.386 MeV [2.855 MeV] (H_S:5) 36S16 + 2 p* -- 37Cl17 + 1H1 + 8.386 MeV [-3.264 MeV] (H_S:8) Ca and K and Cl are not produced directly from a strong H + X reaction until Se, but then many other elements not identified are also created in greater abundances. Ca and K seem to be a difficult element to create by fusion-fission. Yittrium, niobium, or molybdenum, or various other heavier elements with hydrogen create S, Ti, K, Ca, and CL, but also a lot of other elements not mentioned. Cs + H very notably creates a lot of Ca and Kr, and little else. Cs + H with a weak reaction can create a lot of K. Here is a candidate reaction: 133Cs55 + p* -- 86Kr36 + 48Ca20 + 46.698 MeV [34.316 MeV] (H_Cs:1) The Kr gas would be difficult to detect. One is left to speculate that 133Cs55, possibly with trace amounts of the radioactive 134Cs55 or 137Cs55 is one of the additional magic ingredients. With 1.229 and 2.059 MeV decay energies, the radioactive 134Cs spectrum might be readily recognized. Again, just speculation. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Ni material
Correction. I just noticed the two Ca creating Cs + H reactions do not produce initial negative energy, thus should produce an immediate strong force reaction. Production of potassium from this is unlikely, though calcium should dominate the reaction products. Also the radiation (34 MeV) should be significant. Maybe not a very good speculation. 133Cs55 + p* -- 86Kr36 + 48Ca20 + 46.698 MeV [34.316 MeV] (H_Cs:1) 133Cs55 + 2 p* -- 87Rb37 + 48Ca20 + 55.319 MeV [30.168 MeV] (H_Cs:6) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 04:31 PM 2/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: You are arguing with a straw man, Joshua. You're call yourself a straw man? It's obvious that many scientists do not accept cold fusion. So people write to explain it. That's somehow unusual or suspicious? No. It's usual and expected. You said they weren't, though; that CF had passed that stage. I was just trying to demonstrate that it hadn't. And now you agree. 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. I counted 23 last time I looked a few months back. So yea, reviews don't outnumber them, but 5 were negative and 9 theoretical. That leaves 9 papers with new positive experimental data, less than half the number of reviews. (I excluded hydrino papers, and the Sourcebook papers, since the Sourcebook is not a legitimately peer-reviewed journal. Maybe that's the difference.) But even 19 reviews and 50 papers signals a dying field. 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. Even within the Energetics work, reproducibility is abysmal. The summary of their results from 2008 I think claims 80%, but when you look at the results, no two experiments give the same answer. Only in CF is an experiment considered reproducible when it gives the same sign of a result. 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. That's what I'm talkin about. 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. Preaching to the choir. Indeed, your whole thesis here has been that there is a solid scientific consensus, in place for twenty years, that cold fusion is bogus. Now comes a review that clearly backs off from that, as to some substantial fraction of experts, and you manage to reframe it as all more of the same since 1989. Actually, it's how the summary of the review itself framed it. And do you realize that Pons and Fleischmann, per Fleischmann's account published something like 2003, was expecting to find nothing? Do you know what he was researching? Hint: it wasn't a technique for generating energy. He was doing pure science, attempting to falisfy a theory that he thought was correct, but that he also thought was incomplete. Indeed, it was necessarily incomplete, because it was an approximation. I'm not sure how that bears on any of this, but that's not what he said to Macneil Lehrer in 1989: It is this enormous compression of the species in the lattice [which he earlier said was 10^27 atmospheres] which made us think that it might be feasible to create conditions for fusion in such a simple reactor. I would assume that you'd have solid theoretical grounds for that assumption, some theory that is well-established, with excellent predictive power, that would be overturned if the experimental results are valid. Okay, what is that theory? How does it predict the results of cold fusion experiments. Please be specific! That seems backward to me. I'm not interested in developing a theory for why something doesn't work. If the results collectively showed evidence of something new going on, then it would be worth trying to understand them, but in my judgement, they don't. The fact remains, progress, experimental or theoretical, has been completely consistent with pathological
RE: [Vo]:OT: Collective bargaining
I have to be careful about not performing specific union activity while at work. This brief reply was sent from home. I'm sure there are corrupt union officials, just as I'm sure there are corrupt corporate executives. As the old saying goes power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Nevertheless, I suspect if one were to compare how much money certain union officials may have managed to skim of the membership versus the obscene amount of money skimmed off of customers taxpayers from corporate executives - the comparison would be a no brainer. Unfortunately, it would appear that many Tea Party supports are oblivious to the implications of such comparisons - because they have a no brainer. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Is there a SONO connection to the Rossi Demo?
Peter, No, ultrasound would not turn up on any video as the microphones only go up to about 10 kHz. Lower harmonics are doubtful due to the lead shielding. Some few people are annoyed by ultrasound, and can tell if it is present - even if they cannot exactly 'hear' it. From: Peter Gluck Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is there a SONO connection to the Rossi Demo? I will ask Daniele who was there. We have the registration of the demo, do you think the ultra-sound component got lost if it were there?
Re: [Vo]:Is there a SONO connection to the Rossi Demo?
I have already asked. My suggestion was that somebody should bring a dog to the next demo (official or mot) poor dogs hear the ultrasound and are repelled by it, get panicked. Postmen use such devices to protect themselves against dog biting. Waiting for an answer. Peter On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Peter, No, ultrasound would not turn up on any video as the microphones only go up to about 10 kHz. Lower harmonics are doubtful due to the lead shielding. Some few people are annoyed by ultrasound, and can tell if it is present - even if they cannot exactly ‘hear’ it. *From:* Peter Gluck *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Is there a SONO connection to the Rossi Demo? I will ask Daniele who was there. We have the registration of the demo, do you think the ultra-sound component got lost if it were there? -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Symantec Email Proxy Deleted Message
Symantec Email Proxy deleted the following email message: From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Non-standard kinds of nuclear fission
[Vo]:COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC News topix photo of maiko (geisha-in-training)
See: http://photo.sankei.jp.msn.com/highlight/data/2011/02/24/maiko/ I can't decide if this looks grotesque or beautiful. As you see, they still have a few maiko (geisha-in-training) in Japan. The women shown here are training for a dance, I gather, Kyo-odori (Kyoto Dance), in Kyoto, Higashiyama-ku, today (yesterday, actually). - Jed
[Vo]:Hidden wire hypothesis redux
Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: 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 . . . It would have to be 130 kW, not 15 kW. A 130 kW power feed is a large, thick copper wire. You could only make a tape capable of doing that with room temperature superconductors. If Rossi has found a way to do that, that would be nearly as remarkable as discovering a stable, scalable cold fusion reaction. He would deserve the Nobel prize. Why would he hide this accomplishment or pretend it is something else? As you see in the photos, what you are describing is impossible. The machine is sitting on a separate block of wood, which is place on the table at an angle. The machine is raised above the wood with a clear gap underneath. There is no place to hide wires. The two metal supports holding the device up appear to be ordinary metal, not some exotic superconducting material, so they are far too small to carry 15 kW, never mind 130 kW. Also, as Levi noted in the interview yesterday, he poked around inside the device and saw that it was mainly Pb shielding. He would have noticed hidden wires. I think you can safely put aside this hypothesis. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Rossi Ni material
One other comment on Rossi's patent application. It probably is a smoke screen (well-planned strategic diversion). By that I mean that it is clearly poorly drafted and almost worthless, and moreover I think he knows this - and indeed has actually planned it this way. There are likely to be other applications, already on file - especially with WIPO which have been filed within the last year which are better written and enforceable. They will disclose the secret ingredients. By the time they are published, his IPO will be a done-deal, his net worth will be double anyone else on the planet, and he will let others have a go at trying to get around the coverage. Everything Rossi has done in a strategic sense is genius level. This is no exception. He needed something to be filed in the USA largely for show and in order to appease the Greek investor, but he did not want to give away anything technical - which is valuable, prior to the planned IPO and he did not want to waste money on a competent attorney, all of which has been accomplished. He has wisely written off the USA as a viable market. This move is brilliant. It is NOT a viable market and he did not have to find that out the hard way. Even with a good demo, Rossi has zero chance of an NRC license during his lifetime in the States. Even the superior CANDU reactor gave up trying for a license in the USA after 20 years of frustration. There will be countless thousands of these reactors placed around the world, especially in Eastern Europe and Asia before the first one turns up here. Rossi is no fool. He knows the USA cannot tolerate this kind of disruptive technology and he is taking the path of least resistance - focusing his efforts in areas without oil of nuclear resource - where the technology is not only welcome, but being begged-for . and where high level interference can be easily handled (in days with a checkbook, instead of decades with a team of high paid bagmen). Hats off to Rossi. He is doing everything in the best possible way to maximize his personal wealth. That is what 'free enterprise' is supposedly all about, and he has mastered the art. END of rant. Jones
Re: [Vo]:COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC News topix photo of maiko (geisha-in-training)
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I can't decide if this looks grotesque or beautiful. It is indeed classic. T
RE: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?
