Re: [Vo]:Italian Nuclear Physicist Fulvio Frisone on Cold Fusion

[fznidarsic]

If that is the case, then one would think that temperature is an important 
variable...

-Mark
Yes it is.  The product of the thermal frequency and the domain size 
equals 1.094 million meters per second


Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Terry Blanton]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:36 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
 wrote:

>> The agenda is not selected by me. With a regrettable
>> exception or two (one in a rather orthogonal thread on
>> perpendicular fields), I have only *responded* to threads
>> with my name on them, in which my posts from elsewhere were
>> brought here for dissection.
>
> Clear as mud.

He only responded to topics crossposted by Lomax except for the thread
on perpendicular electric and magnetic fields.  Personally, I think
Lomax and Cude should take their romance off this list.  I will speak
to the list owner on this since Cude only came back because of a list
violation on crossposting and they are cluttering the real topics for
which the list is intended.

Mud, yes.  Wallowing, IMO.

T

RE: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Joshua:

>From Steven V Johnson - OrionWorks

>> "As a matter of principal, hiding behind a pseudo name
>> is not regarded in high esteem within this group list,
>> particularly when the poster posts copious quantities 
>> of lengthy exposes that show a highly selective agenda:"

>From Joshua:

> The agenda is not selected by me. With a regrettable 
> exception or two (one in a rather orthogonal thread on
> perpendicular fields), I have only *responded* to threads
> with my name on them, in which my posts from elsewhere were
> brought here for dissection.

Clear as mud.

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

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:New BLP commercial - On You Tube

[Roarty, Francis X]

Robin, 
your solution seems most likely, probably an orphaned url for a page that 
didn't quite pass muster and then they forgot to take it down. If someone came 
along and ran Site capture software on BLP's website it would download 
everything including unlinked pages. 
Fran

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 6:17 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:New BLP commercial - On You Tube

In reply to  OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson's message of Fri, 3 Jun 2011
07:43:13 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>From Jed:
>
>> That is WEIRD. What is the point of airing it? Did BLP pay for it?
>
>I would speculate that BLP did indeed pay for the commercial. I have no
>proof of that however. Who else would pay for it, and for what purpose since
>it's obviously pro BLP & for the existence of hydrinos. If the commercial
>was initially sourced out to Europe (i.e.: Switzerland) maybe BLP has
>considered the possibility of drumming up more business overseas where they
>might receive a more friendly reception, at least during the initial steps.
>(Perhaps they have been studying Rossi's strategy. Of course, they will
>emphatically deny this!)
[snip]
My guess would be that whoever posted it on YouTube actually found it somewhere
on BLP's website.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Rich Murray]

Say, Abd, Jed, and Joshua, I'd like to offer a path beyond the
lengthly "'Tis"--"Taint" debate -- members of Vortex-L could plan and
carry out a simple, repeatable, low-cost LENR demonstration, including
standard kits (for which, except for deserving young students, could
be priced at $ 1,000, since at least the designated main organizer
(never me, possibly Abd) deserves reasonable income for pivotal
service) -- replicating the "water tree" fractal filament corrosion of
dense highly-cross-linked polyethylene, reported since 2005 to result
in anomalous isotopic ratios, such as 6% shift for Zn:

1. based on ongoing research for decades about a pesky electrical
engineering mystery.

2. low cost, safe 0.5 mm pieces of a highly pure solid firm -- what
area and density, impurities, melting point?

3. touted as explainable via Widom-Larsen theory -- is NASA already on it?

4. unlike gas or liquid experiments, the solid state preserves its
shape, so reaction sites can be examined in situ real-time, or the
film sliced or processed to determine all elements, structures, and
isotopes in 3D -- what are sizes and shapes of water trees?

5. thin films are easy to observe continuously from both sides.

6. the setup is slow to change.

7. the setup is cheap and small, easy to precisely replicate and run
arrays of cells at once.

8. very little power input, as a 3 KV AC voltage across a dielectric
film is run for days and weeks -- what leakage current power and
dielectric heating levels? -- which can be precisely monitored
continuously with high time resolution (Michael H. Barron, Santa Fe,
has a voltage supply that goes up to 1,000 V with picoamp current
accuracy).

9. voltage plates can be transparent very thin conducing films,
allowing adjacent layers of detector film to record charged and
neutral particle emissions, or camera imagery of THz to gamma EM
radiation -- micro microphone arrays could locate phonon sources and
spectra.

10. setup can be laid on top of a 16 Mpx CCD imaging chip for precise
recording of events, and stacked multiple chips would allow real-time
tracking of 3D trajectories of energetic emissions.

11. Jed could soon translate the Japanese reports.

12. the research could be completely transparent on-line at all
phases, including archived comments from anyone, demonstrating a
quantum mutation in the process of science -- possibly far cheaper,
faster, more creative and efficient, more open to simultaneous
multiple points of view, including "skeptics".

13. the self-organizing network could set up public protocols re
possible profitable products.

14. no hazards -- just how much mass of the anomalous isotopes are
appearing at what time scale and power density?

15 easy to apply external electric, magnetic, and EM fields in any
combination  and geometry.

16. NMR can also noninvasively monitor time and space information
about isotopic changes.

17. goal is not mysterious, fickle heat bursts, but precise study of
replicable isotopes and emissions.

18. setup can reach nano level size.

19. elastic film could trap emerging gases, creating bubbles that can
be studied and extracted.

20. low temperature regimes could be explored by using various
liquids, including H and He.


reactive gas micro and nano bubbles complicate Widom-Larsen theory re
electrolytic cells -- metal isotope anomalies in 'water tree'
corrosion of power cable polyethylene insulation, T Kumazawa et al
2005 -- 2008 Japan: Rich Murray 2011.06.02
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2011_06_01_archive.htm
Thursday, June 2, 2011
[at end of each long page, click on Older Posts]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/astrodeep/message/85
[you may have to Copy and Paste URLs into your browser]


Last year I sent some long posts to Abd Lomax and Ed Storms about
recent mainstream research on micro and nano bubbles in electrolytes,
which are common on all size scales, and can be H2, O2, N2, Cl2...

I, and Ludvik Kowalsky, also posted that in the SPAWAR DPd
codeposition runs, when an external DC 6 KV electric field was across
the 2 cm wide square by 8 cm high cell with thin clear plastic walls,
ordinary electrostatics will cause the entire charge to be across the
two thin walls, and zero within the electrolyte -- however microamps
of leakage current through the walls will result in complex low
voltage currents within the electrolyte, its components, and all
surfaces.

Extraordinary Error -- no electric field exists inside a conducting liquid
in an insulated box with two external charged metal plates, re work by
SPAWAR on cold fusion since 2002 -- also hot spots from H and O
microbubbles: Rich Murray 2010.02.22
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2010_02_01_archive.htm
Monday, February 22, 2010
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/astrodeep/message/42

Widom and Larsen have cited deterioration of plastic insulation on
underground power cables, fractal "water trees", eventually shorting
out the cable with conducting tree-like filaments, so it is reasonable
to suspect similar pro

[Vo]:Lomax comments on heat after death

[Jed Rothwell]

Abd wrote a long comment which you should read anyway, even though it is
long and may have heard it before. Repeating a conclusion with variations is
boring but it is essential in a technical discipline. (Why do you they call
them "disciplines"?)

