Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Horace Heffner]

The use of the term FPE is misleading and confusing.

The Wright brothers invented the first controlled flight.  It would  
be nonsensical and misleading to call every kind of winged aircraft a  
Wright machine, not distinguishing between a 747 and a piper cub. The  
F&P protocol was Pd-D low voltage electrolysis. This differs from  
Claytor's low pressure gas cells, Storm's glow discharge, Mizuno and  
Ohmori's HV DC plasma electrolysis, or solid state electrolyte  
experiments, Piantelli's gaseous Ni-H, Arata and Zhang's double  
structured spillover cathode using Pd black, Patterson's layered Pd- 
Ni beads, Szpack's codepositon cells, Les Case's Ni-carbon catalyst  
in gaseous deuterium, etc. etc.


Not all airplanes are the same, not all LENR devices are the same.   
There are important differences. There is a vocabulary that describes  
those differences, and which is used by people in the field.  Who is  
going to know what you are talking about if you call every LENR  
device an FPE?



On Dec 18, 2011, at 10:23 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:


On 12/19/2011 5:19 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
If it were possible to replicate F&P and build on it, there are  
thousands of people and companies who would have.
They have been replicated. In many labs all around the world. Try  
searching in Jed's archives. Have you not listened to anything Jed  
has said about the history of the FPE? People lost their jobs and  
had their careers destroyed for reporting successful replications.
Even F&P themselves enjoyed new labs and millions of dollars in  
funds from the Japanese and never came up with definitive proof of  
their concepts.
Amazing statement that. Too bad it is not correct. What they failed  
to do, as I understand it, is to produce a commercially ready device.
  Forged or ignored?  I don't think there is any good evidence for  
that.
Did you not see the unedited positive for FPE excess heat MIT  
results versus the edited no FPE excess heat MIT results? Someone  
in MIT forged the data and the Hot Fusion lab guys had a party. As  
for ignored, you must be joking? Right? Like the 24 SPAWAR peer  
reviewed results that were ignored?


BTW Mary we are still testing and developing a FPE device.


I wish you good luck with that-- I really do.

We will get it done.


Will I get my hands on a working FPE device? You can bet on it.


I am not betting for you if you think you're getting one from  
Rossi or Defkalion!
And if you are wrong? As you know I'm talking to DGT to do a  
factory visit. Just might talk Leonardo in one as well.




Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

You have seen the high school students doing FPE excess heat experiments 
at MIT during ICCF-10? They also found transmutated Silver: 
http://www.lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm (bout 60% of the way down) and 
here:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/Collections/ICCF10.htm#Photos (Picture of our 
Jed is 2nd from the top) If they can do it, so will we.


Maybe you should ask that as excess heat and transmutations were 
observed at MIT in Aug 2003 in very simple to replicate experiments 
conducted by high school students, why did not the scientific world 
shout about their achievements?



On 12/19/2011 6:07 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:


I am not betting for you if you think you're getting one from
Rossi or Defkalion!

And if you are wrong? As you know I'm talking to DGT to do a
factory visit. Just might talk Leonardo in one as well.


I would be delighted to be wrong about Rossi, Defkalion and your plans 
to visit them and to buy stuff from them.  If it happens, I will be 
very pleased.  Until it happens and is properly documented, I will 
doubt it to the extreme.  Neither Rossi nor Defkalion have done the 
slightest thing thus far to inspire the most minimal amount of 
confidence.  You persist in confusing talk, promises and claims for 
action.   They're not action.


By the way, why don't you contact Jed personally about his experience 
with Defkalion and trying to arrange a visit with them.  Ask him his 
experiences in trying to get Rossi to get independent tests or better 
tests.   It may be an eye opener ... and then again, for you, it may not.