At 01:30 AM 2/24/2011, you wrote: Not being able to concede a point is a clear sign of someone with an ulterior motive, or a pathological skeptic who simply can't accept things which challenge their understanding of things. Not surprising... He reminds me of some of the worst editors on Wikipedia! Yeah, one in particular who happens to be named Joshua. However, the style, the tone and emphasis was different, so I think it's unlikely. Or the Joshua I know has matured some. None of these skeptics can manage to get up a published review? Is Shanahan with his Letter responding to Krivit and Marwan in the Journal of Environmental Monitoring the best they can manage?
[Vo]:PiezoFission or K-capture ?
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23803/ Do the Italians believe in 'coincidence' ? (i.e. that aligned events which are apparently unconnected are not truly random but are meme-influenced) The title of one of the papers is Can Pressure Waves Speed Up Nuclear Decay? by Fabio Cardone in Rome. The fizzix mainstream jumped on it with a special vengeance. Other papers have followed on the same theme - dubbed 'piezo-fission' but it is probably a form of inner electron capture (K-capture) brought about by kinetic disruption, possibly involving superwaves. Piezonuclear decay of Thorium is the most intriguing, especially in the context of the 'Cincinnati group'. Such quips as Is it possible to speed up radioactive decay by squeezing atoms? belie the real M.O. - but anyway Fabio Cardone, at the Institute of Nanostructured Materials in Rome is not backing down, and is sticking by his rapid-firing guns. The repercussions are strong, but you expect that from sonofusion, no? Cardone reported robust neutron emissions when granite or marble is crushed. Both of these minerals can have about 4-5 ppm of uranium and/or thorium. The conjecture is that crushing causes piezonuclear fission - of either the heavy nuclei or else of iron (transmuting into aluminum). Either way, there is some possible cross-connection to Andrea Rossi, not far away. That would be assuming that Rossi is using piezo techniques too, which is a brand new and unproved suggestion (originating last night, as a matter of fact). You heard it first on vortex :-) What gives? Is this coincidence, the power of memes (by way of the WWW) or else, dare we say it. the emergence of a New Roman Empire in high-tech? Jones
Re: [Vo]:propellantless propulsion
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:24: Horace Heffner wrote [snip] The following 1993 article includes my quantitative treatment of this approach: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ZPE-CasimirThrust.pdf Horace, I was able to follow your paper and agree with your results but have some questions/suggestions regarding the physical limitations you mention to scale this effect to practical levels. You keep redirecting your gas to snake up and then down while alternating the geometry to unbalance the momentum transfer to the cavity walls. Since molecules oppose change in energy density vs atoms they transfer momentum to the walls using energy supplied by the pump to force the continued circulation through this opposition. My suggestion is to forgo this mechanical Up/Down design in favor of a self assembled across and back tubing where the bottom tube is filled with nano powder but the top - return tube is not. Instead of accumulating a differential between cavity pairs this would increase the inertia of gas atoms traveling across but not back and allow you to accumulate the momentum transfer in bulk. I agree you have to keep changing the energy density like your up/down arrangement to keep the molecules sticky / opposing change but am suggesting that the lateral motion of the gas through the powder can accumulate a transfer of momentum to the walls of the powder filled tubing that will not be mirrored in the return path. This method doesn't require the careful alignment of alternating nano geometry to the vertical axis, instead it exploits the opposition of random packing geometry To the lateral flow of the gas in one direction. A second loop would be needed to cancel any rotational torque but would be a bargain trade off considering the additional suppression and fabrication savings. Regards Fran
Re: [Vo]:COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC News topix photo of maiko (geisha-in-training)
--- On Thu, 2/24/11, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Subject: [Vo]:COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC News topix photo of maiko (geisha-in-training) To: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thursday, February 24, 2011, 7:20 AM See: http://photo.sankei.jp.msn.com/highlight/data/2011/02/24/maiko/ I can't decide if this looks grotesque or beautiful. As you see, they still have a few maiko (geisha-in-training) in Japan. The women shown here are training for a dance, I gather, Kyo-odori (Kyoto Dance), in Kyoto, Higashiyama-ku, today (yesterday, actually). - Jed One hopes they are not too authentic. Geisha used to apply white lead to their faces. It would be interesting to learn what they are using these days. M.
Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?
It seems like the field needs a new improved experiment showing helium/heat. Joshua, can you specify some parameters that would convince you? Sent from my iPhone.
Re: [Vo]:PiezoFission or K-capture ?
Greco-Roman
Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?
At 02:05 AM 2/24/2011, Rich Murray wrote: Abd, Thanks for your generous, civil response to Terry's idiot -- uh, naturally, it increases my confidence in you when you show up as the only one to fully understand and support my simple The Emperor has no clothes... critique about the error by SPAWAR of thinking an external high voltage DC field would be felt within a conducting electrolyte. To be fair to SPAWAR, they thought they saw a difference, and, after all, experiment trumps theory. But this particular theory is a whole lot more established than some vague concept that LENR is impossible. SPAWAR abandoned that line of inquiry, it seems. In the Galileoo protocol, they originally suggested using a magnetic field. A magnetic field might actually do something, it could influence conductive crystal growth at the surface of the cathode, perhaps. It turned out, though, that Pem said she'd been making assumptions, confusing what they'd found with nickel cathodes. It is always possible to get mildly significant results from chance. Given the chaotic nature of CF phenomena, it's a particular hazard. It would be nice if at some point, someone from SPAWAR would acknowledge the problem. The problem, in fact, should have been acknowledged in the very first paper, that an effect from an external electric field would be very contrary to expectation, but they treated it otherwise, as I recall. The publication also somewhat impeaches the reviewers, who should have questioned this, big time. Hindsight is wonderful, isn't it? People make mistakes, everyone makes mistakes. We have peculiar blind spots, sometimes. Your double sandwitch of active layers, only fitted together at the very start of exposure, is a really elegant way to reduce background clutter -- a third layer perpendicular to the sandwitch to catch glazing impacts is another very elegant feature -- can you set up a web cam to share online real time and continuously record what you see during runs with a microscope, while setting an audio alarm to go off when a flash occurs? Well, theoretically, the microscope is a USB device. I can take videos with it, but I think I have to download them, I don't think it will do live video, this one. I have another one that will. However, I don't think I'll go for live, at this point, too much complication on the connection end. And, I expect, it would be pretty boring. Again, setting up analysis for a flash would be work that I'm not up to. The microscope was not designed for this, and it has automatic level control. I really don't know what I'll see. I'm just going to look! Because of the thickness of the cell wall, I can't use the microscope at maximum magnification, i.e., I'll be using the 10x lens, which gives me 100x. It's a 1200 x 1600 pixel CCD; I'm not sure how I'll set it up. (I made a custom stage, so that the cell is held upright, while the microscope is laying on its side. Acrylic is great stuff, I've found.) Joshua Cude may be a scout, an agent provacateur who is testing the CF network to find its most competent members. Maybe. He has a coolness that is remarkable. I made a few mistakes, and he pinned them immediately. That's rare. More commonly with a pseudoskeptic, they are so certain you are wrong that they don't pay attention to the arguments at all, so mistakes pass unnoticed. Indeed, I was writing off the top of my head, for most of it, and some of what I wrote, that he caught, I'd written many times! By the way, I still have not confirmed that what he wrote was correct, and it might not have been. (I'm talking about the process for the 2004 DoE review.) But he was very definite and clear, and a quick check did not confirm what I had written ..., so ..., my interest is truth and clarity, not winning or trying to prove that I never make mistakes. I make mistakes. Let's get that one out of the way immediately! I'll eventually find a deeper source, or personal testimony from those involved. I haven't asked yet. The key that something was really off was, though, that he'd make sweeping statements that were clearly false, such as no peer-reviewed confirmation of heat/helium after Miles in 1993. I cited the counter-examples. If those had been errors, I'd think he'd have pinned those, too. Perhaps what I thought was peer-reviewed wasn't. (One can't always tell by the journal, and I didn't check the actual articles.) And he put great emphasis on this alleged absence, when, in fact, as to science, peer-reviewed papers provide additional confidence, that's true, but a reviewer writing a review of the field does his or her own screening of sources, and may use even private communications, whatever, and, then, if there is something off about the choice of sources, those who review the review would consider that! Testimony is testimony. In any case, Cude did not respond to that, but simply continued to make the original assertion. That
Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: The key that something was really off was, though, that he'd make sweeping statements that were clearly false, such as no peer-reviewed confirmation of heat/helium after Miles in 1993. I cited the counter-examples. If those had been errors, I'd think he'd have pinned those, too. Perhaps what I thought was peer-reviewed wasn't. [...] In any case, Cude did not respond to that, but simply continued to make the original assertion. I did respond. Twice now. I concede the 1994 references, but that doesn't change the point. The only other refereed papers were from Arata, which I think showed helium but not quantitative correlation, and in any case did not represent enough of a confirmation for Storms to use their data in his calculation of energy per atom. All the rest of your references were conference proceedings or the Sourcebook, which is clearly not a peer-reviewed journal. So if I have to modify my statement, it would be that since 1994, no peer-reviewed confirmation has been regarded by Storms as quantitatively meaningful. Hardly weakened, I would say.