I have a few comments mainly about HAD. He wrote:



> My own opinion is that these other conditions show the same phenomenon, but
> what's happened is that the experiment has been broken down, in effect, into
> a very large number of very tiny experiments run at the same time.
> Nanoparticle palladium can be thought of as one experiment per nanoparticle.
> So the overall experiment is averaging many, many individual "runs."
>


Probably. Note also that BARC produced radioactive samples with a similar
technique with macroscopic samples:

"What we did was rather than look for neutrons, we took the deuterated
titanium chips and dropped them directly into a can containing liquid
nitrogen. Then we took out those pieces and monitored them individually for
tritium. It was a tough problem because we had a thousand small chips with a
total of about five grams. We divided them into lots of 20 and put them into
a window-less beta detector. Some of the lots gave significant counts.
Finally, we were able to show that four out of 1000 chips had very high
activity at the microcuries level . . ."

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

This put the fear of God into Morrison. I wish I could have seen it!

Ah, you should have seen Huizenga when they showed him the Amoco results at
ICCF-4. He turned green and ran, as if he had seen a ghost. A fond memory!



> I do see, by the way, some HAD in that experiment. Just not a lot. Look at
> how the heat falls, it "bounces."


Yup.



> The effect, first of all, is not much seen under equilibrium conditions.
> When you have high current, you have continual activity of deuterium at the
> surface, and it's a surface effect, apparently. What is going on inside the
> lattice, deeper, doesn't appear to matter, except that if there is low
> loading deeper in, the deuterium will rapidly migrate there.


May-bee. I think large HAD usually calls for high temperatures and a larger
mass of Pd than McKubre used. As far as I know, the largest Pd-D HAD event
was Mizuno's, which evaporated 17.5 kg of water. His cathode was 100 g, run
at well over 100°C in a pressurized cell. That's maybe a thousand times more
Pd than most people use, and a higher temperature. It was loaded
to unprecedented level by a guy who spent 30 years loading Pd-D as his job
(in the nuclear fission business), and who learned how to do that from
Bockris. There's your $130,000 Maserati alone on a racetrack, driven by
Mario Andretti. Cude says I should be able to replicate that easily with my
Geo Metro in Atlanta traffic.

Ridiculous!



> This, again, demonstrates my point. To understand a chart like that of
> P13/P14, to really "get" the implications, is quite unlikely for someone who
> just glances at it. If you are ready to believe, you might look at this
> chart and go "Wow! That's incredible."


That's why I put it on the front page at LENR-CANR.org. You might call it a
reverse Rorschach test. A Rorschach test is random noise onto which some
people impose meaning. This is meaningful data which Cude and other skeptics
interpret as noise. It requires an educated eye, and concentration, but to a
person with a scientific bent it speaks as clearly as a self-sustaining
demonstration. It says: "You want proof? Yer lookin' at it."


And if you are ready to discount and reject, you can look at it and quickly
> make up all kinds of reasons to reject it. As Joshua just did. And if nobody
> walks you through this, you will then believe that you had "good reasons" to
> be unimpressed. It's how the mind works, it's like clockwork.
>

Yes. Francis Bacon said it best in 1620. See below.

- Jed

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


The human understanding, when any preposition has been once laid down,
(either from general admission and belief, or from the pleasure it affords,)
forces every thing else to add fresh support and confirmation; and although
more cogent and abundant instances may exist to the contrary, yet either
does not observe or despises them, or gets rid of and rejects them by some
distinction, with violent and injurious prejudice, rather than sacrifice the
authority of its first conclusions. . . .



The human understanding is most excited by that which strikes and enters the
mind at once and suddenly, and by which the imagination is immediately
filled and inflated. It then begins almost imperceptibly to conceive and
suppose that every thing is similar to the few objects which have taken
possession of the mind; whilst it is very slow and unfit for the transition
to the remote and heterogeneous instances, by which axioms are tried as by
fire, unless the office be imposed upon it by severe regulations, and a
powerful authority. . . .



The human underst

Re: [Vo]:New BLP commercial - On You Tube

[Dr Josef Karthauser]

On 3 Jun 2011, at 19:55, Terry Blanton wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:40 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
>  wrote:
> 
>> You make a valid point. Perhaps it came from a Communication Art's
>> student completing a final class assignment on assembling a commercial
>> for a prospective client. (Will look good on his/her resume.)
> 
> Or a part of the investor's presentation.  You don't just do
> powerpoint for $60,000,000.00!

It didn't look like it cost too much to put together. It's mostly just library 
footage with a simple text message put over the top. Hell, you could probably 
do similar with Apple's iMovie ;).

Joe

[Vo]:Strings, M branes and Lisa

[Terry Blanton]

A decade ago, when I searched on Calabi Yau manifolds, there was one
graphic which showed in google images.  I found it impressive.  Today,
there are hundreds of these fascinating graphics which attempt to
represent the 11 dimensional folding of space:

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&hl=en&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=595&q=calabi+yau+manifold&gbv=2&aq=1&aqi=g5&aql=&oq=calabi+yau

T

Re: [Vo]:New BLP commercial - On You Tube

[mixent]

In reply to  OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson's message of Fri, 3 Jun 2011
07:43:13 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>From Jed:
>
>> That is WEIRD. What is the point of airing it? Did BLP pay for it?
>
>I would speculate that BLP did indeed pay for the commercial. I have no
>proof of that however. Who else would pay for it, and for what purpose since
>it's obviously pro BLP & for the existence of hydrinos. If the commercial
>was initially sourced out to Europe (i.e.: Switzerland) maybe BLP has
>considered the possibility of drumming up more business overseas where they
>might receive a more friendly reception, at least during the initial steps.
>(Perhaps they have been studying Rossi's strategy. Of course, they will
>emphatically deny this!)
[snip]
My guess would be that whoever posted it on YouTube actually found it somewhere
on BLP's website.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Uploaded Gernert and Shaubach

[Dr Josef Karthauser]

On 3 Jun 2011, at 23:01, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Jones Beene  wrote:
>  
> I thought OCR would make a more compact file, but apparently not.
> 
> 
> This is an OCR layer added underneath an image file. The image file is 
> intact, so the whole thing is bigger.
> 
> This is a messy way to do things. To do it properly you dump the image of the 
> text and replace them with ASCII. You preserve only the figures in image 
> format. You redo the entire document in Microsoft Word, and then create a 
> fresh PDF. That is what I did for hundreds of documents. I am sick of doing 
> it. It is no longer as necessary because people nowadays have fast 
> connections and they can download huge files.

Another proper way of doing it is to use the djvu format (http://djvu.org/) 
which was design up front for this kind of thing.

Joe

Re: [Vo]:Uploaded Gernert and Shaubach

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> I thought OCR would make a more compact file, but apparently not.
>

This is an OCR layer added underneath an image file. The image file is
intact, so the whole thing is bigger.

This is a messy way to do things. To do it properly you dump the image of
the text and replace them with ASCII. You preserve only the figures in image
format. You redo the entire document in Microsoft Word, and then create a
fresh PDF. That is what I did for hundreds of documents. I am sick of doing
it. It is no longer as necessary because people nowadays have fast
connections and they can download huge files.

When I replace text images with ASCII with no corrections, this document
falls to ~1.8 MB. The quality is remarkably good, considering, but it would
take a couple of days to make it presentable.

- Jed

[Vo]:How Joshua Cude misrepresents arguments

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 11:27 AM 6/3/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
Lomax referred to a specific experiment, and even a specific slide 
from a presentation. This was held up as particularly good evidence for CF.


