Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Nickel

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Horace Heffner  wrote:

> I'm depressed.  Haven't finished my taxes. Sigh.

I'm depressed, too.  I HAVE finished my taxes.

T

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Nickel

[Horace Heffner]

On Feb 28, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Horace Heffner  
 wrote:


On Feb 28, 2011, at 10:12 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

A main conceptual problem, as always with LENR, is: how is the  
gamma and

neutron radiation being suppressed?

Jones


Sigh.




So . . .

It all comes together here:

http://www.theeestory.com/topics/7941

Rossi and WL are together as reported by the EEStor blog.  And it is
all explained before dinner!

T


Sigh.

I'm depressed.  Haven't finished my taxes. Sigh.

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Nickel

[Jones Beene]

It's always before dinner ... or after five ... somewhere.

On first glance, that blog seems to put vortex to shame in terms of
extreme... err ... extreme something...

Jones

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Nickel

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Horace Heffner 
wrote:
>
> On Feb 28, 2011, at 10:12 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
>
>> A main conceptual problem, as always with LENR, is: how is the gamma and
>> neutron radiation being suppressed?
>>
>> Jones
>
> Sigh.



So . . .

It all comes together here:

http://www.theeestory.com/topics/7941

Rossi and WL are together as reported by the EEStor blog.  And it is
all explained before dinner!

T

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Nickel

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Horace Heffner  wrote:
>
> On Feb 28, 2011, at 10:12 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
>
>> A main conceptual problem, as always with LENR, is: how is the gamma and
>> neutron radiation being suppressed?
>>
>> Jones
>
> Sigh.



So . . .

It all comes together here:

http://www.theeestory.com/topics/7941

Rossi and WL are together as reported by the EEStor blog.  And it is
all explained before dinner!

T

Re: [Vo]:Hidden wire hypothesis redux

[Harry Veeder]

>
>From: Jed Rothwell 
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Sent: Sun, February 27, 2011 9:45:55 PM
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hidden wire hypothesis redux
>
>
>Harry Veeder  wrote:
>
>
>> evidence is not relevant in this case; only if they can show that
>>> fixed-geometry systems with an electrostatic charge spontaneously warm
>>> up can they claim that something is "doing work".
>>
>>That is like saying it can't be cold fusion because
>>there are no gamma rays.
>>

>I think it is more like saying X cannot be cold fusion because there is no 
>evidence of change to the nucleus; i.e., no transmutations.

Choose your poison.
It is just rehtorical bluster.


>Also, their claim violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, as far as I can 
>tell.

so maybe the laws of thermodynamics are flawed.

harry

Re: [Vo]:Yes, cold fusion is a fringe subject by the standards of Wikipedia

[Jed Rothwell]

Charles Hope  wrote:

There is no mathematical definition of fringe.


There is, however, a conventional definition of what constitutes mainstream
science. It calls for professional scientists, replication, peer-review, a
high s/n ratio and various other things. According to this definition, cold
fusion is mainstream, not fringe.



> A topic is fringe if the majority of scientists subjectively feel it is.


That would be another definition of "fringe," as I said.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Russian Oilies Invest in LENR

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 5:39 PM,   wrote:

> ...and I thought it was run by the Mafia. ;)

It was.  No longer.

T

Re: [Vo]:Hidden wire hypothesis redux

[Harry Veeder]

harry wrote:
>>If the premises of the other side not understood or recognised then it may 
>>seem 
>
>>illogical.

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: 
>
>Premises?  No, just simple definitions.
>
>They're using well accepted and understood terms, and the definitions of
>those well understood terms simply rule out what they're saying -- it's
>as though they said, "Black is really white".  It's false, by definition.
>
>If they've redefined common words and terms, they should bloody well say
>so -- that's not "premises" which are in question, it's plain old
>communication.
>
>What they were claiming was silly.  If they actually meant something
>else, which wasn't silly, they should have claimed that, instead.
>
>If they said something other than what they meant, is it the fault of
>the listeners that they weren't understood?



You aren't listening now.

"Premises?  No, just simple definitions."

harry

RE: [Vo]:Fleischmann's "Type A" palladium

[Jones Beene]

From: Dennis 

 

*  Fleischmann's "boil off" cathode had Ce in it  if memory serves.

 

Another coincidence in the category of 'nothing new under the sun'. Just
today I have been discussing an old paper:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=OvYtIAAJ

&pg=PA656&lpg=PA656&dq=thorium+nitrate+thoria&source=bl&ots=NY1aiKWn3D&sig=4
HGbPC7FMBEpGiQ7lwhocf-NQlk&hl=en&ei=yydcTc-eKsWt8AapwLT9DQ&sa=X&oi=book_resu
lt&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=thorium%20nitrate%20thoria
&f=false

 

. where in the old gas mantle lighting systems, the thoria mantles alone
were ineffective, but 1% cerium maximized the light emission, and more than
that was counterproductive. 