RE: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?
Charles wrote: Isn't it more likely that the skeptics simply think the field is a joke, rather than that they're intimidated by the weight of the positive evidence? Yes, given the ridicule that CF has received over the years, that is certainly a good possibility... We're very complex beings and how we respond or interpret things is a function of what has happened in our lives... Especially the childhood years. So there are multiple possible explanations, and which ones are dominant in any one person is a function of their life's experiences... But for some, which is what prompted my comment, theory seems to have replaced religious belief, and that makes for someone who can be hit square between the eyes with facts that demolish their point, but which seem to have no impact at all on them... It's as if they didn't even hear what you said. The years have taught me that when you're debating with someone, in a rational way, and they begin to respond as described above, it's time to just walk away... Just agree to disagree. -Mark -Original Message- From: Charles Hope [mailto:lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 8:56 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude? Isn't it more likely that the skeptics simply think the field is a joke, rather than that they're intimidated by the weight of the positive evidence? Sent from my iPhone. On Feb 24, 2011, at 10:52, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 01:30 AM 2/24/2011, you wrote: Not being able to concede a point is a clear sign of someone with an ulterior motive, or a pathological skeptic who simply can't accept things which challenge their understanding of things. Not surprising... He reminds me of some of the worst editors on Wikipedia! Yeah, one in particular who happens to be named Joshua. However, the style, the tone and emphasis was different, so I think it's unlikely. Or the Joshua I know has matured some. None of these skeptics can manage to get up a published review? Is Shanahan with his Letter responding to Krivit and Marwan in the Journal of Environmental Monitoring the best they can manage?
[Vo]:Non-Standard Reactions
This is a resend, with a different subject heading, as apparently the first posting triggered an ISP filter in cyber-space. In addition to the three usual suspects in nuclear fission: 1) thermal neutron induced fission 2) fast neutron induced fission which happen via neutral projectile and the one by probability, or unknown instability (including cosmic rays, etc) 3) spontaneous fission . there are more types involving a non-neutral projectile interaction, lepton or photons or kinetics (all of these show up in peer-reviewed papers) 4) quasi-fission, the two product nuclei have masses close to those of the target and projectile, individually 5) deep inelastic transfer 6) relaxed-peak process 7) incomplete fusion 8) strongly damped collisions reaction products have the kinetic energies typical of fission products, but their masses differ from what one would expect in fission 9) cluster fission 10) electron induced fission (Maly, France) products have far more energy than expected 11) bremsstrahlung-induced fission similar to the above 12) gamma-induced fission 13) laser induced fission along with gamma both are varieties of photofission 14) neutrino induced fission presumed to be rare, but real But there are others which are more speculative . 15) monopole induced fission This is Lochak, Urutskojev et al. conjecture based on analyzing the Chernobyl accident and the fertilizer explosion in France. 16) piezo-nuclear decay not necessarily fission, but interesting in implications for LENR 17) K-capture which is a reaction triggered by capture of an inner electron At any rate, the message here from all of these varieties - is that fission of heavy nuclei CANNOT be reduced to a few simple and well known pathways, as some in fizzix would claim; and in fact, given that many of these papers are new, there could be completely unknown channels, especially low energy channels, yet to be discovered. Of special interest to LENR is the possibility that pycno, dense clusters, or IRH (inverted Rydberg hydrogen) will induce nuclear reactions, which might appear to be fission, if the target is heavy, or something else with light targets. Jones
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:PiezoFission or K-capture ?
The Greco- Hol-e-y Roman Empire -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 11:46 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:PiezoFission or K-capture ? Greco-Roman
Re: [Vo]:Non-Standard Reactions
On Feb 24, 2011, at 8:33 AM, Jones Beene wrote: This is a resend, with a different subject heading, as apparently the first posting triggered an ISP filter in cyber-space. Say, I got a message to that effect,Symantec Email Proxy deleted the following email message:: Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: syman...@smtp105.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com, em...@smtp105.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com, pr...@smtp105.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com Subject:[Vo]:Symantec Email Proxy Deleted Message Date: February 24, 2011 5:52:44 AM AKST Resent-To:undisclosed-recipients: ; To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: recipient list not shown: ; Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Eon-Dm: sj1-dm04 Return-Path:vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (204.122.16.68 [204.122.16.68]) by sj1-dm04.mta.everyone.net (EON-INBOUND) with ESMTP id sj1- dm04.4d65bdac.16d231 for hheff...@mtaonline.net; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 06:53:19 -0800 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p1OEqqpC018214; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 06:52:52 -0800 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.14.3/8.12.10/Submit) id p1OEqpMA018206; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 06:52:51 -0800 Resent-Date:Thu, 24 Feb 2011 06:52:50 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com using -f X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 303955.78219...@omp1005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com Dkim-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pacbell.net; s=s1024; t=1298559164; bh=RUMloejsRNGEvQvHCVIUCT2TkViIVnQ49NuOJVN9E+w=; h=Message- ID:Date:Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman- Property:From:Subject; b=23uD25EJ2f2rvzRKIfzxJq6JGRtYZZ3LPU +EbNPgX1q0nLwfidKoUSvKjzgWQ9jf+m/ytYXuA3fvGO0q +t7jAYjAy6OOWAnrHDVjzjDQQqBQC81bEzS2zrnb0CKIk7dWK9ejGxWhl5SzWNRXtD4H35FU trAJpxun0KOIuHOrVak= Message-Id: 176462.7616...@smtp105.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Smtp: .3J3WRyswBABGgh9xYTCZbFSkxPU4sdLQgTBpC0FhIo- X-Ymail-Osg: k.JZzv4VM1loI8xEcv218v00RZzI1M1WdMBRdjGw5Im3mx4 QOb2VAeix4dma40nUMncJUJYuAthj5heUvhNV4CvTbN2uO7jUR2cbmz2SyJx tl5K0VwZMTmePtU5wXaYmaFDHHEk8Ox37rEP7A0pgZCg_sZELXElLiCgQipd 09Vaj3_BNRVkgKISua.79I8u1oDsn9mjXWDKbcMELqj.QgkswHXy._DjBXIP DpM9JmGgz33sJsAAINcXzR.6AASWuKTQJ8Bqrgp51lePorMvKB_VnB0_whUq 1ngkrHVnOHMOwbp11bajT7sw8OqP3TcX4iWc- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:ymail-3 Resent-Message-Id: wsgy2c.a.vce.cdn...@ultra5.eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: vortex-l@eskimo.com archive/latest/96856 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Help: mailto:vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com?subject=help List-Subscribe: mailto:vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com?subject=subscribe List-Unsubscribe: mailto:vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com? subject=unsubscribe Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com Symantec Email Proxy deleted the following email message: From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Non-standard kinds of nuclear fission Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Non-Standard Reactions
Because of the multiple uses of words like nuclear and fission and fusion, the message was FWDed to the Department of Homeland Security... Jones, warm up the tea and crumpets... you'll be having some expected, but uninvited, visitors soon... :-) -Mark _ From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 10:38 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Non-Standard Reactions On Feb 24, 2011, at 8:33 AM, Jones Beene wrote: This is a resend, with a different subject heading, as apparently the first posting triggered an ISP filter in cyber-space. Say, I got a message to that effect,Symantec Email Proxy deleted the following email message:: Resent-From:vortex-l@eskimo.com From:syman...@smtp105.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com, em...@smtp105.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com, pr...@smtp105.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com Subject: [Vo]:Symantec Email Proxy Deleted Message Date: February 24, 2011 5:52:44 AM AKST Resent-To:undisclosed-recipients: ; To:vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc:recipient list not shown: ; Reply-To:vortex-l@eskimo.com X-Eon-Dm: sj1-dm04 Return-Path: vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (204.122.16.68 [204.122.16.68]) by sj1-dm04.mta.everyone.net (EON-INBOUND) with ESMTP id sj1-dm04.4d65bdac.16d231 for hheff...@mtaonline.net; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 06:53:19 -0800 Received: from ultra5.eskimo.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p1OEqqpC018214; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 06:52:52 -0800 Received: (from smartlst@localhost) by ultra5.eskimo.com (8.14.3/8.12.10/Submit) id p1OEqpMA018206; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 06:52:51 -0800 Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 06:52:50 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: ultra5.eskimo.com: smartlst set sender to vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com using -f X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 303955.78219...@omp1005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com Dkim-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pacbell.net; s=s1024; t=1298559164; bh=RUMloejsRNGEvQvHCVIUCT2TkViIVnQ49NuOJVN9E+w=; h=Message-ID:Date:Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:From:Subject; b=23uD25EJ2f2rvzRKIfzxJq6JGRtYZZ3LPU+EbNPgX1q0nLwfidKoUSvKjzgWQ9jf+m/ytYXuA3fvGO0q+t7jAYjAy6OOWAnrHD VjzjDQQqBQC81bEzS2zrnb0CKIk7dWK9ejGxWhl5SzWNRXtD4H35FUtrAJpxun0KOIuHOrVak= Message-Id: 176462.7616...