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Mary Yugo]

> I am not betting for you if you think you're getting one from Rossi or
>> Defkalion!
>>
> And if you are wrong? As you know I'm talking to DGT to do a factory
> visit. Just might talk Leonardo in one as well.
>

I would be delighted to be wrong about Rossi, Defkalion and your plans to
visit them and to buy stuff from them.  If it happens, I will be very
pleased.  Until it happens and is properly documented, I will doubt it to
the extreme.  Neither Rossi nor Defkalion have done the slightest thing
thus far to inspire the most minimal amount of confidence.  You persist in
confusing talk, promises and claims for action.   They're not action.

By the way, why don't you contact Jed personally about his experience with
Defkalion and trying to arrange a visit with them.  Ask him his experiences
in trying to get Rossi to get independent tests or better tests.   It may
be an eye opener ... and then again, for you, it may not.

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

Well said Horace, well said.


On 12/19/2011 5:46 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
I should have said: "However, when all is said and done, I expect the 
creation and maintenance of LENR-CANR.org will prove to be the most 
important contribution to the field, with the exception of those of 
the founding fathers Fleischmann and Pons."

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

On 12/19/2011 5:19 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
If it were possible to replicate F&P and build on it, there are 
thousands of people and companies who would have.
They have been replicated. In many labs all around the world. Try 
searching in Jed's archives. Have you not listened to anything Jed has 
said about the history of the FPE? People lost their jobs and had their 
careers destroyed for reporting successful replications.
Even F&P themselves enjoyed new labs and millions of dollars in funds 
from the Japanese and never came up with definitive proof of their 
concepts.
Amazing statement that. Too bad it is not correct. What they failed to 
do, as I understand it, is to produce a commercially ready device.

  Forged or ignored?  I don't think there is any good evidence for that.
Did you not see the unedited positive for FPE excess heat MIT results 
versus the edited no FPE excess heat MIT results? Someone in MIT forged 
the data and the Hot Fusion lab guys had a party. As for ignored, you 
must be joking? Right? Like the 24 SPAWAR peer reviewed results that 
were ignored?


BTW Mary we are still testing and developing a FPE device.


I wish you good luck with that-- I really do.

We will get it done.


Will I get my hands on a working FPE device? You can bet on it.


I am not betting for you if you think you're getting one from Rossi or 
Defkalion!
And if you are wrong? As you know I'm talking to DGT to do a factory 
visit. Just might talk Leonardo in one as well.

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Horace Heffner]

On Dec 18, 2011, at 4:01 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Horace Heffner  wrote:

You kept the LENR flame visible and alive when many others worked  
to put out the flame and to bury it in an unmarked grave that would  
never be found.


Many others have made efforts of similar magnitude, even risking  
their lives and health.  However, when all is said and done, I  
expect the creation and maintenance of LENR-CANR.org will prove to  
be the most important contribution to the field.


Perhaps. I hope so. But the point is, it did not call for any moral  
courage. I have no standing in academia and nothing to lose. I  
sacrificed nothing, other than money. Okay, lots of money. Other  
than that, it was tedious work and some rudimentary programming.


People like Mallove and Mizuno made tremendous personal sacrifices.  
I would not want to be compared to them. Gene went from a top  
academic career to working in a warehouse at night to feed his  
family. Mizuno spent every yen he ever earned on equipment. (He has  
the Japanese equivalent to Social Security, and they have national  
health insurance.) He went without a promotion for 20 years, and  
was still doing junior professor assignments at the end.


Fleischmann and Pons had a terrible time. I think it traumatized  
Pons. It did not bother Fleischmann as much because he is a tough,  
cynical person who had nightmare experiences during WWII. The  
Gestapo beat his father to death, and he himself barely escaped. He  
told me that he knew calling that press conference would mean the  
end of his career. He knew he would be vilified and ridiculed for  
the rest of his life. He went into it knowing what would happen.  
That was an act of courage. But as he said, it was nothing like  
running for you life at age 13.


Mind you, it gets his goat. Sheila Fleischmann told me he complains  
for hours. Who wouldn't?