 

Fran Roarty will appreciate the mention on p. 656 of the "spongy" cells
which form when the nitrate is oxidized. No doubt they are Casimir cavities.

 

Jones

Re: [Vo]:The 'magic' of pycno

[mixent]

In reply to  Horace Heffner's message of Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:52:35 -0900:
Hi,
[snip]
>> A virtual neutron is a small neutral object comprising a proton and  
>> an electron
>> with a mass less than that of a real neutron, that hasn't (yet?)  
>> undergone a
>> weak force reaction.
>> It has the ability to closely approach another nucleus thereby  
>> increasing the
>> likelihood of tunneling, due to no Coulomb field repulsion.
>
>The above seems to me to be nonsense.  A proton and electron can not  
>"closely approach a nucleus" without a substantial binding energy.   
>Otherwise the nuclear electrostatic field will tear apart the  
>ensemble.  What is the nature of this binding energy?

All the "virtual neutron" theories use electrostatic force between proton and
electron, but Mills (alone) adds an additional force due to a trapped photon.
In his model the total force equals the electrostatic force of n protons where
1/n is the primary quantum number. E.g. for the smallest Hydrino the binding
force is 137 times the force of a single proton. That means that even the
heaviest nucleus wouldn't be able to tear it apart, which is one thing he has
going for his theory. In my own version this additional charge force doesn't
exist, and I would indeed expect them to get torn apart upon close approach to
more highly charged nucleus, however by the time that happens, it will be close
enough to have a vastly increased chance of tunneling. Particularly as in my
version the radius goes as the square of the primary quantum number, so that the
smallest is just a few fm in radius which means that they are already
essentially of nuclear dimensions. 

How it would work with IRH is anybody's guess.

>
>Best regards,
>
>Horace Heffner
>http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
>
>
>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: [Vo]:Fleischmann's "Type A" palladium

[Dennis]

I know that my best early work was with Pd+Ag.  I used the old Shaffer fountain 
pin numbs
(circa late 50's)

The diffusion palladium was 23% Ag if memory serves.
Fleischmann's "boil off" cathode had Ce in it  if memory serves.


D2


From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 2:16 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:Fleischmann's "Type A" palladium


Terry Blanton wrote:


I agree.  However, even people who bought their Pd from the same
source as F&P (Johnson Matthey?) had less success because there was
something "special" in the way it was processed.  I think that process
has yet to be revealed?  I'm sure Jed would remember.

The process wasn't all that special, and it is not secret. When he began this 
research, Fleischmann went to Johnson Matthey (JM) and told them he wanted Pd 
that can be highly loaded without cracking. They recommended the Pd material 
they developed in the 1930s for hydrogen filters. Fleischmann later called this 
"Type A." He distributed samples to many researchers, who had much higher 
success with it than with any other type. See Table 10 here, p. 43, for example:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf

The cathodes labeled "(F/P)" came from Fleischmann. They all worked, and they 
produced more heat than the others.

At BARC they used an actual hydrogen filter to run a cold fusion experiment. It 
worked splendidly. As I recall, someone at NASA also did this.

JM has changed the method they used to make this type of Pd. The newer type 
might not work as well. Then again, it might work. As far as I know, no one has 
the money to find out. JM offered to make up a batch for Fleischmann and me, 
with cathodes cut to specification, but their minimum order was 1 kg and I 
could not afford it.

Probably, by now Violante's group at the ENEA knows as much about how to make 
effective Pd as JM did. They may have wasted 15 years finding out, when they 
might have just asked JM to tell them. Or sell them some. During the Toyota 
cold fusion project in France, there was a strange agreement between Toyota and 
JM. JM supplied the materials and then took them back, doing all the analysis. 
They wouldn't tell Toyota what they found. No one I know has any idea what 
happened to the data. Their is bad blood between them. The way I heard it, 
Toyota wanted JM to share the information, and they offered them peanuts. (I 
believe that is how it was described to me, "peanuts,"  meaning a small amount, 
not the 1970s Japanese Lockheed scandal in which 1 peanut = $1 million).

The key calorimetric data from that project also disappeared. Fleischmann had 
quite a lot of it on paper. Someone broke into his house and took it. They did 
not take anything else, so I suppose this was no ordinary thief. He asked 
Toyota for new copies but they never responded.

He is pretty upset about the whole thing, as you can imagine.

Below is a memo about Type A Pd that I wrote in February 2000.