@smtp105.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Smtp: .3J3WRyswBABGgh9xYTCZbFSkxPU4sdLQgTBpC0FhIo- X-Ymail-Osg: k.JZzv4VM1loI8xEcv218v00RZzI1M1WdMBRdjGw5Im3mx4 QOb2VAeix4dma40nUMncJUJYuAthj5heUvhNV4CvTbN2uO7jUR2cbmz2SyJx tl5K0VwZMTmePtU5wXaYmaFDHHEk8Ox37rEP7A0pgZCg_sZELXElLiCgQipd 09Vaj3_BNRVkgKISua.79I8u1oDsn9mjXWDKbcMELqj.QgkswHXy._DjBXIP DpM9JmGgz33sJsAAINcXzR.6AASWuKTQJ8Bqrgp51lePorMvKB_VnB0_whUq 1ngkrHVnOHMOwbp11bajT7sw8OqP3TcX4iWc- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Resent-Message-Id: wsgy2c.a.vce.cdn...@ultra5.eskimo.com X-Mailing-List: vortex-l@eskimo.com archive/latest/96856 X-Loop: vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Post: mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com List-Help: mailto:vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com?subject=help List-Subscribe: mailto:vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com?subject=subscribe List-Unsubscribe: mailto:vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com?subject=unsubscribe Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com Sender: vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com Symantec Email Proxy deleted the following email message: From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Non-standard kinds of nuclear fission Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:propellantless propulsion
On Feb 24, 2011, at 7:01 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:24: Horace Heffner wrote [snip] The following 1993 article includes my quantitative treatment of this approach: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ZPE-CasimirThrust.pdf Horace, I was able to follow your paper and agree with your results but have some questions/suggestions regarding the physical limitations you mention to scale this effect to practical levels. You keep redirect ing your gas to snake up and then down while alternating the geometry to unbalance the momentum transfer to the cavity walls. Since molecules oppose change in energy density vs atoms they transfer momentum to the walls using energy supplied by the pump to force the continued circulation through this opposition. My suggestion is to forgo this “mechanical” Up/Down design in favor of a self assembled “across and back” tubing where the bottom tube is filled with nano powder but the top – return tube is not. Note that the concept doesn't work unless sub micron dimensions are used. In other words the structures have to be nano-sized to begin with. There is no room for nano powder. Second, nano-powder itself would provide a huge resistance to gas flow. Third, the effect is based on centrifugal force. This requires a high gas speed and small turn radius. The nano-pendulum version of the idea (pp. 4 ff) of http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ZPE-CasimirThrust.pdf looks to be orders of magnitude better. Also, the fully solid state method proposed on page 4 looks vastly superior, and requires no flowing gas t all: There is a superior method available for implementing the principle of applying anisotropic centrifugal force to Casimir cavity influenced inertial masses. This method consists of building up alternate layers of material, thin layers of conducting or super-conducting material, i.e. casimir cavity boundary layer material, while sandwiching between them layers of readily compressible material which is to be used as the inertial mass altering material. The method further consists of accelerating this material in one direction while compressed, and the other direction while not compressed. Compressing reduces the size of the Casimir cavities, thus increasing the effect and reducing the mass of the compressible material sandwiched between the plates. A fully solid state design is feasible. This design uses piezo crystals in two axes. The thrust material is compressed in the x axis for inertial mass reduction, and the much larger oscillated motion is produced by piezo action in the y axis. The thrust is developed in the y axis due to the reduced inertial mass on one half of the y axis cycle, caused by compression of the thrust material in the x axis direction during that half of the y axis cycle. Such a design is based on resonant motion, so the only lost energy is that which does into heat, which should be comparatively small. Instead of accumulating a differential between cavity pairs this would increase the inertia of gas atoms traveling “across” but not “back” and allow you to accumulate the momentum transfer in bulk. I agree you have to keep changing the energy density like your up/ down arrangement to keep the molecules “sticky” / opposing change but am suggesting that the lateral motion of the gas through the powder can accumulate a transfer of momen tum to the walls of the powder filled tubing that will not be mirrored in the return path. The words you are using above don't seem to apply to the concepts I proposed. See notes below regarding torque. I should also mention that placing a resistance to gas or liquid flow anywhere in a closed loop isolated system does not, in itself result in either a net momentum or angular momentum contribution to the overall system. The forces and torques all balance to to zero. Only *asymmetric* interaction with the ZPF itself permits a net accumulation of torque or momentum. This asymmetry does not exist due to flow (diffusion) of gas through a nano-powder. This method doesn’t require the careful alignment of alternating nano geometry to the vertical axis, instead it exploits the opposition of random packing geometry Gas flow through a randomly organized nano-powder would only increase energy requirements. To the lateral flow of the gas in one direction. A second loop would be needed to cancel any rotational torque but would be a bargain trade off considering the additional suppression and fabrication savings. Regards Fran I would not expect a torque, or Casimir related energy drain, from the designs I proposed. As I noted: Any energy required or obtained entering the cavity due to Casimir forces is offset by the effect of opposite forces upon exiting the cavity. In any case, if some component of any design produced torque, a mirror image component
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Ni material
Hafnium reactions, Hf + H reactions, like Cs reactions, do not produce initial negative energy, thus should produce an immediate strong force reaction. Production of both potassium and Ca from this source is likely, though calcium should dominate the reaction products. Also the radiation (about 60 MeV) should be significant. The mean free path of the particles in all cases are very short, but the the bremsstrahlung should be detectable. 174Hf72 + p* -- 127I53 + 48Ca20 + 84.640 MeV [69.811 MeV] (H_Hf:3) 174Hf72 + p* -- 134Xe54 + 41K19 + 75.126 MeV [60.297 MeV] (H_Hf:4) 174Hf72 + p* -- 136Xe54 + 39K19 + 71.674 MeV [56.846 MeV] (H_Hf:5) 174Hf72 + 2 p* -- 128Xe54 + 48Ca20 + 92.805 MeV [62.793 MeV] (H_Hf:24) 174Hf72 + 2 p* -- 130Xe54 + 46Ca20 + 91.748 MeV [61.736 MeV] (H_Hf:25) 174Hf72 + 2 p* -- 132Xe54 + 44Ca20 + 89.480 MeV [59.468 MeV] (H_Hf:26) 174Hf72 + 2 p* -- 134Xe54 + 42Ca20 + 85.403 MeV [55.390 MeV] (H_Hf:27) 174Hf72 + 2 p* -- 136Xe54 + 40Ca20 + 80.003 MeV [49.990 MeV] (H_Hf:28) 176Hf72 + p* -- 136Xe54 + 41K19 + 74.696 MeV [59.923 MeV] (H_Hf:45) 176Hf72 + 2 p* -- 130Xe54 + 48Ca20 + 94.096 MeV [64.197 MeV] (H_Hf:59) 176Hf72 + 2 p* -- 132Xe54 + 46Ca20 + 92.416 MeV [62.516 MeV] (H_Hf:60) 176Hf72 + 2 p* -- 134Xe54 + 44Ca20 + 89.593 MeV [59.694 MeV] (H_Hf:61) 176Hf72 + 2 p* -- 136Xe54 + 42Ca20 + 84.973 MeV [55.073 MeV] (H_Hf:62) 177Hf72 + 2 p* -- 131Xe54 + 48Ca20 + 94.318 MeV [64.474 MeV] (H_Hf:85) 177Hf72 + 2 p* -- 136Xe54 + 43Ca20 + 86.522 MeV [56.678 MeV] (H_Hf:86) 178Hf72 + 2 p* -- 132Xe54 + 48Ca20 + 95.628 MeV [65.840 MeV] (H_Hf:105) 178Hf72 + 2 p* -- 134Xe54 + 46Ca20 + 93.393 MeV [63.605 MeV] (H_Hf:106) 178Hf72 + 2 p* -- 136Xe54 + 44Ca20 + 90.027 MeV [60.239 MeV] (H_Hf:107) 180Hf72 + 2 p* -- 134Xe54 + 48Ca20 + 97.128 MeV [67.449 MeV] (H_Hf:137) 180Hf72 + 2 p* -- 136Xe54 + 46Ca20 + 94.350 MeV [64.671 MeV] (H_Hf:138) The important reactions look to be: 174Hf72 + p* -- 127I53 + 48Ca20 + 84.640 MeV [69.811 MeV] (H_Hf:3) 174Hf72 + p* -- 134Xe54 + 41K19 + 75.126 MeV [60.297 MeV] (H_Hf:4) 174Hf72 + p* -- 136Xe54 + 39K19 + 71.674 MeV [56.846 MeV] (H_Hf:5) 176Hf72 + p* -- 136Xe54 + 41K19 + 74.696 MeV [59.923 MeV] (H_Hf:45) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Researchers should scale up experiments, if they can
I think one of the lessons of Rossi's success so far is that researchers should aim to produce a larger reaction, if they can. 12 kW is too large in some ways. But I suppose a typical experiment produces a fraction of a watt. 10 W or more would be more persuasive. It has emotional appeal. It shows that you can, in principle, scale up. The appeal is not fully rational, but I think it might garner more interest and financial support. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:List of Rossi 18-hour test parameters
On Feb 23, 2011, at 5:47 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Tue, 22 Feb 2011 13:35:03 -0900: Hi, [snip] 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. ..we also don't know how much of the H remained in the Ni after the reaction was finished. Yes, very true. The 25.4 keV is a *minimum* energy per hydrogen atom. However, if 30% of the Ni was converted to Cu, or even if readily observable quantities of new elements were created, then we have to expect much or even most of the hydrogen was consumed. Something doesn't add up here. There should have been a very observable drop in hydrogen pressure, because the hydrogen was shut off after initial loading. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Non-Standard Reactions
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Because of the multiple uses of words like nuclear and fission and fusion, the message was FWDed to the Department of Homeland Security... Jones, warm up the tea and crumpets... you'll be having some expected, but uninvited, visitors soon... :-) Hah! They are no match for Harry Tuttle!