No, it was cited and discussed as a piece of evidence about the 
nature of the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect (FPHE). That experiment 
does not show fusion, how could it? What it shows is anomalous heat, 
and I was pointing out that the graph, by itself, doesn't tell enough 
of the story for the full implications to sink in.


What the full data show is that the FPHE is not "reliable." That when 
conditions are, seemingly, tightly controlled, it appears sometimes 
and does not appear sometimes, but it is not down in the noise, as is 
commonly asserted about the FPHE. It's a distinct beast, with 
distinct characteristics.


Joshua will not accept the primary evidence that led people to 
suspect that there might be low energy nuclear reactions, because he 
doesn't like that conclusion. So he backs up and rejects the 
evidence, he's clearly seeking to discredit any evidence that could 
lead to the conclusion, even though the evidence, carefully 
considered, might lead somewhere else.


We see this in political debate all the time.

If what we want is science, we must back up from this. What is the 
FPHE? What's the evidence about it? What are its characteristics? 
These are questions that do not -- and should not -- depend on our 
opinions about possibility.



 I examined that slide and was puzzled by one aspect. Here's what I wrote:

"One problem I have with those results. When the current shuts off, 
the heat dies immediately. It seems implausible that the deuterium 
would diffuse out of the Pd that quickly. I would expect a more 
gradual decline. Especially with all the reports of heat after 
death. That points to artifact to me."


And here Joshua let his assumptions of error lead him into a blatant 
error, confidently asserted. It turns out that "immediately" is, from 
the graph, about a hour. You can see the decline, it's not 
"immediate." And the scale on this chart is one day per division, 24 hours!


Heat after death may be, a little, visible in this graph. I wouldn't 
want to make a point either way about that. But, again, Joshua 
completely missed the point, or he wouldn't even have this question. 
What P13/P14, the complete history, shows is that the FPHE is not 
predictable without knowing more about the conditions than we do, 
even possibly more than we could ever know.


That's a characteristic of the effect!

Now, it's quite possible, even likely, that some experimental 
approach will demonstrate some part of the same effect in such a way 
as to explain the variation. That hasn't been done, to my knowledge. 
Essentially, we do not know the cause of the FPHE, and the 
explanation of "fusion" only is plausible, now, because we have good 
reason to think that the ash is helium (in addition to certain 
considerations that apply with some experiments, like energy 
density). No other ash has been proposed and found, at levels at all 
commensurate with the heat.


Joshua just continues to dismiss all this with a wave of the hand. 
"I'm not convinced." As if we care if he's convinced. He is an 
anonymous internet troll, that's all. He's not a researcher, he's not 
functioning as a scientist, even though he has clearly stuffed his 
brain with some so-called "scientific knowledge."


I'm certainly not writing for him! 

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 11:27 AM 6/3/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Jed Rothwell 
<jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:


> The data clearly shows that some cells 
produce heat after death, and other do not. 
What does not make sense here is your demand that all cells do this.


It's not a demand. It's an identification of an inconsistency.


So? The implication is that consistency of 
results is a requirement for an effect to be 
considered real. That's not a scientific proposition.


This can point us to the nature of the 
controversy here, it is about the difference 
between physics, which views itself as a hard 
science, and "softer" sciences, where absolute 
and accurate predictability are often lacking. 
Yet unpredictability can be found within physics 
as well; in particular, any chaotic phenomenon may be unpredictable.


In this case, though, the unpredictability of 
cold fusion results, with FPHE-type experiments, 
is probably due to the extreme difficult of 
controlling all the exact conditions. SRI P13/P14 
shows that there is a clearly distinguishable 
phenomenon, anomalous heat, standing well above 
the noise (about ten times the error bars, it's 
very clear), with unknown conditions causing it, 
since in the three runs, with all known specific 
conditions, except for specific history, being 
identical. (If this experiment was re-run, with 
the *same history*, would it show the same 
results? Probably not, because it would not, 
then, be *the same cathode.* The cathode is 
altered by the history, that's part of the problem.)


"Inconsistency" of results is a known 
characteristic of the FPHE. So no single 
experiment establishes the conditions that set it 
up. You might, sometimes, get spectacular 
results, then you try what seems to be the same 
thing, and nothing unusual happens. *This 
condition is not contradictory to the reality of 
the effect, it merely shows lack of control of 
conditions, and the chemistry of the surface of a 
palladium cathode is more complex than I care to describe.*


Physicists intensely dislike messy conditions, 
they design experiments to avoid them. But the 
FPHE, as initially known, arises in very messy 
conditions, simplifying the conditions did cause 
the effect to disappear. Later work found other 
conditions that also produce a heat effect with 
palladium deuteride, with, apparently, more 
reliable reproducibility. My own opinion is that 
these other conditions show the same phenomenon, 
but what's happened is that the experiment has 
been broken down, in effect, into a very large 
number of very tiny experiments run at the same 
time. Nanoparticle palladium can be thought of as 
one experiment per nanoparticle. So the overall 
experiment is averaging many, many individual "runs."


But I have not analyzed nanoparticle results, 
personally. I'm just pointing out what is a 
possibility. I'll note that nanoparticle, 
gas-loading, results have tended to be low, 
quantitatively, meaning to me that most of the 
"individual experiments" -- each nanoparticle -- 
is doing nothing. I.e., most experiments are 
"failing." But, then, the overall experiment 
averages together all the results, showing, if 
there are consistent results, a significant 
effect that *sometimes* arises. And then the 
engineering effort attempts to find ways to 
enhance that effect, to make it more reliable, which will raise energy yield.


Lomax referred to a specific experiment, and 
even a specific slide from a presentation. This 
was held up as particularly good evidence for 
CF. I examined that slide and was puzzled by one aspect. Here's what I wrote:


It's held up as an example of what stands in the 
way of recognition. If you see that slide, what 
do you think? If you knew, seeing the slide, that 
the same current excursion took place three 
times, that the cathode was already, before any 
of these excursions, heavily loaded (about 90%), 
would this shift your understanding of what it means?


"One problem I have with those results. When the 
current shuts off, the heat dies immediately. It 
seems implausible that the deuterium would 
diffuse out of the Pd that quickly. I would 
expect a more gradual decline. Especially with 
all the reports of heat after death. That points to artifact to me."


heat after death occurs with some techniques. I 
do see, by the way, some HAD in that experiment. 
Just not a lot. Look at how the heat falls, it 
"bounces." The effect, first of all, is not much 
seen under equilibrium conditions. When you have 
high current, you have continual activity of 
deuterium at the surface, and it's a surface 
effect, apparently. What is going on inside the 
lattice, deeper, doesn't appear to matter, except 
that if there is low loading deeper in, the 
deuterium will rapidly migrate there. So to have 
very high loading at the surface -- 90% is very 
high, it used to be thought that 70% was the most 
you could get -- you have to have high 

RE: [Vo]:Uploaded Gernert and Shaubach

[Jones Beene]

The quality is actually pretty good, but the file size is slightly larger.

 

I thought OCR would make a more compact file, but apparently not.

 

 

 

From: Jed Rothwell 

 

See:

 

Gernert, N. and R.M. Shaubach, Nascent Hydrogen: An Energy Source. 1993,
Department of the Air Force.


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


I confess, I probably just plain forget about this. People should remind me
if I forget to upload things. I am absent minded.