- Jed

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Type A palladium saga 
February 7, 2000

For many years Martin Fleischman has been recommending a particular type of 
palladium made by Johnson Matthey for cold fusion experiments. He has been 
saying this to anyone who will listen, but very few people do. He handed out 
several of these ideal cathodes to experienced researchers, and as far as he 
knows in every case the samples produced excess heat. The material was 
designated "Type A" palladium by Fleischmann and Pons. It was developed decades 
ago for use in hydrogen diffusion tubes: filters that allow hydrogen to pass 
while holding back other gasses. This alloy was designed to have great 
structural integrity under high loading. It lasts for years, withstanding 
cracking and deformation that would quickly destroy other alloys and allow 
other gasses to seep through the filters. This robustness happens to be the 
quality we need for cold fusion. The main reason cold fusion is difficult to 
reproduce is because when bulk palladium loads with deuterium, it cracks, 
bends, distorts and it will not load above a certain level, usually ~60%, I 
think. Below 85 to 90% loading bulk palladium never produces excess heat. A 
sample of palladium chosen at random from most suppliers will *never* reach 
this level of loading. You could perform thousands of tests for cold fusion 
with ordinary palladium, with perfect confidence that you will never see 
measurable excess heat. That is essentially what the NHE did: they performed 
the wrong experiment hundreds of times in succession, using materials which 
everyone knows cannot work. This is like trying to make a 27-story building out 
of doughnuts.

 It seems likely to me that most of the reproducibility problems with bulk 
palladium CF would have been solved years ago if people had only listened to 
Martin Fleischman's advice. Alas, in my experience, people seldom listen to 
advice or follow directions. Fleischman sometimes compounds the problem by 
speaking in a

Re: [Vo]:Russian Oilies Invest in LENR

[mixent]

In reply to  Terry Blanton's message of Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:44:22 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:33 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
> wrote:
>
>> Should we welcome the "mindset" of Russia's Siberian Khatru, or should
>> we be a little concerned.
>>
>> IOW, what else is in their "mindset"?
>
>I don't know if they are related to the Oil Industry; but, NYC
>organized crime is run by the Ruskies.
>
>T

...and I thought it was run by the Mafia. ;)
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Nickel

[Roarty, Francis X]

Very Plausible Theory! So the control loop is easier to implement with larger 
mass. Regarding Gamma radiation, I think Naudt's suggestion of a relativistic 
hydrino is a big clue. A local observer/grad student inside the vacuum energy 
suppressing geometry would see a normal hydrogen radius and normal gamma 
radiation before he died. As the geometry grows larger the suppression abates 
and the vacuum energy density returns to normal... that is to say the vacuum 
flux appear to grow longer from our perspective and everything else drawn on 
this patch of space time while relativistic also gets downconverted/larger. So 
if the radiation was created inside a relativistic frame then it will be down 
converted while exiting the suppression zone. 
Fran


-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 2:12 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Nickel

Earlier I had written, but not given the obvious terminology to the
following:

AFAIK - no one in LENR has ever tried large amounts (kilograms?) of active
matrix material before, even Mills, and a liter volume capacity tube will
hold ... perhaps 2 kg of nanopowder. Moreover, the 5 PLC controllers
indicate that thermal control is of the highest importance to this device;
and a large mass of active material would possibly make it easier to keep
the internal heat steady at a threshold, so that only a small amount of
differential heating is required, mostly on startup. 

OK. If it is not obvious yet, the most apt term for this kind of M.O. is
"critical mass"! ... and the reason that it was not apparent to me is the
low energy context. We only expect to see 'critical mass' in with nuclear
fission reactions; and that is because a critical mass supports a chain
reaction of neutrons, which is far easier to control by damping a runaway,
than it is by adding energy to a subcritical mass. Since there is not
radiation or neutron flux, then we easily ignore the possibility that there
could be a *chain reaction of another kind* which needs a critical mass or
reactants.

The more I have thought about this, the more obvious is the cross-connection
or the Rossi reactor to a fission reactor. 

And the easier it is to imagine how, without much of an understanding of
what is going on in the physics, he could have simply gotten lucky by
'supersizing' the work of Piantelli/Focardi/Mills).

Forget all of the intentional disinformation from the patent application,
and the double-talk from Rossi himself. He does NOT want anyone to find this
out until he has already given the megawatt demo in a few months, and has
reaped the rewards of a the largest IPO in history. 

Something is happening in this reactor which is the functional equivalent of
a chain reaction, and it demands a critical mass of reactive material and a
threshold flux of reactive particles. 

A main conceptual problem, as always with LENR, is: how is the gamma and
neutron radiation being suppressed?

Jones

[Vo]:Fleischmann's "Type A" palladium

[Jed Rothwell]

Terry Blanton wrote:


I agree.  However, even people who bought their Pd from the same
source as F&P (Johnson Matthey?) had less success because there was
something "special" in the way it was processed.  I think that process
has yet to be revealed?  I'm sure Jed would remember.