Re: [Vo]:List of Rossi 18-hour test parameters
Robin, I don't understand- excuse where is the pressure of hydrogen measured? It is adsorbed absorbed in the nanometric nickel, the temperature increases there up to say 400 C- I don't think the reactor has a manometer on it. Peter On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: On Feb 23, 2011, at 5:47 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Tue, 22 Feb 2011 13:35:03 -0900: Hi, [snip] 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. ..we also don't know how much of the H remained in the Ni after the reaction was finished. Yes, very true. The 25.4 keV is a *minimum* energy per hydrogen atom. However, if 30% of the Ni was converted to Cu, or even if readily observable quantities of new elements were created, then we have to expect much or even most of the hydrogen was consumed. Something doesn't add up here. There should have been a very observable drop in hydrogen pressure, because the hydrogen was shut off after initial loading. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Ni material
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 24 Feb 2011 10:56:08 -0900: Hi, The reaction Ni-60 + 4 H (cluster) = Ca-40 + Mg-24 + 13.5 MeV readily produces Calcium. Hafnium reactions, Hf + H reactions, like Cs reactions, do not produce initial negative energy, thus should produce an immediate strong force reaction. Production of both potassium and Ca from this source is likely, though calcium should dominate the reaction products. Also the radiation (about 60 MeV) should be significant. The mean free path of the particles in all cases are very short, but the the bremsstrahlung should be detectable. 174Hf72 + p* -- 127I53 + 48Ca20 + 84.640 MeV [69.811 MeV] (H_Hf:3) 174Hf72 + p* -- 134Xe54 + 41K19 + 75.126 MeV [60.297 MeV] (H_Hf:4) 174Hf72 + p* -- 136Xe54 + 39K19 + 71.674 MeV [56.846 MeV] (H_Hf:5) 174Hf72 + 2 p* -- 128Xe54 + 48Ca20 + 92.805 MeV [62.793 MeV] (H_Hf:24) 174Hf72 + 2 p* -- 130Xe54 + 46Ca20 + 91.748 MeV [61.736 MeV] (H_Hf:25) 174Hf72 + 2 p* -- 132Xe54 + 44Ca20 + 89.480 MeV [59.468 MeV] (H_Hf:26) 174Hf72 + 2 p* -- 134Xe54 + 42Ca20 + 85.403 MeV [55.390 MeV] (H_Hf:27) 174Hf72 + 2 p* -- 136Xe54 + 40Ca20 + 80.003 MeV [49.990 MeV] (H_Hf:28) 176Hf72 + p* -- 136Xe54 + 41K19 + 74.696 MeV [59.923 MeV] (H_Hf:45) 176Hf72 + 2 p* -- 130Xe54 + 48Ca20 + 94.096 MeV [64.197 MeV] (H_Hf:59) 176Hf72 + 2 p* -- 132Xe54 + 46Ca20 + 92.416 MeV [62.516 MeV] (H_Hf:60) 176Hf72 + 2 p* -- 134Xe54 + 44Ca20 + 89.593 MeV [59.694 MeV] (H_Hf:61) 176Hf72 + 2 p* -- 136Xe54 + 42Ca20 + 84.973 MeV [55.073 MeV] (H_Hf:62) 177Hf72 + 2 p* -- 131Xe54 + 48Ca20 + 94.318 MeV [64.474 MeV] (H_Hf:85) 177Hf72 + 2 p* -- 136Xe54 + 43Ca20 + 86.522 MeV [56.678 MeV] (H_Hf:86) 178Hf72 + 2 p* -- 132Xe54 + 48Ca20 + 95.628 MeV [65.840 MeV] (H_Hf:105) 178Hf72 + 2 p* -- 134Xe54 + 46Ca20 + 93.393 MeV [63.605 MeV] (H_Hf:106) 178Hf72 + 2 p* -- 136Xe54 + 44Ca20 + 90.027 MeV [60.239 MeV] (H_Hf:107) 180Hf72 + 2 p* -- 134Xe54 + 48Ca20 + 97.128 MeV [67.449 MeV] (H_Hf:137) 180Hf72 + 2 p* -- 136Xe54 + 46Ca20 + 94.350 MeV [64.671 MeV] (H_Hf:138) The important reactions look to be: 174Hf72 + p* -- 127I53 + 48Ca20 + 84.640 MeV [69.811 MeV] (H_Hf:3) 174Hf72 + p* -- 134Xe54 + 41K19 + 75.126 MeV [60.297 MeV] (H_Hf:4) 174Hf72 + p* -- 136Xe54 + 39K19 + 71.674 MeV [56.846 MeV] (H_Hf:5) 176Hf72 + p* -- 136Xe54 + 41K19 + 74.696 MeV [59.923 MeV] (H_Hf:45) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Hidden wire hypothesis redux
At 10:34 AM 2/24/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Rich Murray mailto:rmfor...@gmail.comrmfor...@gmail.com wrote: 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 . . . It would have to be 130 kW, not 15 kW. A 130 kW power feed is a large, thick copper wire. You could only make a tape capable of doing that with room temperature superconductors. If Rossi has found a way to do that, that would be nearly as remarkable as discovering a stable, scalable cold fusion reaction. He would deserve the Nobel prize. Why would he hide this accomplishment or pretend it is something else? Let's dispose of this immediately. An operating hypothesis that Rossi is a fraud cannot be dismissed by refuation of any particular fraud mechanism. This is why many -- including myself -- aren't ready to jump for anything that has not been independently confirmed, and not merely by observation of a controlled demo. Rothwell has assumed a particular voltage, in order to determine the feed size. High voltage could be used. Further, there could be a combination of techniques. I'm not understanding how one would need 130 KW to get, what was it, a 10 KW demo? But all this is beside the point. A determined and skilled con artist could arrange an appearance like what we have seen so far, it's simply not beyond possibility. As you see in the photos, what you are describing is impossible. The machine is sitting on a separate block of wood, which is place on the table at an angle. The machine is raised above the wood with a clear gap underneath. There is no place to hide wires. The two metal supports holding the device up appear to be ordinary metal, not some exotic superconducting material, so they are far too small to carry 15 kW, never mind 130 kW. Also, as Levi noted in the interview yesterday, he poked around inside the device and saw that it was mainly Pb shielding. He would have noticed hidden wires. I think you can safely put aside this hypothesis. No. Not safe against a sophisticated con. This is *not* a charge that Rossi is being deceptive. I am merely pointing out that the possibility exists, and, I must note, con artists sometimes have accomplices. So an involved scientist might have been duped, or might have been paid. This points out that an independent replication by someone connected with Rossi, by itself, can leave behind some suspicion, or maybe even one replication by someone apparently not connected. What about the Rowan University confirmation of BlackLight Power demonstrations? Note, again, I'm not claiming that Rowan was corrupt! Or even that they were fooled in some way. Just that, with something with as much implication as the Rossi reactor would have if real, there are very high stakes and therefore very high caution is required. If Rossi produces reactors for sale, or for complete, independent replication (where they can be dismantled), and they work for significant power, hey, I and others will fall down in admiration. If.