 

This version is OCR'ed, imperfectly, by PDF Converter Professional.


- Jed

 

[Vo]:Uploaded Gernert and Shaubach

[Jed Rothwell]

See:

Gernert, N. and R.M. Shaubach, *Nascent Hydrogen: An Energy Source*. 1993,
Department of the Air Force.

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

I confess, I probably just plain forget about this. People should remind me
if I forget to upload things. I am absent minded.

This version is OCR'ed, imperfectly, by PDF Converter Professional.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Jed Rothwell]

Joshua Cude  wrote:


> retracted.  About 150 groups investigated but found nothing.
>
>
> 450 publications about finding nothing? I've already given quotes showing
> you are wrong.
>

I suggest you read the book by Felix Franks, "Polywater," (MIT, 1981). I
have read it; you have not. You do not know what you are talking about.


And anyway, in the view of most scientists, 1000 people have investigated CF
> and found nothing.
>

That's preposterous. See:

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

Stop trying to teach grandma how to suck eggs.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Jed Rothwell]

Joshua Cude  wrote:


> > The experts' outrage vanished that evening when Orville finally took to
> the air. They were awestruck.
>
>
> Because, once in the air, it no longer used the derrick. It was a matter of
> duration. Similarly, if Rossi's device can take to the air, and stay in the
> air for some duration without its derrick, the world will be similarly
> awestruck.
>

In the years before August 8, 1908, the Wrights often flew before large
crowds of people in Dayton, OH, including leading citizens who signed
affidavits saying they had seen the flights. The longest flight was 24 miles
in 39 minutes. Yet no one outside of Dayton believed a word of it. Not one
newspaper or journal. The Scientific American attacked, ridiculed and
belittled the Wrights, and continued to attack them at every opportunity,
most recently in 2003. See:

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

Kelly, F. C., "They Wouldn't Believe the Wrights had Flown -- A study in
human incredulity," Harper’s Magazine 18 1 (Aug 1940): 286-300

People have not grown wiser since 1908. The arguments used against the
Wrights were almost word-for-word the same as the ones you trot out against
the cold fusion today. See the quotes from the Sci. Am. and The New York
Globe, in my paper.

As late as 1912, when aviators showed up in small American cities and towns
to do demonstrations, crowds of people showed up to tar and feather them as
scammers and frauds, and sheriffs ran them out of town, because everyone
knew that people cannot fly. This history is well documented.

It does not matter how much evidence is presented, or how convincing it is.
People like those crowds back in 1912, and people like you, will not look.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.


But running an ecat or an electrolysis experiment? There is no similar
> piano-playing type skill needed.
>

Again, you reveal that you have no idea what you are talking about. I have
seen electrochemical experiments at Mizuno's lab which nearly killed some
observers, even though Mizuno is one of the most skilled electrochemists in
the world. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm#PhotosAccidents

This is a lot like saying that if Orville Wright could fly in 1908, anyone
could. Most of the first 100 people who took to the air after him were dead
by 1912. Wilbur Wright was nearly killed in Washington, in September 1908,
and his passenger Selfridge was killed.



> > People who demand that this be made "easy" or available to anyone at this
> stage do not understand technology.
>
>
> But you said simple and obvious demonstrations have been done many times.
>

I said obvious. It is not simple. It will become simple in the future, just
as driving a car or operating a computer is now simple. The first computers
I operated and programmed in the 1960s and 70s were far beyond the ability
of ordinary people to operate. There was no doubt the computers worked, and
I could make them do things even the manufacturer did not know they could
do, but it was not simple. It sure as hell wasn't easy. If you think it was,
you have never done anything difficult, or original, or at the cutting edge
of technology or science. People who talk the way you do usually have not.
You stand on the sidelines and boast that you know better than those of us
who have, but you know nothing of what you speak.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Charles Hope]

This style of quotation is nonstandard and difficult to follow for large 
messages. Regular email clients handle the creation and display of nested 
quotations in an agreeable manner, which your formatting breaks. If you prefer 
to use a word processor for composition, please begin a reply, copy that to the 
word processor and add in-line comments normally, and then email that. Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone. 

On Jun 2, 2011, at 14:06, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  
> wrote:
> 
> Cude>>Maybe, but Rossi OK'd them.
> 
> Lomax> Yes, he did. However, the point was that this was not simply what Cude 
> claimed, using "his own designates." 
> 
> OK. I used the wrong word. I don't think my message is significantly weakened 
> if I make the same claim using "vetted observers" or something like that.
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:30 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson <
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>"As a matter of principal, hiding behind a pseudo name is not regarded in
high esteem

within this group list, particularly when the poster posts copious

quantities of lengthy exposes that show a highly selective agenda:"


The agenda is not selected by me. With a regrettable exception or two (one
in a rather orthogonal thread on perpendicular fields), I have only
*responded* to threads with my name on them, in which my posts from
elsewhere were brought here for dissection.

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

The following was said:

>From Rothwell:

> I myself consider this demand absurd. [self-running]

Joshua responded with:

> You would have to to continue believing in CF, considering
> in 22 years no one has been able to do it.

Joshua,

Setting the self-running debate and is it really Memorex aside for a moment...

Mr. Lomax can correct me if I misinterpreted his speculations but I
gather he suspects you might be a student - perhaps of physics, and
possibly even a graduate student at that. I gather Lomax also suspects
the name you use "Joshua Cude" is not your real name. As a matter of
principal, hiding behind a pseudo name is not regarded in high esteem
within this group list, particularly when the poster posts copious
quantities of lengthy exposes that show a highly selective agenda:
Yours being that all Cold Fusion claims turn out to be unfounded
and/or bogus - apparently every single one of them.

If you are a student (or perhaps someone who is doing the bidding of a
superior) I would like to add the following personal commentary:

I hope you have worked out an equitable arrangement with your
principal professor (or superior) concerning these on-going critiques
of Rossi's controversial claims. No matter what the outcome turns out
to be, hopefully you'll achieve a passing grade - or perhaps a
generous raise. I hate to see grad students, (or perhaps in this
situation: slave labor) being taken advantage of by superiors who
remain discreetly out of the lime light by letting the front man risk
taking the fall. As Mongo, of Blazing Saddles fame, once said "Mongo
only pawn in game of life."

Regardless of the fact that many in this group may not agree with your
personal conclusions, your posts have nevertheless achieved a certain
level of notoriety.

Perhaps that may have been your agenda all along. In which case:
"Mission Accomplished."

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

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene wrote:If there is one report that everyone interested in 
Rossi/E-Cat should read,

it is the 1994 final Thermacore report to DARPA. "Final Report, SBIR Phase
I, Nascent Hydrogen: An Energy Source."

Unfortunately it is not on the Web anymore, nor even on LENR/CANR, it seems
- although we talked about in 2009 and it appeared that Jed Rothwell was
going to put it up.


I forgot all about it. I think I asked permission and never got a response.

It is an unclassified government report. I guess I don't need 
permission. The document is in bad shape but I can run it through Pdf 
Converter and add an OCR layer. Might as well.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I myself consider this demand absurd. [self-running]


You would have to to continue believing in CF, considering in 22 years no
one has been able to do it.


> The experts' outrage vanished that evening when Orville finally took to
the air. They were awestruck.


Because, once in the air, it no longer used the derrick. It was a matter of
duration. Similarly, if Rossi's device can take to the air, and stay in the
air for some duration without its derrick, the world will be similarly
awestruck.