The process wasn't all that special, and it is not secret. When he began 
this research, Fleischmann went to Johnson Matthey (JM) and told them he 
wanted Pd that can be highly loaded without cracking. They recommended 
the Pd material they developed in the 1930s for hydrogen filters. 
Fleischmann later called this "Type A." He distributed samples to many 
researchers, who had much higher success with it than with any other 
type. See Table 10 here, p. 43, for example:


http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf

The cathodes labeled "(F/P)" came from Fleischmann. They all worked, and 
they produced more heat than the others.


At BARC they used an actual hydrogen filter to run a cold fusion 
experiment. It worked splendidly. As I recall, someone at NASA also did 
this.


JM has changed the method they used to make this type of Pd. The newer 
type might not work as well. Then again, it might work. As far as I 
know, no one has the money to find out. JM offered to make up a batch 
for Fleischmann and me, with cathodes cut to specification, but their 
minimum order was 1 kg and I could not afford it.


Probably, by now Violante's group at the ENEA knows as much about how to 
make effective Pd as JM did. They may have wasted 15 years finding out, 
when they might have just asked JM to tell them. Or sell them some. 
During the Toyota cold fusion project in France, there was a strange 
agreement between Toyota and JM. JM supplied the materials and then took 
them back, doing all the analysis. They wouldn't tell Toyota what they 
found. No one I know has any idea what happened to the data. Their is 
bad blood between them. The way I heard it, Toyota wanted JM to share 
the information, and they offered them peanuts. (I believe that is how 
it was described to me, "peanuts,"  meaning a small amount, not the 
1970s Japanese Lockheed scandal in which 1 peanut = $1 million).


The key calorimetric data from that project also disappeared. 
Fleischmann had quite a lot of it on paper. Someone broke into his house 
and took it. They did not take anything else, so I suppose this was no 
ordinary thief. He asked Toyota for new copies but they never responded.


He is pretty upset about the whole thing, as you can imagine.

Below is a memo about Type A Pd that I wrote in February 2000.

- Jed

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Type A palladium saga

February 7, 2000

For many years Martin Fleischman has been recommending a particular type 
of palladium made by Johnson Matthey for cold fusion experiments. He has 
been saying this to anyone who will listen, but very few people do. He 
handed out several of these ideal cathodes to experienced researchers, 
and as far as he knows in every case the samples produced excess heat. 
The material was designated "Type A" palladium by Fleischmann and Pons. 
It was developed decades ago for use in hydrogen diffusion tubes: 
filters that allow hydrogen to pass while holding back other gasses. 
This alloy was designed to have great structural integrity under high 
loading. It lasts for years, withstanding cracking and deformation that 
would quickly destroy other alloys and allow other gasses to seep 
through the filters. This robustness happens to be the quality we need 
for cold fusion. The main reason cold fusion is difficult to reproduce 
is because when bulk palladium loads with deuterium, it cracks, bends, 
distorts and it will not load above a certain level, usually ~60%, I 
think. Below 85 to 90% loading bulk palladium never produces excess 
heat. A sample of palladium chosen at random from most suppliers will 
*never* reach this level of loading. You could perform thousands of 
tests for cold fusion with ordinary palladium, with perfect confidence 
that you will never see measurable excess heat. That is essentially what 
the NHE did: they performed the wrong experiment hundreds of times in 
succession, using materials which everyone knows cannot work. This is 
like trying to make a 27-story building out of doughnuts.


 It seems likely to me that most of the reproducibility problems with 
bulk palladium CF would have been solved years ago if people had only 
listened to Martin Fleischman's advice. Alas, in my experience, people 
seldom listen to advice or follow directions. Fleischman sometimes 
compounds the problem by speaking in a cryptic, convoluted style and by 
using complex mathematical equations that few other people can 
understand. He sometimes takes a long time to respond to inquiries; he 
answered one of my questions two years after I asked. However, in this 
case he has made himself quite clear on many occasions. For example, he 
wrote QUOTE:


. . . We note that whereas "b

Re: [Vo]:Russian Oilies Invest in LENR

[Terry Blanton]

2011/2/28 Jones Beene :

> Matter of fact, maybe 'Greek's bearing gifts' is a clever disguise for the
> Русская мафия and it is already too late ...

So, Semion Mogilevich IS Symeon Tsalikoglou AND Keyser Söze!

Bloody hell!

T

Re: [Vo]:Russian Oilies Invest in LENR

[Terry Blanton]

2011/2/28 Jones Beene :

> Matter of fact, maybe 'Greek's bearing gifts' is a clever disguise for the
> Русская мафия and it is already too late ...

So, Semion Mogilevich IS Symeon Tsalikoglou AND Keyser Söze!