Re: [Vo]:List of Rossi 18-hour test parameters
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:39:36 -0900: Hi, [snip] ..we also don't know how much of the H remained in the Ni after the reaction was finished. Yes, very true. The 25.4 keV is a *minimum* energy per hydrogen atom. However, if 30% of the Ni was converted to Cu, or even if readily observable quantities of new elements were created, then we have to expect much or even most of the hydrogen was consumed. Something doesn't add up here. There should have been a very observable drop in hydrogen pressure, because the hydrogen was shut off after initial loading. Two different experiments. The Copper conversion is a report from Rossi about an earlier run. We don't what if anything was created/transmuted in the run where 0.4 gm H2 was consumed, so there isn't necessarily a conflict. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:List of Rossi 18-hour test parameters
In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Thu, 24 Feb 2011 22:48:52 +0200: Hi, [snip] Robin, I don't understand- excuse where is the pressure of hydrogen measured? It is adsorbed absorbed in the nanometric nickel, the temperature increases there up to say 400 C- I don't think the reactor has a manometer on it. Peter Was it measured at all? Does it matter? The calculations are based on the mass change, presumably of the Hydrogen bottle, so it's a measure of the H2 that went into the device, however just because Hydrogen went into the device, that doesn't necessarily mean that it underwent a nuclear reaction. Some (most?) is sure to have been left in the Ni as Ni hydride (/or Hydrinos? ;) On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: On Feb 23, 2011, at 5:47 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Tue, 22 Feb 2011 13:35:03 -0900: Hi, [snip] 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. ..we also don't know how much of the H remained in the Ni after the reaction was finished. Yes, very true. The 25.4 keV is a *minimum* energy per hydrogen atom. However, if 30% of the Ni was converted to Cu, or even if readily observable quantities of new elements were created, then we have to expect much or even most of the hydrogen was consumed. Something doesn't add up here. There should have been a very observable drop in hydrogen pressure, because the hydrogen was shut off after initial loading. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Hidden wire hypothesis redux
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I'm not understanding how one would need 130 KW to get, what was it, a 10 KW demo? It produced 130 kW for a while. QUOTE: Initially, the temperature of the inflowing water was seven degrees Celsius and for a while the outlet temperature was 40 degrees Celsius. A flow rate of about one liter per second, equates to a peak power of 130 kilowatts. The power output was later stabilized at 15 to 20 kilowatts. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece But all this is beside the point. A determined and skilled con artist could arrange an appearance like what we have seen so far, it's simply not beyond possibility. It is impossible as far as I know. There are only two techniques in this situation: chemical fuel, and electric heating. The use of fake instruments is ruled out because Levi brought his own. The assertion that a determined con artist can do this or that strikes me as inadequate. A con artist is not a magician capable of changing the laws of physics or magically influencing instruments. Unless you can suggest a specific technique that such a con artist might employ, I think this assertion cannot be tested or falsified. As I said before, I do not know of any instance in this history of science in what a con man managed too fool competent scientists for weeks at a time, especially in such a fundamentally simple experiment. People say that such things have happened. Skeptics insist that they happen all the time. But I do not know of any specific instances. All of the con-man over unity machines I have heard of or seen personally did not fool me for 5 minutes, and would not fool an scientist allowed to test them with his own instruments, and poke around inside the way Levi did. No. Not safe against a sophisticated con. Unless you can suggest a specific method I do not think this assertion is meaningful. There is nothing sophisticated about flow calorimetry on this scale. It is incredibly simple, and first-principle. J. P. Joule conducted experiments on this scale with a river and waterfall during his honeymoon. This is *not* a charge that Rossi is being deceptive. I realize that. I am merely pointing out that the possibility exists, and, I must note, con artists sometimes have accomplices. If you are saying that Levi is an accomplice then I fully agree -- this could easily be a scam in that case. I discount that likelihood for the reasons given by Levi in interview linked above. So an involved scientist might have been duped, or might have been paid. Duped how? Unless you can come up with a method this is like saying there may be an undetected error. That statement is true of every experiment ever conducted since Newton. Every experiment conducted in the last 500 years might have involved someone duping someone else, with fake instruments or bogus results published to attract attention. That is highly unlikely but conceivable. It is a useless hypothesis since you cannot disprove it. This points out that an independent replication by someone connected with Rossi, by itself, can leave behind some suspicion, or maybe even one replication by someone apparently not connected. That is true, but the suspicion it leaves behind is more of an emotional issue than a rational one that can be rigorously proved or refuted. It resembles what I pointed out earlier: that higher power gives more confidence in the results, and a 10 W experiment seems better than a 0.5 W one. There is no technical reason for that, yet for most people higher power seems more convincing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Ni material
On Feb 24, 2011, at 11:50 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 24 Feb 2011 10:56:08 -0900: Hi, The reaction Ni-60 + 4 H (cluster) = Ca-40 + Mg-24 + 13.5 MeV readily produces Calcium. Good point! I ignored cluster reactions because I considered them too unlikely for production of readily measurable amounts. Also, I was looking for prospect that create both K and Ca. If you include cluster possibilities up to 4 hydrogens then the following reactions are feasible producers of K and Ca: 60Ni28 + 3 p* -- 39K19 + 24Mg12 + 5.135 MeV [-20.921 MeV] (B_Ni:9) 60Ni28 + 3 p* -- 40Ca20 + 23Na11 + 1.771 MeV [-24.285 MeV] (B_Ni:10) 60Ni28 + 4 p* -- 40Ca20 + 24Mg12 + 13.464 MeV [-22.248 MeV] (B_Ni:13) 61Ni28 + 3 p* -- 39K19 + 25Mg12 + 4.646 MeV [-21.274 MeV] (B_Ni:19) 61Ni28 + 3 p* -- 40K19 + 24Mg12 + 5.115 MeV [-20.805 MeV] (B_Ni:20) 61Ni28 + 4 p* -- 40Ca20 + 25Mg12 + 12.974 MeV [-22.554 MeV] (B_Ni:26) 62Ni28 + 3 p* -- 39K19 + 26Mg12 + 5.142 MeV [-20.644 MeV] (B_Ni:39) 62Ni28 + 3 p* -- 40K19 + 25Mg12 + 1.849 MeV [-23.938 MeV] (B_Ni:40) 62Ni28 + 3 p* -- 41K19 + 24Mg12 + 4.613 MeV [-21.173 MeV] (B_Ni:41) 62Ni28 + 3 p* -- 42Ca20 + 23Na11 + 3.198 MeV [-22.589 MeV] (B_Ni:42) 62Ni28 + 4 p* -- 39K19 + 27Al13 + 13.413 MeV [-21.934 MeV] (B_Ni:54) 62Ni28 + 4 p* -- 40Ca20 + 26Mg12 + 13.471 MeV [-21.877 MeV] (B_Ni:55) 62Ni28 + 4 p* -- 42Ca20 + 24Mg12 + 14.890 MeV [-20.457 MeV] (B_Ni:56) 64Ni28 + 3 p* -- 41K19 + 26Mg12 + 6.541 MeV [-18.986 MeV] (B_Ni:70) 64Ni28 + 3 p* -- 44Ca20 + 23Na11 + 5.766 MeV [-19.761 MeV] (B_Ni:71) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:List of Rossi 18-hour test parameters
On Feb 24, 2011, at 12:19 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:39:36 -0900: Hi, [snip] ..we also don't know how much of the H remained in the Ni after the reaction was finished. Yes, very true. The 25.4 keV is a *minimum* energy per hydrogen atom. However, if 30% of the Ni was converted to Cu, or even if readily observable quantities of new elements were created, then we have to expect much or even most of the hydrogen was consumed. Something doesn't add up here. There should have been a very observable drop in hydrogen pressure, because the hydrogen was shut off after initial loading. Two different experiments. The Copper conversion is a report from Rossi about an earlier run. We don't what if anything was created/transmuted in the run where 0.4 gm H2 was consumed, so there isn't necessarily a conflict. Yes, right. I keep blurring or confusing the lies between the various tests and the patent itself. I don't even know if the Ni container was sealed. And, as Peter pointed out, there was no pressure gage used: On Feb 24, 2011, at 11:48 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: Robin, I don't understand- excuse where is the pressure of hydrogen measured? It is adsorbed absorbed in the nanometric nickel, the temperature increases there up to say 400 C- I don't think the reactor has a manometer on it. Peter Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Ni material