> Also, by the way, people who say that cold fusion is "too hard" or "anyone
should be able to do it" should think  hard about Orville on August 8, 1908.
He spent all day preparing to make one short flight. Tightening wires,
looking at the machine from all angles, running up the engine several times,
waiting for the wind to be just right.


It's easy to see why flying is difficult. It requires training, muscle
memory, like playing a piano, and anticipating many variables. No one
doubted it then or now.


But running an ecat or an electrolysis experiment? There is no similar
piano-playing type skill needed. The ecat especially, once the black box is
there, is supposed to be ready for the market. It's supposed to be turnkey.
So attaching a generator to it if the COP is high enough really should be
child's play. Sometimes comparisons are apples and oranges. This is one of
those.


> People who demand that this be made "easy" or available to anyone at this
stage do not understand technology.


But you said simple and obvious demonstrations have been done many times.


> They have no clue how difficult this is.


Of course we do. We think it's probably impossible. You can't be more
difficult than impossible.

RE: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Jones Beene]

Joshua, and all others who are trying to get to the bottom of this -

If there is one report that everyone interested in Rossi/E-Cat should read,
it is the 1994 final Thermacore report to DARPA. "Final Report, SBIR Phase
I, Nascent Hydrogen: An Energy Source." 

Unfortunately it is not on the Web anymore, nor even on LENR/CANR, it seems
- although we talked about in 2009 and it appeared that Jed Rothwell was
going to put it up. He might do that now - since it is so close to the E-Cat
that it is eerie. I have the doc as an 8+ MB scan, and will send it to
anyone who is interested if Jed does not want it up on the site.

This could be the most important paper in the history of Nickel-hydrogen, at
least up to Rossi, if he has indeed pushed the technology over the top  -
and it presents a continuing mystery, especially in light of all of the
hoopla over Rossi. The experiment was gas-phase, but was spawned by the
electrolytic cell, which also gives lots of heat - and there is no
radioactivity. The underlying patent is about to expire: 

Thermacore  #5,273,635   December 28, 1993 - Inventors: Gernert; Nelson J.
(Elizabethtown, PA); Shaubach; Robert M. (Litz, PA); Ernst; Donald M.
(Leola, PA)

Though the original patent was owned by Thermacore, not BLP, that company
was bought up by Modine, and soon after all the inventors took early
retirement. This exciting technology could have simply been lost in the
transition, as a footnote in the history of Ni-H. Recently the company was
sold off by Modine and is now back in operation, again as Thermacore.

Consider this quote: "The most outstanding example is a cell producing 41
watts of heat with only 5 watts of electrical input. The cell has operated
continuously for over one year..."

OK, that is from 17 years ago, and it showed a COP of 8 for over one year.
Note: this claim is coming from the highest of high-tech companies - a prime
Pentagon contractor, and not some weird inventor who is honesty-challenged.
(and possibly the luckiest man on earth)

BTW, this is the company that invented the heat pipe. The claims should be
completely credible. 

Jones




<>

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Terry Blanton]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> For credibility, Rossi must CLOSE THE LOOP – anything less is a waste of
> time and resources.

Only if he is trying to prove a point.  I don't think he is trying to
prove a point.  I think he wants to produce product.

T

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Alan Fletcher  wrote:

> His problem isn't GETTING the COP -- it's CONTROLLING it. It has to be
unconditionally stable -- and the original eCAT wasn't doing that.


It's very easy to produce stable electricity from extremely unstable
sources. One way would be to use the output to heat a large reservoir, and
run the power generator from the reservoir, through regulators and
batteries. Wind and solar are irregular, but the power they supply is nicely
stable.

Re: [Vo]:New BLP commercial - On You Tube

[Terry Blanton]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:40 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
 wrote:

> You make a valid point. Perhaps it came from a Communication Art's
> student completing a final class assignment on assembling a commercial
> for a prospective client. (Will look good on his/her resume.)

Or a part of the investor's presentation.  You don't just do
powerpoint for $60,000,000.00!

T

Re: [Vo]:New BLP commercial - On You Tube

[Terry Blanton]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:43 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
 wrote:

> I bet Terry knows as much about the Pleiadeans as I. ;-)
>
> Mostly harmless.

Nordics.  Pure mice diet.

T

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:


> No, that is not a bit implausible. This is like saying that because a
racing car can go 150 mph on a track, Jed's 1994 Geo Metro should be able to
drive at 150 mph on Peachtree Industrial Boulevard.


No. It's like saying that because a racing car can go 150, a Geo Metro based
on the same principle should be able to move. That electrode cooled down
instantly.


>> But some claims, if real, can be demonstrated in a simple and obvious
way. CF and heavier than air flight are two examples. When such
demonstrations should be possible but are absent . . .


> Such demonstrations have been done many times.


And yet you said,


"I do not think any scientist will dispute this."


using the future tense.



> That is incorrect. Only one group of researchers thought they had observed
polywater. Another reported they saw it but quickly retracted.  About 150
groups investigated but found nothing.


450 publications about finding nothing? I've already given quotes showing
you are wrong.


And anyway, in the view of most scientists, 1000 people have investigated CF
and found nothing.


>>Not as simply and visually as you have described and wished for. Not
simply and visually enough to persuade a panel of experts.


>Every expert who has looked closely at cold fusion has been convinced it is
real. The DoE panel one-day extravaganza was not an investigation, it was a
parlor game.


It wasn't a one-day extravaganza. Half the panel members were given 30 days
to review material provided by the CF advocates. And presumably, they were
all given some time after to write their reports.


Anyway, it's the same parlor game played by every other branch of science.
If the CF people can't compete, and explain their results, in the same way
everyone else is expected to, it's their problem. It's not as if their
results are more difficult to explain.


Also, if such simple and obvious demonstrations have been done many times,
as you claim above, why should it take more than a day to be convinced by
them? If the claim is real, it should be easy to demonstrate.


> The panel members who were not persuaded did not do their homework.


If homework is required, then it is not simple and obvious, and so again,
you contradict yourself.

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Jed Rothwell]

Alan Fletcher wrote:

A suspicious observer might say Rossi reduced his promised COP to 6 from 
30 to give him an excuse for requiring an input; for why he can't close 
the loop.



His problem isn't GETTING the COP -- it's CONTROLLING it. It has to be 
unconditionally stable -- and the original eCAT wasn't doing that.


That is correct. Levi says they saw the cell run for a while with zero 
input, and it seemed to be dangerously out of control. Rossi confirms 
that a closed loop cell or a cell powered by anything other than 
reliable mains electricity is not safe, and it will take some time to 
engineer a safe version.


People who demand a closed-loop self sustaining demonstration are simply 
going to have to wait a while. That's all there is to it.


I myself consider this demand absurd. If you do not trust power meters 
and flow calorimetry, or you do not understand them, you will not 
appreciate a closed-loop demonstration either.


From 1904 to 1909, the Wright brothers used a large launching derrick 
to take off. They did that because there was not much wind in Dayton, 
OH, and what wind they had often shifted. Also because the Wrights 
launched from a wooden monorail which was a pain in the butt to lay down 
and move around, so they wanted to keep the launch track short, and take 
off in a short distance. (See photo here: 
http://www.thewrightbrothers.org/1904.html). Since the airplane did not 
take off on its own power during these years, technically, these were 
not "flights" as defined by aviation experts at the time.