- Jed




I should have said: "However, when all is said and done, I expect the  
creation and maintenance of LENR-CANR.org will prove to be the most  
important contribution to the field, with the exception of those of  
the founding fathers Fleischmann and Pons."


Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:CALL FOR REDIRECT OF SOME TOPICS OR DISCUSSIONS TO VORTEX-B

[William Beaty]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2011, Terry Blanton wrote:


Hey,Bill,
Do you have a Paypal account?  It's time for Vorts to ante up.



Yep, on paypal it's just my normal email:

   billb()amasci dotcom (figure out obfuscation)



Recent news:  Me being insulted by William Shatner on ca-only History 
channel show Nov 2011  :)


  William Shatner's Weird or What: Medical Mysteries: SLI Electric humans
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neYxvtqH8QM&t=0m13s

  Human lungs as VandeGraaff generators: an electricity disease?
  http://amasci.com/static/e-disease.html


But Shatner did get it half-right.  You're supposed to blow your breath 
towards a foil-leaf electrometer, or the $2 FET electrometer at

http://amasci.com/emotor/chargdet.html

Lethal speculation: victims with body-charging in hospitals might ignite 
anesthetic gas, or spark fabrics in oxy tent, even if their body is grounded

by medical monitors ...if their breath can charge up distant surfaces.



(( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
William J. Beatyhttp://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/
beaty, chem washington edu  Research Engineer
billb, amasci com   UW Chem Dept,  Bagley Hall RM74
206-543-6195Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Mary Yugo]

On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
wrote:

> So you don't think the way F&P were treated and the fact that replication
> results were either forged or ignored was OK?


But that makes no sense.  If it were possible to replicate F&P and build on
it, there are thousands of people and companies who would have.  Even F&P
themselves enjoyed new labs and millions of dollars in funds from the
Japanese and never came up with definitive proof of their concepts.  Forged
or ignored?  I don't think there is any good evidence for that.


BTW Mary we are still testing and developing a FPE device.


I wish you good luck with that-- I really do.



> Will I get my hands on a working FPE device? You can bet on it.
>

I am not betting for you if you think you're getting one from Rossi or
Defkalion!

Re: [Vo]:"Private information" about Rossi was the Ampernergo tests described by McKubre

[Susanna Gipp]

Jed,
How we call "inidipendent" the tests made by Ampenergo ?
Do we have something else excepts a bunch of words ? Do you know who they
are ?
These guys are all friends or in someway related to Rossi.
Somewhere there is the list and where thy come from (Leonardo, LTI..).
I wouldn't be surprised also that some of them are involved in the TEG
story.
Sorry but in my world "independent test" has a different meaning.