Bloody hell!

T

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Nickel

[Horace Heffner]

On Feb 28, 2011, at 10:12 AM, Jones Beene wrote:

A main conceptual problem, as always with LENR, is: how is the  
gamma and

neutron radiation being suppressed?

Jones


Sigh.

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

RE: [Vo]:Russian Oilies Invest in LENR

[Jones Beene]

Another slant - given that Russia is a true kleptocracy these days, should
not Rossi be worried about their interest in this device? 

Matter of fact, maybe 'Greek's bearing gifts' is a clever disguise for the
Русская мафия and it is already too late ...



-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 

OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:

> I gather most within the Vort Collective tend to express considerable
> skepticism in believing that anyone deeply invested in the petroleum
> industry would show any interest whatsoever in pursuing and/or
> developing a LENR-based industry.

Yes, but you are discounting the fact that the Russian oil tycoons are
nouveau riche.  Russia's Siberian Khatru has been a long time in
development and they many not have the mindset that exists in Western
Oilers.

T

Re: [Vo]:Hidden wire hypothesis redux

[Jed Rothwell]

Horace Heffner  wrote:


> What impact did Brian Ahern make on ICCF-16?  There was no paper of his
> presented, at least not in the abstracts.  Was it talk regarding his
> Pd-Ni-Zr oxide composite “PNZ2B” used by Kitamura1 et al?


Mainly that. That was presented by Kitamura. Plus the fact that he is
working on Ni-H.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Nickel

[Jones Beene]

Earlier I had written, but not given the obvious terminology to the
following:

AFAIK - no one in LENR has ever tried large amounts (kilograms?) of active
matrix material before, even Mills, and a liter volume capacity tube will
hold ... perhaps 2 kg of nanopowder. Moreover, the 5 PLC controllers
indicate that thermal control is of the highest importance to this device;
and a large mass of active material would possibly make it easier to keep
the internal heat steady at a threshold, so that only a small amount of
differential heating is required, mostly on startup. 

OK. If it is not obvious yet, the most apt term for this kind of M.O. is
"critical mass"! ... and the reason that it was not apparent to me is the
low energy context. We only expect to see 'critical mass' in with nuclear
fission reactions; and that is because a critical mass supports a chain
reaction of neutrons, which is far easier to control by damping a runaway,
than it is by adding energy to a subcritical mass. Since there is not
radiation or neutron flux, then we easily ignore the possibility that there
could be a *chain reaction of another kind* which needs a critical mass or
reactants.

The more I have thought about this, the more obvious is the cross-connection
or the Rossi reactor to a fission reactor. 

And the easier it is to imagine how, without much of an understanding of
what is going on in the physics, he could have simply gotten lucky by
'supersizing' the work of Piantelli/Focardi/Mills).

Forget all of the intentional disinformation from the patent application,
and the double-talk from Rossi himself. He does NOT want anyone to find this
out until he has already given the megawatt demo in a few months, and has
reaped the rewards of a the largest IPO in history. 

Something is happening in this reactor which is the functional equivalent of
a chain reaction, and it demands a critical mass of reactive material and a
threshold flux of reactive particles. 

A main conceptual problem, as always with LENR, is: how is the gamma and
neutron radiation being suppressed?

Jones

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude does not believe in the scientific method

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 10:45 AM 2/28/2011, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:

From Abd:

...
> Younger scientists are becoming educated in what actually
> happened in 1989-1990.
...
> The skepticism is most entrenched among physicists, who
> seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that there might be
> something happening that they don't understand.

The irony here is that encountering phenomenon that is not currently
understood (according to current accepted theory) is precisely what
physicists ought to yearn for in their professional lives.


One would think so. However, this is really only true for theoretical 
physicists. The problems of LENR, as to theory, are not necessarily 
likely to lead to increased employment for physicists. The practical 
engineering, once there is decent theory, will be done by chemists 
and materials scientists. Or "engineers," we might better call them.


I do think that if someone comes up with a killer theory, with high 
predictive power, they might win a Nobel prize.



It's where
new discoveries have the best chance of being uncovered and
subsequently explored. It's the perfect opportunity for staking out
new scientific territories and making a professional name for oneself.
That's precisely what the next gen of post-docs and graduates in
physics are likely to do.

Move over! There is hope.


Yes, I think there is a lot of hope. There is a bootstrap problem. As 
long as physicists believe that CF was conclusively rejected in 1989 
-- or, alternatively, that the evidence was so weak that there is no 
reason to believe LENR is possible -- they are not motivated to try 
to explain what they don't believe is happening! That's why it's 
necessary for some physicists to explore the data. There are clues: 
Robert Duncan, for example, or the hot fusion physicists who have 
been working on the problem. Takahashi's work is crying out for 
review by others with expertise in quantum field theory. His work is 
based on classical hot fusion work with deuteron bombardment. These 
are doors, openings, that some physicists, I assume, will explore.