When Orville was preparing to fly in France, on August 8 1908, and the 
experts arrived early. Some saw the derrick and were outraged, saying 
this was a circus trick, not a real flight. Orville went on with his 
careful, methodical preparations, which took hours. The experts' outrage 
vanished that evening when Orville finally took to the air. They were 
awestruck. They realized that their objection to the derrick was mere 
quibbling. The derrick did not detract from the accomplishment at all. 
It was obvious that the airplane could take off on its own, with wheels 
instead of a monorails, and a sufficiently long runway. Some naysayers 
continued to quibble, especially French aviators who wanted to convince 
the world that they were the first to fly, and the Wrights had not 
actually flown at all -- technically, at least. Orville eventually got 
fed up with this nonsense. Toward the end of the year (or in early 1909 
-- I don't recall the date) he equipped the airplane with wheels and 
took off without the derrick. He also flew for an hour continuously at a 
time when others could barely stagger off the ground in uncontrolled 
flights.


People today who claim they will not believe cold fusion, and the Rossi 
device in particular, until it is shown in self-sustaining mode, are 
being ridiculous. They are as ridiculous as the French aviators who 
refused to give credit where it is due, even after Orville flew in front 
of huge crowds for an hour.


Frankly, I suggest you stop this idiotic carping, and accept the fact 
that calorimetry works.


Also, by the way, people who say that cold fusion is "too hard" or 
"anyone should be able to do it" should think  hard about Orville on 
August 8, 1908. He spent all day preparing to make one short flight. 
Tightening wires, looking at the machine from all angles, running up the 
engine several times, waiting for the wind to be just right. It was as 
difficult as launching the SpaceShipOne X-prize winner is today. If 
Orville had made a serious mistake, he would have killed himself. (He 
did, in fact, make a mistake and he nearly did kill himself in that 
flight, but only he knew it.)


I can look out my window to the airstrip here at PDK and see people 
casually walking out to the airstrip, getting into airplanes and taking 
off a few minutes later. You can do that with a mature technology, after 
others have done it millions of times. You cannot do it with a newly 
invented technology such as a cold fusion cell today. People who demand 
that this be made "easy" or available to anyone at this stage do not 
understand technology. They have no clue how difficult this is. 
Conversely, people who say that because it is difficult today, it will 
always be difficult, are equally misguided.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Jed Rothwell]

Joshua Cude  wrote:


> > The data clearly shows that some cells produce heat after death, and
> other do not. What does not make sense here is your demand that all cells do
> this.
>
>
> It's not a demand. It's an identification of an inconsistency.
>

It is not inconsistent. You do not understand enough about the reaction to
understand why. And no, I will not teach you.



> I am not saying heat after death has not been observed because it was not
> observed in this experiment. I'm saying if heat after death occurs, and is
> attributed to the deuterium in the Pd, then it would seem implausible that
> the heat would vanish in seconds in another experiment.
>

No, that is not a bit implausible. This is like saying that because a racing
car can go 150 mph on a track, Jed's 1994 Geo Metro should be able to drive
at 150 mph on Peachtree Industrial Boulevard. There are many reasons why it
cannot, starting with the 40 HP engine.



> So, I'm questioning the attribution of the observation, not the observation
> itself.
>

You are questioning things you know nothing about. You are making absurd,
ignorant and unfounded assumptions, just as Robert Park and others have
done.



> But some claims, if real, can be demonstrated in a simple and obvious way.
> CF and heavier than air flight are two examples. When such demonstrations
> should be possible but are absent . . .
>

Such demonstrations have been done many times. You can photos of them. You
deny they have been done, but your denial does not change facts.

Go ahead and repeat that a hundred times if you like, it will still be
untrue. As former Prime Minister and Rep. from Mars Ichiro Hatoyama famously
said one the 7:00 o'clock news the other day: "That's a lie. Human beings
should not lie." ('Uso desu. Ningen wa uso wo tsuite wa naranai.')



> > It is true that a few researchers do lie, and some are incompetent, but
> in a group of professional researcher as large as the cold fusion cohort it
> is statistically impossible for them all to be incompetent.
>
>
> It's only about twice the size of the polywater cohort . . .
>

That is incorrect. Only one group of researchers thought they had observed
polywater. Another reported they saw it but quickly retracted.  About 150
groups investigated but found nothing.

I suggest you learn something about Polywater before pontificating about it.
Read the Franks book. You will see that a comparison to polywater shows that
cold fusion must be real.



> Not as simply and visually as you have described and wished for. Not simply
> and visually enough to persuade a panel of experts.
>

Every expert who has looked closely at cold fusion has been convinced it is
real. The DoE panel one-day extravaganza was not an investigation, it was a
parlor game. The panel members who were not persuaded did not do their
homework. The reasons they rejected the findings were absurd and mistaken,
although not as bad as your reasons. Those people were manifestly not
experts in cold fusion. At the end of that day, they still knew practically
nothing about the subject.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Alan Fletcher]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Jones Beene < jone...@pacbell.net > wrote 




A suspicious observer might say Rossi reduced his promised COP to 6 from 30 to 
give him an excuse for requiring an input; for why he can't close the loop. 

His problem isn't GETTING the COP -- it's CONTROLLING it. It has to be 
unconditionally stable -- and the original eCAT wasn't doing that. I'm pretty 
sure (without evidence, of course) that the 130kW "brief" power spike in 
February was unintended. 

Suppose that cascaded from one eCat to another -- a 1MW plant suddenly 
generating 5MW would tend to go 'boom'. 

On the closed loop ... I'm not sure what efficiencies are available at 2.5kW. I 
posted a link a couple of weeks back to a helical turbine that promised 80% 
efficiency at eCat temperatures (500) and pressures (50) -- but the smallest 
unit was 40kW. 

[Vo]:'Entanglement' should have been 'shared enclosure'

[Mark Iverson]

In the comments section of the webpage,
   
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-quantum-physics-photons-two-slit-interferometer.html
is this comment by 'hush1'...

"The translation for 'Verschränkung' was erroneously translated as 
'entanglement' by Erwin. 
The correct translation is:  'shared enclosure'

Just try it. Substitute this translation for all usages of 'entanglement' and 
you will see the
light.
And all your confused contemplations and paradoxes vanish."

 
Anyone care to comment on that?

-Mark

 

RE: [Vo]:Italian Nuclear Physicist Fulvio Frisone on Cold Fusion

[Mark Iverson]

Some important tidbits from the interview...

"In Addition, the theoretical analysis on the process of cold fusion indicates 
high values of the
probability of fusion between deuterons within a micro-crack at room 
temperature and with impure
metals."

"The main point of my argumentation is: since these fusion reactions occur 
within the palladium
lattice, is it possible that the lattice vibrations could facilitate the 
approaching of two positive
charges? The answer is yes..."

If that is the case, then one would think that temperature is an important 
variable...

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 6:28 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:Italian Nuclear Physicist Fulvio Frisone on Cold Fusion

FWIW:

Italian Nuclear Physicist Fulvio Frisone on Cold Fusion

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=128924

Rossi is briefly mentioned in a follow up forum.

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

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Everyone on this forum, by now, should realize that nothing short of
closing the loop will convince the majority of skeptics, and with COP in the
range of 6, any grad student could pull that off at one tenth the cost of a
megawatt plant.



I agree, standalone is essential, as I've repeated many times.