On Feb 24, 2011, at 11:50 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 24 Feb 2011 10:56:08 -0900: Hi, The reaction Ni-60 + 4 H (cluster) = Ca-40 + Mg-24 + 13.5 MeV readily produces Calcium. Good point! I ignored cluster reactions because I considered them too unlikely for production of readily measurable amounts. Also, I was looking for prospect that create both K and Ca. If you include cluster possibilities up to 4 hydrogens then the following reactions are feasible producers of K and Ca: 60Ni28 + 3 p* -- 39K19 + 24Mg12 + 5.135 MeV [-20.921 MeV] (B_Ni:9) 60Ni28 + 3 p* -- 40Ca20 + 23Na11 + 1.771 MeV [-24.285 MeV] (B_Ni:10) 60Ni28 + 4 p* -- 40Ca20 + 24Mg12 + 13.464 MeV [-22.248 MeV] (B_Ni:13) 61Ni28 + 3 p* -- 39K19 + 25Mg12 + 4.646 MeV [-21.274 MeV] (B_Ni:19) 61Ni28 + 3 p* -- 40K19 + 24Mg12 + 5.115 MeV [-20.805 MeV] (B_Ni:20) 61Ni28 + 4 p* -- 40Ca20 + 25Mg12 + 12.974 MeV [-22.554 MeV] (B_Ni:26) 62Ni28 + 3 p* -- 39K19 + 26Mg12 + 5.142 MeV [-20.644 MeV] (B_Ni:39) 62Ni28 + 3 p* -- 40K19 + 25Mg12 + 1.849 MeV [-23.938 MeV] (B_Ni:40) 62Ni28 + 3 p* -- 41K19 + 24Mg12 + 4.613 MeV [-21.173 MeV] (B_Ni:41) 62Ni28 + 3 p* -- 42Ca20 + 23Na11 + 3.198 MeV [-22.589 MeV] (B_Ni:42) 62Ni28 + 4 p* -- 39K19 + 27Al13 + 13.413 MeV [-21.934 MeV] (B_Ni:54) 62Ni28 + 4 p* -- 40Ca20 + 26Mg12 + 13.471 MeV [-21.877 MeV] (B_Ni:55) 62Ni28 + 4 p* -- 42Ca20 + 24Mg12 + 14.890 MeV [-20.457 MeV] (B_Ni:56) 64Ni28 + 3 p* -- 41K19 + 26Mg12 + 6.541 MeV [-18.986 MeV] (B_Ni:70) 64Ni28 + 3 p* -- 44Ca20 + 23Na11 + 5.766 MeV [-19.761 MeV] (B_Ni:71) If you go up to even just 4 hydrogen clusters, then there are many other elements which should also be generated, and which are not on the list designated in the patent as new material. Sentence [0071] of the new Rossi patent says that after energy generation the used powders newly contained Cu, S, Cl, K, and Ca. There is no mention of Mg, which is produced by most reactions I list above. This specific list of new elements, Cu, S, Cl, K, and Ca, is still a bit puzzling, especially since Ca and K are rarely found in feasible reactions as an ash, and are much more likely to be used as a fuel than produced. I still think Cs and Rh provide more likely explanations for the generation of K and Ca and little else, but that is just a not even strongly held opinion. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Hidden wire hypothesis redux
Note that when the machine initially started up, it had ~80 W input, a liter per second flow, and the outlet temperature was 40°C. This continued for a while. I take that to mean long enough for someone to put his hand on the outlet pipe to confirm that the tap water was coming out at body temperature. If I had been there I would do that instinctively, to confirm that the outlet temperature probe is working right. I would also be scared shitless, not to put too fine a point on it. The machine was obviously outputting ~10 times more power than it was intended to output. In my opinion, there is not the slightest chance this result could be faked by some stage magic technique. Palpable heat at body temperature is instantly recognizable. You would never confuse a tap-water bath for a nice hot 40°C Japanese bath. Even if the flow rate was somehow much lower than it appeared to be, and even if there were magic chambers in the outlet tube that vector the hot water to the outer layer of the tube (as someone suggested), there is no way you could produce a palpable level of heat with this much input power, or with hidden chemical fuel. The 5°C temperature difference later in the test is not palpable. Not easily felt, in any case. That requires you believe the instruments. Measuring this flow rate precisely is not easy, but not necessary either. An error plus or minus 10% would make no substantive difference. - Jed
[Vo]:compilation of recent articles about Rossi's E-Cat
A compilation of recent articles about Rossi's E-Cat: http://www.aesopinstitute.org/cold-fusion.html Harry
Re: [Vo]:Abd being censured?
On Feb 22, 2011, at 8:58 AM, William Beaty wrote: 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. I don't think the problem is with eskimo.com. I am getting no email from Abd from two different lists, and I sent a personal message to Abd asking for a reply. I didn't get a reply, so I assume it got swallowed up somewhere as well. I called my ISP and the support person said it wasn't them. Very mysterious. I have possibly narrowed the problem down to my system, but am waiting for Abd to post a message so I can do my check on this. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?
I just had to chime in here, after reading this entire thread. I am amazed at how many of you have been so patient. Then again, I had a few cough that were that patient with me when I first paid attention to weird science too. My experience with septicism goes back a few years. I am not positive, but seem to remember that one of my favourite quotes originated from Chris Tinsley; or at least he used it several times. Forget pearls, pigs just look puzzled. Never attempt to teach a pig to sing. You will only frustrate yourself, and annoy the pig. This is not analogous to any particular person, merely a stepping back to look at what is really going on. If the assumptions made by any one person are not divulged - i.e., their background, interests in the field, experience, etc. - then you can rest assured there is a reason. They might, perhaps, be recognised. That would never do! Debbie On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: I'm no longer writing for you, Cude. Ignore my posts if you like. Let us know if you have something substantive to say, beyond repeating your canned bluster. May whatever Deity is yours bless you Abd. I am amazed at your patience and perseverance. I recognized JC's P-S style from Bill Murray's illegal crossposts and chose to not engage JC. Oh, Rich, not Bill. Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience. T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Ni material
I wrote: I still think Cs and Rh provide more likely explanations for the generation of K and Ca and little else, but that is just a not even strongly held opinion. SHould have said: I still think Cs and Hf provide more likely explanations for the generation of K and Ca and little else, but that is just a not even strongly held opinion. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Abd being censured?
At 08:46 PM 2/24/2011, Horace Heffner wrote: I don't think the problem is with eskimo.com. I am getting no email from Abd from two different lists, and I sent a personal message to Abd asking for a reply. I didn't get a reply, so I assume it got swallowed up somewhere as well. Swallowed by my to-do list, which isn't even a list any more, it's a huge pile. I called my ISP and the support person said it wasn't them. Very mysterious. I have possibly narrowed the problem down to my system, but am waiting for Abd to post a message so I can do my check on this. I've been posting. Seems that it's getting through, I get them echoed back from the list, and responses. This kind of thing usually happens from aggressive spam filtering. I've asked my ISP to not filter my mail at all, and as a result, I get a huge amount of spam, which I attack with Mailwasher. But once in a while they get so much spam that they implement filtering anyway. I checked my mail server IP against blacklists. I checked my ISP IP against blacklists. Bingo. My Verizon IP is on a blacklist. Spamhaus-ZEN. This appears to be policy-based, because I'm using an external mail server, not Verizon's SMTP server. However, the mail is getting to Eskimo, and Eskimo does not echo my IP in the mail going to the list. If you are not seeing this mail, Horace, it's not IP filtering. It's on the archive, as you noted. There would have to be some other filter stopping it from getting to you.
Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?
At 11:44 AM 2/24/2011, Charles Hope wrote: It seems like the field needs a new improved experiment showing helium/heat. Joshua, can you specify some parameters that would convince you? I'm not sure that the field needs this, not as a priority. Improved heat/helium would make a nice grad student project, my opinion. The kind of thing that Cude thinks people would lap up: improving accuracy.
Re: [Vo]:What will convince Joshua Cude?
At 11:56 AM 2/24/2011, Charles Hope wrote: Isn't it more likely that the skeptics simply think the field is a joke, rather than that they're intimidated by the weight of the positive evidence? I don't think anyone is intimidated by the weight of the evidence. Most skeptics simply don't know, that's all. And if they are already convinced that CF was a Huge Mistake, they are not motivated to find out. They will need, to change, either some commercial product, or massive shift in the literature. I don't know which will come first. There is a shift in the literature, but there is still a large, shall we say, blackout zone.
Re: [Vo]:Researchers should scale up experiments, if they can
At 03:38 PM 2/24/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: I think one of the lessons of Rossi's success so far is that researchers should aim to produce a larger reaction, if they can. 12 kW is too large in some ways. But I suppose a typical experiment produces a fraction of a watt. 10 W or more would be more persuasive. It has emotional appeal. It shows that you can, in principle, scale up. The appeal is not fully rational, but I think it might garner more interest and financial support. Well, Jed, that depends on what you want to do. If you want to impress people, sure. But if you try to scale up a method before you have been able to stabilize it, so that results are not chaotic, you might scale up, all right, scale up to seriously dead. A solid approach will be solid when small. And small is much cheaper, and much safer. Sure, when you have something that works, cleanly and reliably, then you can scale up. but trying to scale up to start, no. Scale down, in fact, and run lots of experiments.