The problem is extremely difficult, or so it seems! Maybe when the 
correct theory is developed, we will be slapping our heads over how 
simple it is. But that is not at all guaranteed. Cold fusion is a 
physically marginal effect. It, rather obviously, is not "normal." 
("Marginal" does not mean that the results of the experiments are 
marginal, but that setting up the conditions to observe the effect is 
not simple and not necessarily easy. The effect itself, once it's 
happening, stands out way above the noise.)


Give that it's marginal, the shortcuts used frequently to make 
multibody problems possible to solve with quantum field theory don't 
work. Those are the shortcuts that predicted that fusion couldn't 
happen! I'm interested in Takahashi's TSC theory, not because it is 
necessarily the "correct theory," but because it shows that ramping 
up the accuracy of the analysis can result in a prediction of 100% 
fusion under certain physical conditions that are either possible or 
not far from possible under condensed matter conditions. Rare 
conditions, fortunately, or we might have lost some part of the U of 
Utah campus, in 1985. (And, of course, PdD "anomalous heat" would 
have been noticed and recognized before.) 

Re: [Vo]:Russian Oilies Invest in LENR

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:33 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
 wrote:

> Should we welcome the "mindset" of Russia's Siberian Khatru, or should
> we be a little concerned.
>
> IOW, what else is in their "mindset"?

I don't know if they are related to the Oil Industry; but, NYC
organized crime is run by the Ruskies.

T

Re: [Vo]:Russian Oilies Invest in LENR

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

>From Terry:

> Yes, but you are discounting the fact that the Russian oil tycoons are
> nouveau riche.  Russia's Siberian Khatru has been a long time in
> development and they many not have the mindset that exists in Western
> Oilers.

Hmmm...

Should we welcome the "mindset" of Russia's Siberian Khatru, or should
we be a little concerned.

IOW, what else is in their "mindset"?

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Russian Oilies Invest in LENR

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 11:08 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
 wrote:

> I gather most within the Vort Collective tend to express considerable
> skepticism in believing that anyone deeply invested in the petroleum
> industry would show any interest whatsoever in pursuing and/or
> developing a LENR-based industry.

Yes, but you are discounting the fact that the Russian oil tycoons are
nouveau riche.  Russia's Siberian Khatru has been a long time in
development and they many not have the mindset that exists in Western
Oilers.

T

Re: [Vo]:Russian Oilies Invest in LENR

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

As Terry pointed out in:

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/chennai/cold-fusion-predicted-10-yrs-183

Excerpt:

> Igor Goryachev, a scientist from Research Institute of Nuclear
> Instrumentation, Russia, said there has been considerable
> interest in LENR projects in his country. “Interestingly, oil
> tycoons have started investing in this project,” he said.

I gather most within the Vort Collective tend to express considerable
skepticism in believing that anyone deeply invested in the petroleum
industry would show any interest whatsoever in pursuing and/or
developing a LENR-based industry.

I perceive a discontinuity in the above article. Not long ago I seem
to recall Jed Rothwell mentioning something to the effect that when
representatives of oil corporations contacted him in regards to LENR
research most tended to express total mystification and ignorance as
to what the field is about.

I wish the article could have been more specific as to who these "oil
tycoons" might be. Where are they from? What countries? What's their
background? Are they old or young?

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude does not believe in the scientific method

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:45 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
 wrote:

> The irony here is that encountering phenomenon that is not currently
> understood (according to current accepted theory) is precisely what
> physicists ought to yearn for in their professional lives. It's where
> new discoveries have the best chance of being uncovered and
> subsequently explored. It's the perfect opportunity for staking out
> new scientific territories and making a professional name for oneself.
> That's precisely what the next gen of post-docs and graduates in
> physics are likely to do.


The further irony is that those experienced are best qualified to make
new discoveries but are either entrenched in their beliefs or fear for
their reputations (or both).

T

RE: [Vo]:enhanced catalytic dissociation

[Jones Beene]

This is an interesting alloy for a spillover catalyst, since it shows 
significant improvement over Pd alone. 

 

I wonder how Cu-Pd compares with Ni-Pd in that regard? 

 

 

 

From: froarty 

 

An interesting Russian  paper from 1999 discusses the disassociation of h2. It 
is titled “The enhanced catalytic dissociation of adsorbed hydrogen containing 
molecules”. http://www.icmp.lviv.ua/journal/zbirnyk.19/019/art19.pdf . by 
V.G.Litovchenko, A.A.Efremov

 

 

 

[Vo]:Russian Oilies Invest in LENR

[Terry Blanton]

Last sentence.