And Rossi's device produces heat, and uses heat as input, so problems of
Carnot efficiency should not be present.


But if Rossi claims he needs electrical input for safety reasons he can't
divulge, then this COP of 6 is marginal at best. The COP of 30 claimed in
January would be easy, but not 6.


For an 80C temperature difference, the Carnot efficiency is only 21%, or
about 1/5. With practical losses, it would not be possible to close the
loop.


Of course, it should not be difficult to design the ecat to operate at
higher temperatures, to make it easier, but there may be excuses about that
too.


A suspicious observer might say Rossi reduced his promised COP to 6 from 30
to give him an excuse for requiring an input; for why he can't close the
loop.

RE: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Jones Beene]

From: Joshua Cude 

 

"I should add that even if some people consider the results to be
reproducible and theoretically consistent (which is certainly the case), the
absence of a simple demonstration, when one is possible, would still be
cause for skepticism."

 

 

Finally at bit of insight emerges from Cude !  This should have been his one
and only argument, all along.

 

And this has been my point of (milder) skepticism for months - if COP of 6
is really there, and is reproducible (you can forget the part about
"theoretical consistent" as no one cares) then the ONLY real option which
can and WILL completely remove all possible doubt is to 'close the loop'. 

 

Go completely self-powered with the small unit by recycling the heat in situ
- to provide the needed electrical current (several ways to do this) and do
it in wheel-mounted device that can be rolled out into the parking lot, if
necessary.

 

Everyone on this forum, by now, should realize that nothing short of closing
the loop will convince the majority of skeptics, and with COP in the range
of 6, any grad student could pull that off at one tenth the cost of a
megawatt plant. It is a no-brainer.

 

The megawatt of heat will probably convince a few fence straddlers, but
since it will be almost as easy to fake, then most skeptics will still be
shaking their heads in October.

 

For credibility, Rossi must CLOSE THE LOOP - anything less is a waste of
time and resources.

 

Jones

 

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:


I wrote:

> But some claims, if real, can be demonstrated in a simple and obvious way.
CF and heavier than air flight are two examples. When such demonstrations
should be possible but are absent, and there is no reproducibility,
theoretical consistency, or scientific consensus, then it is reasonable to
reject the claims until better evidence comes along.


I should add that even if some people consider the results to be
reproducible and theoretically consistent (which is certainly the case), the
absence of a simple demonstration, when one is possible, would still be
cause for skepticism.


It would be as if the Wright brothers had gone to France and showed everyone
charts and graphs and publications indicating measurements of altitude, and
time aloft, and routes flown and so on. Even if they were right, people
would be forgiven for being skeptical if they refused or were unable to
*show* them.


Koonin made the same point back in 1989, when he quoted Aesop's fable, The
Leap at Rhodes:


*A certain man who visited foreign lands could talk of little when he
returned to his home except the wonderful adventures he had met with and the
great deeds he had done abroad.*

**

*One of the feats he told about was a leap he had made in a city Called
Rhodes. That leap was so great, he said, that no other man could leap
anywhere near the distance. A great many persons in Rhodes had seen him do
it and would prove that what he told was true.*

**

*"No need of witnesses," said one of the hearers. "Suppose this city is
Rhodes. Now show us how far you can jump."*

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> The data clearly shows that some cells produce heat after death, and other
do not. What does not make sense here is your demand that all cells do
this.


It's not a demand. It's an identification of an inconsistency.


Lomax referred to a specific experiment, and even a specific slide from a
presentation. This was held up as particularly good evidence for CF. I
examined that slide and was puzzled by one aspect. Here's what I wrote:


"One problem I have with those results. When the current shuts off, the heat
dies immediately. It seems implausible that the deuterium would diffuse out
of the Pd that quickly. I would expect a more gradual decline. *Especially
with all the reports of heat after death*. That points to artifact to me."


So, given that some cells show heat after death, meaning the deuterium does
not diffuse out of the Pd right away, how could it be that in this
particularly good experiment, the deuterium could diffuse out seemingly in a
matter of seconds. It suggests that the explanation being used to explain it
is wrong. That there's an artifact.


> Nature does work the way you demand it should. This is experimental
science. You have to take the results as they are, and not dictate what they
should be according to your theories.


Yes. Obviously. But one picks theories that are consistent with results and
rejects those that aren't.




>> We were discussing a particular experiment in a particular report. Is
there a graph in that report of that 1994 experiment that reports heat after
death?


> No, because that experiment did not produce heat after death, as I noted
previously. You need to stop demanding what is not there.


Not a demand. An observation. If deuterium in Pd produces heat, why does the
heat vanish instantly when the current is shut off? In this experiment.


> You need to stop pointing to black birds as proof that red ones do not
exist.


That's not even close to what I said. I am not saying heat after death has
not been observed because it was not observed in this experiment. I'm saying
if heat after death occurs, and is attributed to the deuterium in the Pd,
then it would seem implausible that the heat would vanish in seconds in
another experiment. So, I'm questioning the attribution of the observation,
not the observation itself.


It's more like you pointing to flying red birds and claiming that it proves
they are lighter than air, and me pointing out that I caught some black
birds, and weighed them, and they are heavier than air, and they can fly
too.


>> The DOE panel would have heard about it, but they were not convinced.


> Some of panel members were convinced, and some are not. The ones who are
not convinced made logical and factual errors similar to the ones you are
making.


Only one said the evidence for nuclear reactions was conclusive, but *some*
not being convinced is all I need for my argument.


You said:


"I do not think any scientist will dispute this. ...An object that remains
palpably warmer than the surroundings is as convincing as anything can be…"


It was hypothetical, and written after the DOE panel, so you could not have
said that if you thought such a demo had been available.


You can squirm all you want. You effectively admitted that an isolated
device palpably warmer than the surroundings would be a good demo, and that
it has not yet been done.



> It is not possible for you to see what is connect to what inside of a
Tokamak reactor, or in a robot explorer on Mars.


Quite right. I said as much. Many experiments require indirect observations,
and second hand observations, and in those cases, reproducibility,
theoretical consistency and predictability, scientific unanimity or at least
consensus all work together to build credibility.


But some claims, if real, can be demonstrated in a simple and obvious way.
CF and heavier than air flight are two examples. When such demonstrations
should be possible but are absent, and there is no reproducibility,
theoretical consistency, or scientific consensus, then it is reasonable to
reject the claims until better evidence comes along.


> It is true that a few researchers do lie, and some are incompetent, but in
a group of professional researcher as large as the cold fusion cohort it is
statistically impossible for them all to be incompetent.


It's only about twice the size of the polywater cohort, and probably smaller
than the homeopathy cohort, and certainly smaller than the UFO cohort, so
I'm not buying it. There are many examples of large groups of scientists
being wrong. And to repeat, if CF is right, then a much larger group of
scientists would have to be incompetent.


>>> What you want would not work, for reasons beyond the scope of the
discussion.


>> Right. Because the fact that CF doesn't work is beyond the scope of this
discussion. Cop out.


> I am not obligated to explain every single technical detail to you, or to
anyone else.


Of co

Re: [Vo]:Joshua Cude and a repeated misrepresentation, patents, and a discussion of the chimera of cold fusion

[Jed Rothwell]

Joshua Cude  wrote:


> Maybe you weren't paying attention. Lomax referred to the Mckubre data in a
> particular pdf on your site, and I said in that data, which is held in such
> high regard, it doesn't make sense that the power drops so quickly when the
> current is shut off, particularly in light of heat after death claims.
>

The data clearly shows that some cells produce heat after death, and other
do not. What does not make sense here is your demand that all cells do this.
Nature does work the way you demand it should. This is experimental science.
You have to take the results as they are, and not dictate what they should
be according to your theories.