Re: [Vo]:Hidden wire hypothesis redux
At 05:09 PM 2/24/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: The assertion that a determined con artist can do this or that strikes me as inadequate. A con artist is not a magician capable of changing the laws of physics or magically influencing instruments. Uh, Jed, a con artist is indeed a magician, that is, someone skilled at the art of producing illusion. Unless you can suggest a specific technique that such a con artist might employ, I think this assertion cannot be tested or falsified. That's correct. It's not a scientific theory. It's a prudent and practical understanding. The possibility of a con only cuts so far, but those who have assets and who don't beware of cons often lose those assets. As I said before, I do not know of any instance in this history of science in what a con man managed too fool competent scientists for weeks at a time, especially in such a fundamentally simple experiment. I know that magicians can fool people quite thoroughly. Yes, they control access. People say that such things have happened. Skeptics insist that they happen all the time. But I do not know of any specific instances. All of the con-man over unity machines I have heard of or seen personally did not fool me for 5 minutes, and would not fool an scientist allowed to test them with his own instruments, and poke around inside the way Levi did. No. Not safe against a sophisticated con. Unless you can suggest a specific method I do not think this assertion is meaningful. There is nothing sophisticated about flow calorimetry on this scale. It is incredibly simple, and first-principle. J. P. Joule conducted experiments on this scale with a river and waterfall during his honeymoon. Hey, send Rossi a check, for all I care. (I don't think he's asking for money, though he seems to be complaining about his expenses ) This is *not* a charge that Rossi is being deceptive. I realize that. I am merely pointing out that the possibility exists, and, I must note, con artists sometimes have accomplices. If you are saying that Levi is an accomplice then I fully agree -- this could easily be a scam in that case. I discount that likelihood for the reasons given by Levi in interview linked above. Prudence and caution, that's all I'm suggesting. What's the rush to judgment? Either way? So an involved scientist might have been duped, or might have been paid. Duped how? Unless you can come up with a method this is like saying there may be an undetected error. That statement is true of every experiment ever conducted since Newton. Every experiment conducted in the last 500 years might have involved someone duping someone else, with fake instruments or bogus results published to attract attention. That is highly unlikely but conceivable. It is a useless hypothesis since you cannot disprove it. Every individual experiment might have been deception. It's the combination, the multiple independent confirmations, that rule this out routinely. This points out that an independent replication by someone connected with Rossi, by itself, can leave behind some suspicion, or maybe even one replication by someone apparently not connected. That is true, but the suspicion it leaves behind is more of an emotional issue than a rational one that can be rigorously proved or refuted. It resembles what I pointed out earlier: that higher power gives more confidence in the results, and a 10 W experiment seems better than a 0.5 W one. There is no technical reason for that, yet for most people higher power seems more convincing. The higher power does tend to rule out lesser explanations than fraud. Smaller power production might more easily be the result of some artifact, that's all. The emotional impact is also not to be neglected. This is being demonstrated outside of normal scientific protocols. There is a reason for those protocols. I'm also aware that Rossi has his reasons, which may be legitmate, to keep this secret. But the consequence of the secrecy is increased skepticism and suspicion. That's sim;ly natural.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Ni material
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 23 Feb 2011 23:24:21 -0900: Hi, [snip] On Feb 23, 2011, at 4:09 PM, Dennis wrote: I am not too good at looking at Electron microscope pictures perhaps someone here can help me understand Rossi's pictures in his patents. us20110005506A1 http://www.google.com/patents?id=84vwEBAJpg=PA1lpg=PA1dq=us20110005506A1+Rossisource=blots=qIO9bKdbuQsig=gHJvMrVVzvM4orfP4ggDk4-D_YMhl=enei=7a1lTa_1KZCasAO68bSFBQsa=Xoi=book_resultct=resultresnum=1ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepageqf=false It looks like his particle size is around 10 microns and that he labels the Si and Co peaks (he assumes the Zn is a product) Is that how others read it? So could his catalyst additives be Si and Co? Dennis Cravens Those peaks marked Si and Co look negligible. Very surprising there is no indication of copper! Sentence [0068] Does anyone know what method was used to determine the composition? If it was SIMS, then it's possible that Co was indicated simply because it's the only naturally occurring isotope with a mass of 59. However given the source of the material, it may actually have been Ni-59. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude does not believe in the scientific method
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua Cude wrote: Most of those things are tools, and I believe in them like I believe in hammers. But no matter how much you believe in hammers, it doesn't mean you can build a house. Let me spell out what you believe. You may not agree, but here are the implications of what you are saying. You believe that a group of roughly 2,000 highly qualified professional scientists who have repeatedly measured an effect at high signal to noise ratios are wrong. Every one of them was wrong, in ever single instance. If even one was right, that would make cold fusion real. Well, yes of course (except I don't agree with the high signal-to-noise, considering the results are mostly noise). That is is a simple implication. Not all their measurements are wrong, but if in my judgement, as in the judgement of most scientists, cold fusion experiments are not measuring heat from nuclear reactions, then according to that judgement, anyone who interprets their measurements as evidence of heat from nuclear reactions are making an incorrect interpretation. Taken as a group, there is no chance that such a large randomly selected group could are all wrong for 22 years. That's simply preposterous. First, because it is hardly a randomly selected group. It is a group selected on the basis of their making positive cold fusion measurements. It's like selecting 1000 people who answered 2+2=5 on a test out a several million say, and saying there is no chance they are all wrong. If you select scientists at random, they will not all interpret cold fusion experiments as nuclear phenomena. Secondly, for cold fusion to be right, requires a far larger group of scientists to be wrong. Thirdly, there are precedents for large groups of scientists being wrong. Before Einstein, all scientists were wrong about time intervals being independent of reference frame. Before Planck, all scientists were wrong about atoms absorbing or emitting radiation on a continuum. Relativity and QM are admittedly a little different, but there are also very close parallels with which I am sure you are familiar: N-rays and polywater. I know you see these as very different as well, but for the purpose of this argument, in fact, the parallel is very good. There were 200 publications on N-rays, and 450 or so on polywater (over about 12 years). Cold fusion is bigger than either, with a little more than twice the publications than polywater, but then it's a more subtle measurement -- more difficult to disprove, and the implications of the phenomenon are far greater, therefore attracting more attention. The polywater people could have said it's not like N-rays because there are twice as many papers, and twice as many scientists, but in fact it was like N-rays. And if you can get 450 papers, with more than 100 in one year, with the authors all wrong, every single one of them, it's not a stretch to imagine twice (or even 10 times) that if an unequivocal debunking hadn't come along. This sort of delusional science is not a random process. And then of course there are fields that go on for many more decades that are considered wrong by most scientists. Fields like homeopathy and straight chiropractic are a century old, and in the judgement of many, they are all wrong. Homeopathy advocates sometimes even sound like cold fusion advocates. Listen to this from the Guardian in 2010: By the end of 2009, 142 randomised control trials (the gold standard in medical research) comparing homeopathy with placebo or conventional treatment had been published in peer-reviewed journals – 74 were able to draw firm conclusions: 63 were positive for homeopathy and 11 were negative. Five major systematic reviews have also been carried out to analyse the balance of evidence from RCTs of homeopathy – four were positive (Kleijnen et al; Linde et al; Linde et al; Cucherat et al) and one was negative (Shang et al). If even one of those were right, homeopathy would be real. In order for cold fusion to be wrong, every single one of these people would have to be making drastic errors repeatedly, for 22 years. I don't know about drastic errors, but certainly repeated errors of interpretation. You are saying that Jalbert, these experts, the people at TAMU and experts at roughly a hundred other institutions all thought they measured tritium, but they were all wrong. You are saying that you know more about tritium than they do, and you are sure they are wrong. You don't have to have a reason -- you just know. Remember: if even one tritium result is real, or one example of heat beyond the limits of chemistry, that means cold fusion is real, and you are wrong. What I know doesn't matter, but it is very clear that most people who know as much about tritium as your stars, don't believe the measurements, or at least don't believe they come from cold fusion. And judging from the scatter in the data
[Vo]:Leaking o-ring on Discovery Booster?
Look the photo of Discovery here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8346780/Discovery-space- shuttle-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-Nasas-shuttle-programme.html http://tinyurl.com/4ozgo86 Looks like an o-ring is leaking in the lower section of the starboard booster. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Leaking o-ring on Discovery Booster?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McUl93gGz- watch this video of the ascent. I think it is just the way the light from the exhaust or the sun illuminates the structural details on the booster. harry - Original Message From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: Vortex-L vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, February 25, 2011 2:19:09 AM Subject: [Vo]:Leaking o-ring on Discovery Booster? Look the photo of Discovery here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8346780/Discovery-space-shuttle-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-Nasas-shuttle-programme.html l http://tinyurl.com/4ozgo86 Looks like an o-ring is leaking in the lower section of the starboard booster. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Leaking o-ring on Discovery Booster?
oops the url was incomplete it should be http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McUl93gGz-8 harry http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McUl93gGz- watch this video of the ascent. I think it is just the way the light from the exhaust or the sun illuminates the structural details on the booster. harry