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/chennai/cold-fusion-predicted-10-yrs-183

"Cold fusion predicted in 10 yrs
February 12th, 2011

Chennai, Feb. 11: Though reluctant to recognise the viability of the
low energy nuclear reactor built by Italian scientists Andrea Rossi
and Sergio Focardi, a top US scientist agreed that such a device could
soon hit the market.
“The first commercial LENR device is imminent,” said David J. Nagel of
George Washington University. “It will become a commercial reality
within 10 years.”
Summarising proceedings of the six-day international conference on
condensed matter nuclear science that concluded here on Friday, Prof.
Nagel said the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor coming
up in France would take 40 years to be successful.
“Sixty years of research work and $20 billion has been put into the
hot fusion experimental reactor being built in France as a joint
venture between the European Union, USA, Japan, Russia, South Korea
and India,” he noted. “But the world will have to wait for 40 years to
see this reactor become commercial and start powering our homes.”
Compared to ITER’s hot fusion reactor, cold fusion or low energy
nuclear reactions has had only 20 years of research and spending of
just $ 0.2 billion. “This is just 1 per cent of the amount spent on
hot fusion,” he said.
According to Prof. Nagel, hot fusion reactors including ITER are
neither environment friendly nor safe in the long run. The project
envisages production of 10 times more power than input. “Cold fusion
energy sources though small, are distributed uniformly. We are hopeful
of commercialising power from cold fusion in 10 years time,” Prof.
Nagel said.
Igor Goryachev, a scientist from Research Institute of Nuclear
Instrumentation, Russia, said there has been considerable interest in
LENR projects in his country. “Interestingly, oil tycoons have started
investing in this project,” he said."

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude does not believe in the scientific method

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

>From Abd:

...
> Younger scientists are becoming educated in what actually
> happened in 1989-1990.
...
> The skepticism is most entrenched among physicists, who
> seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that there might be
> something happening that they don't understand.

The irony here is that encountering phenomenon that is not currently
understood (according to current accepted theory) is precisely what
physicists ought to yearn for in their professional lives. It's where
new discoveries have the best chance of being uncovered and
subsequently explored. It's the perfect opportunity for staking out
new scientific territories and making a professional name for oneself.
That's precisely what the next gen of post-docs and graduates in
physics are likely to do.

Move over! There is hope.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude does not believe in the scientific method

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 04:57 PM 2/26/2011, Terry Blanton wrote:

On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> Obviously, me calling them fringe does not make it so. But if people who
> work on fringe science represent a fringe group, then it is not really a
> matter of opinion.

As long as we are expressing our opinions, IMO, those who work on the
fringe of science should be called "explorers" and not be denigrated.


Of course, Terry.

Joshua has basically defined "fringe" in a way that is unverifiable. 
These things get defined on Wikipedia, in theory, by balance of 
publication. In theory, if we exclude specialist publishers, i.e., 
publishers who only publish things that are not generally accepted, 
the Journal of Scientific Exploration would be an example -- which in 
no way deprecates that journal, in itself -- Wikipedia editors are to 
look at everything appearing in secondary source reviews, in 
mainstream journals, as to be covered by the encyclopedia, in science articles.


In practice, editors ignore the guidelines, and ignore the 
Arbitration Committee decisions, and have acted to exclude from 
participation, editors with opinions they consider "fringe," often 
based on very old publication and assumptions. That is how the 
Wikipedia article has come to be radically misrepresentative of the 
actual balance of publication in mainstream journals.


Pseudoskeptics will raise hosts of arguments. They will claim that 
Naturwissenschaften is a "biology journal," citing fair-seeming 
evidence. That falls apart if actually examined, but they continue to 
assert this all the same. That particular canard was the subject of a 
mediation on Wikipedia, and the conclusion was correct. Not a "life 
sciences journal." But an editor who participated in that mediation, 
who did not object to the result, just the other day repeated it.


Pseudoskepticism is a form of religious belief, it is not scientific.

In the end, "fringe" is no argument about a topic at all. It's a 
political category. In theory, no paper is rejected because it is 
"fringe." In a functional journal with functioning review process. 
This argument, in fact, is used by the pseudoskeptics, they point to 
the absence of papers in certain journals they consider important. 
But particular journals can be subject to editorial bias; if papers 
are not even subjected to peer review, if they are rejected out of 
had by policy, which definitely happened, and which still continues, 
then we can see the absence of papers in them.


The skeptical position is mostly a position of silence, there are a 
few people, obviously obsessed by the topic, some simply continuing, 
inflexibly, prior committed opinion, it is not finding expression in 
peer-reviewed journals. Papers and reviews are being published, with 
the strongest criticism only reaching to the level of a Letter to the 
Journal of Environmental Monitoring, and positive review, even 
calling the field "cold fusion," reaching the level of prestige of 
Naturwissenschaften. At some point the silence will be recognized for 
what it is: denial.