> We were discussing a particular experiment in a particular report. Is there
> a graph in that report of that 1994 experiment that reports heat after
> death?
>

No, because that experiment did not produce heat after death, as I noted
previously. You need to stop demanding what is not there. You need to stop
pointing to black birds as proof that red ones do not exist. One graph
cannot show all aspects of cold fusion.


The DOE panel would have heard about it, but they were not convinced.
>

Some of panel members were convinced, and some are not. The ones who are not
convinced made logical and factual errors similar to the ones you are
making.



> Sixty minutes at least, considering they were pretty sympathetic, might
> have mentioned it. But on a show advocating CF, with consultants like
> McKubre and Dardik, there was not a word about heat after death or heat
> without input in gas loading.
>

This is twice removed from being a scientific argument:

1. Mass media presentations are not admissible experimental evidence. This
discussion is about science, not television production values.

2. This is your opinion of the production values at "60 Minutes." You
opinion about what makes compelling television has absolutely no bearing on
experiments. By the way, I disagree with your opinion -- but my opinion on
this subject is equally irrelevant.



> In a demonstration to outsiders who can't even see what's connected, it's
> impossible to be sure what the measurements mean.
>

That argument fails for two reasons:

1. It is not falsifiable.
2. It applies to nearly all other experiments, in all other fields.

It is not possible for you to see what is connect to what inside of a
Tokamak reactor, or in a robot explorer on Mars. It is not possible for you
watch every procedure in a cloning experiment, or a medical study on cancer,
or in a Top quark experiment. You can reject any finding in any field of
science with the argument that the researchers may be lying or incompetent.

It is true that a few researchers do lie, and some are incompetent, but in a
group of professional researcher as large as the cold fusion cohort it is
statistically impossible for them all to be incompetent. In point of fact, I
can judge their competence, and so can Storms and the others who have
reviewed the field. It is easy to show that most of them are competent,
honest and sane.

A few reviewers, such as you, Robert Park and Slakey, have concluded that
all researchers are wrong or incompetent, but you are mistaken. Your
arguments are irrational and factually wrong. Your judgement proves only
that you, Park and Slakey are not fit to judge this subject. It is not
possible that thousand of professional scientists, and a handful of people
such as Park -- who brags he has not read a single paper -- is right.



> > What you want would not work, for reasons beyond the scope of the
> discussion.
>
>
> Right. Because the fact that CF doesn't work is beyond the scope of this
> discussion. Cop out.
>

I am not obligated to explain every single technical detail to you, or to
anyone else. I have upload 1,200 papers on this subject, giving you every
opportunity to learn this sort of thing for yourself. "Cop out" is a snappy
come-back but you are incorrect. The reasons are beyond the scope of the
discussion. You are demanding the impossible. If you do not understand why
this is impossible, that is additional proof that you do not know what you
are talking about, and you have not done your homework.



> But heat can be demonstrated simply and visually. . .
>

It can, and it has been. See the boil off experiments. In this case you will
not take "yes" for an answer. What you demand to see has been published, but
you refuse to look, or to acknowledge it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:New BLP commercial - On You Tube

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

>From Karthauser

...

> It's a pretty generic commercial. You could replace
> the word 'hydrino' with almost anything and it would
> still pretty much hang together. It also doesn't really
> do much to establish blacklight has a brand, which
> is the main purpose of a commercial. I suspect that
> it was put together by a 'fan' not the company
> themselves.

You make a valid point. Perhaps it came from a Communication Art's
student completing a final class assignment on assembling a commercial
for a prospective client. (Will look good on his/her resume.)

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

[Vo]:Italian Nuclear Physicist Fulvio Frisone on Cold Fusion

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

FWIW:

Italian Nuclear Physicist Fulvio Frisone on Cold Fusion

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=128924

Rossi is briefly mentioned in a follow up forum.

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

Re: [Vo]:New BLP commercial - On You Tube

[Dr Josef Karthauser]

On 3 Jun 2011, at 13:43, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:

> From Jed:
> 
>> That is WEIRD. What is the point of airing it? Did BLP pay for it?
> 
> I would speculate that BLP did indeed pay for the commercial. I have no
> proof of that however. Who else would pay for it, and for what purpose since
> it's obviously pro BLP & for the existence of hydrinos. If the commercial
> was initially sourced out to Europe (i.e.: Switzerland) maybe BLP has
> considered the possibility of drumming up more business overseas where they
> might receive a more friendly reception, at least during the initial steps.
> (Perhaps they have been studying Rossi's strategy. Of course, they will
> emphatically deny this!)

It's a pretty generic commercial. You could replace the word 'hydrino' with 
almost anything and it would still pretty much hang together. It also doesn't 
really do much to establish blacklight has a brand, which is the main purpose 
of a commercial. I suspect that it was put together by a 'fan' not the company 
themselves.

Joe

Re: [Vo]:invitation to join Linkendan not

[Mauro Lacy]

>
> I got a message from a friend I know really well and is the president of
> the local ski club.
>
> It stated he wanted me to join Linkendan.  I hit yes yes, yes and it sent
> out invites from me to everyone on my email list.  Please ignore such
> invites.  I don't want anyone to join this.

You can easily remove unwanted connections from your list, by using the
"Remove Connections" link at the top right of linkedin's "My Connections"
tab.

RE: [Vo]:New BLP commercial - On You Tube

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Jed:

> That is WEIRD. What is the point of airing it? Did BLP pay for it?

I would speculate that BLP did indeed pay for the commercial. I have no
proof of that however. Who else would pay for it, and for what purpose since
it's obviously pro BLP & for the existence of hydrinos. If the commercial
was initially sourced out to Europe (i.e.: Switzerland) maybe BLP has
considered the possibility of drumming up more business overseas where they
might receive a more friendly reception, at least during the initial steps.
(Perhaps they have been studying Rossi's strategy. Of course, they will
emphatically deny this!)

I assume that You Tube member "ifreed0m" picked up BLP's commercial from
somewhere. The mystery is from where. Going directly to "ifreed0m's" You
Tube home link:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ifreed0m

... shows an eclectic interest in saving the environment. He also shows an
interest in BLP, Rossi, and some New Age subjects. This includes UFO
Friendship Messages from an alien civilization called the Akrij. I'll have
to spend some time going over the Akrij videos for... ahem, scholarly
reasons. (I'll let the Vort Collective know if there are any revelatory
predictions like another rapture event - but I doubt it.) The Akrij vaguely
remind me of the Billy Meier's stuff where Meier purported to have been
contact with an advanced civilization that was allegedly hanging out in the
Pleiades star cluster. The Pleiadeans migrated to that star cluster system
many moons ago. (Kind'a romantic in a way.) ;-)

I bet Terry knows as much about the Pleiadeans as I. ;-)

Mostly harmless.

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

[Vo]:invitation to join Linkendan not

[fznidarsic]

I got a message from a friend I know really well and is the president of the 
local ski club.

It stated he wanted me to join Linkendan.  I hit yes yes, yes and it sent out 
invites from me to everyone on my email list.  Please ignore such invites.  I 
don't want anyone to join this.


Frank Znidarsic