I cannot predict what negative review might appear. However, what I 
see is that the big two scientific publishers, Elsevier and 
Springer-Verlag, seem to have fully opened up to cold fusion. The 
holdout journals, perhaps "blackout" journals, cannot continue to 
stave off the rising tide. Publication has quadrupled since the nadir 
in 2004-2006. Younger scientists are becoming educated in what 
actually happened in 1989-1990. This was already well documented by 
the sociologists of science, such as Bart Simon, people are starting 
to recognize that they were hoodwinked by false claims, such as the 
claim that Pons and Fleischmann's findings were never replicated. The 
skepticism is most entrenched among physicists, who seem to be 
unwilling to acknowledge that there might be something happening that 
they don't understand. "Lack of explanatory theory" has been, in 
fact, one of the most common reasons given for skepticism, which 
represents a serious misunderstanding of the enterprise of science; 
experiments, once widely confirmed, that contradict existing theory 
-- or that appear to do so -- are signs that the existing theory is 
wrong, or, more likely, particularly with "well established theory of 
high normal predictive value," that the theory is being incorrectly applied.


It's been five months since the publication of the 
Naturwissenschaften review. I don't know what's being submitted to 
them as rebuttal, but from the quality of internet objections, it 
might not be adequate for publication. The tables have been turned. 

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Nickel

[Peter Gluck]

I think that nickel is processed, transformed in nanometric clusters
as described in the WO Patent 2010/058288 of Piantelli  - having  a high
density of active sites and no impurities adsorbed. There are chances that
Rossi is doing something similar.
Peter

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 4:45 PM, froarty  wrote:

> The geometry between these powder grains may represent the nano geometry,
> note in their pix of 2 grains the way they interlock and the geometry formed
> by the packing arrangement.
>
> http://www.korea-nickel.co.kr/products/image/powders_img001.gif
>
>
>
> Fran
> Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Nickel
>
> Dennis
> Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:46:41 -0800
>
> The size and shape looks more like PM Nickel to me:
>
> http://www.korea-nickel.co.kr/products/powders.asp
>
>
>
> and it seems more in keeping with what is listed in the patent
>
> as: Powder nickel: Gerli Metalli--Milan
>
> I don't see them making Raney nickel.
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Nickel

[froarty]

The geometry between these powder grains may represent the nano geometry,
note in their pix of 2 grains the way they interlock and the geometry formed
by the packing arrangement.

http://www.korea-nickel.co.kr/products/image/powders_img001.gif

 

Fran


Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Nickel


Dennis
Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:46:41 -0800

The size and shape looks more like PM Nickel to me:
http://www.korea-nickel.co.kr/products/powders.asp
 
and it seems more in keeping with what is listed in the patent
as: Powder nickel: Gerli Metalli--Milan
I don't see them making Raney nickel.
 

 

[Vo]:enhanced catalytic dissociation

[froarty]

An interesting Russian  paper from 1999 discusses the disassociation of h2. It 
is titled “The enhanced catalytic dissociation of adsorbed hydrogen containing 
molecules”. http://www.icmp.lviv.ua/journal/zbirnyk.19/019/art19.pdf . by 
V.G.Litovchenko, A.A.Efremov

 

Abstract:

Some general conceptions and mechanisms of dissociative adsorption and

catalysis are analyzed. The role of such factors as electronic shell 
con_gurations

of isolated atoms, crystalline structure of the surface, local structural

irregularities and defects, orientation of the surface bonds, dimensional 
effects,

the presence of foreign atoms in the local atomic environment as

well as the local symmetry of adsorption center are discussed. These 
considerations

were used in developing the program for computer simulation

of the process. The catalytic properties of PdCu􀀀 surface alloys are analyzed

using computer modelling and thus the enhancement of dissociative

adsorption of H_ for such a system is predicted. The experimental data,

demonstrating the enhancement of sensitivity of MIS sensor with CuPd

electrode in comparison with the pure Pd electrode, are presented.

Re: [Vo]:Hidden wire hypothesis redux

[Horace Heffner]

On Feb 25, 2011, at 1:11 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Lots of people feel that way, and are doing similar experiments. As  
far as I know, Brian Ahern is leading the pack. Ask him for some of  
his material.


He was one of these people who made a large impact at ICCF-16  
without being there.


What impact did Brian Ahern make on ICCF-16?  There was no paper of  
his presented, at least not in the abstracts.  Was it talk regarding  
his Pd-Ni-Zr oxide composite “PNZ2B” used by Kitamura1 et al?   
Unpublished recent experimental results?


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/