Regards



2011/12/19 Jed Rothwell 

> Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:
>
> Jed, you have previously stated that you have private information on which
>> you base your conclusions as to the reality of Rossi. Please cut the rest
>> of us some slack! We have no way of knowing if your private information is
>> sound, or if you have been misled, or if you have drawn unsound conclusions
>> from what you know.
>>
>
> Mainly what I know was revealed by McKubre in his recent talk:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHwhathappen.pdf
>
> See where it says "AmpEnerco Run I"
>
> These were independent tests done by Ampenergo before they made an
> agreement with Rossi. Various experts participated, including someone
> McKubre knows well. He trusts his expert. I know some of those people too,
> and I trust them. That is not to suggest that I can judge calorimetry as
> well as McKubre can! Far from it. But it isn't hard to judge these
> results. These tests were similar to the public tests conducted by Rossi,
> only they were independent, with someone else's instruments. Somewhat
> better instruments, proper computers and so on, but basically the same sort
> of HVAC test procedures.
>
> Okay, ask yourself this. Suppose you know that tests similar the 18-hour
> February test and the October self-sustaining tests were done, with
> instruments supplied and operated by someone you knew to be an expert, and
> a trustworthy person. Would that convince you? If the answer is yes, you
> can see why McKubre and I are pretty confident this result is real. On the
> other hand, if the HVAC-style testing does not satisfy you, then you will
> not be convinced.
>
> Mary Yugo has said she demands a blank run. As far as I know they did not
> do one. I think she wants to see a Seebeck calorimeter. I am sure they did
> not use that. So she would not be satisfied by these tests.
>
> That's all there is to it. I have no knowledge of Rossi's personal
> business. For all I know he might be robbing dozens of investors. I do not
> think he is. I have absolutely no knowledge of any such thing, no evidence,
> and frankly I could not care less if he is robbing people. I am sure his
> claims are real. That does not preclude the possibility that he is
> defrauding people; it would mean he is defrauding them with a genuine cold
> fusion reactor. Not my problem.
>
> Here is a key issue. Rossi's personality is an open book thanks to his
> website. That is unique to the 21st century. People who dismiss him because
> of his personality should think about that. Suppose in 1879 Edison had a
> kept an Internet blog while he invented the incandescent light. Suppose
> everyone could follow along with his trials and tribulations and his
> frequent crazy ideas. Now, 140 years later, you can read detailed
> biographies of him. You can read the lab notebooks. You can see why some of
> his investors lost their nerve and sold out for pennies on the dollar as he
> floundered around spending rivers of money, changing the design
> radically, apparently getting nowhere. In my opinion, his comments were no
> less extreme than Rossi's; his behavior no less erratic. That is true of
> many other famous inventors. It is also true of many ordinary programmers,
> chemists and others doing creative work that is worthy, difficult, but
> never becomes famous. It is true of some top notch gourmet chefs; a guy I
> know who can climb and cut down just about any tree with minimal equipment
> but frightful risk; and many farmers and fishermen in Yamaguchi. People who
> do extraordinary, creative, or dangerous things are sometimes odd. If they
> were not odd, they would do these things. In the past, we did not know how
> odd people such as Edison were until long after they became rich & famous,
> when all their sins were forgiven. Now, with Rossi, we learn of it in real
> time.
>
> My guess is that people such as Mary Yugo cannot look past Rossi's
> personality because they have not read many biographies, diaries and
> personal papers left by famous people. They have not met a broad range of
> people from other cultures, or eccentric people, or downright crazy people.
> I have. I mean that literally. I grew up encountering people who were
> diagnosed with mental illness, in the era before effective
> psychotropic drugs. You can read about them here:
>
>
> http://books.google.com/books/about/The_psychiatric_halfway_house.html?id=8wsEAQAAIAAJ
>
> (The authors are my mother and my aunt.)
>
> In other words, I am used to discounting personality quirks, and looking
> at the content

[Vo]:Our FPE device

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

We have not stopped our work on building a working FPE device. Jed your 
archives are a gold mine. I'm trying to read ALL the papers as my brain 
is very good at picking out individual items from different papers and 
then piecing them together. It was interesting to read the Storm paper 
giving a lot of hints about how to do a strict FPE replication. I noted 
his method to clean the palladium.


We are working on using a coil formed with thin wall 1 mm diameter Ni 
tubing, which has the pressurized H2 inside. In the middle of the coil 
we have placed a ceramic heater with the whole assembly paced in a water 
jacket. This way the high pressure H2 is only applied to the inside of 
the tubing. We need a good way to clean the inner and outer surface of 
the Ni tubing.Would anyone expect Storm's method to work with cleaning 
thin Ni tubing formed into a coil?


Jed I really don't know how you are still sane, knowing what you do and 
how so many people have either been screwed or ignored. But then maybe 
I'm too proactive and should learn a bit of your calmness.

[Vo]:The Protonic/Nucleonic/Positronic Photon and musings

[John Berry]

I had a thought last night for the first time that light can have a few
more properties that we (or I) usually consider.

Of course the most obvious aspect is frequency and then if it is coherent,
how it is polarized and if the wave state has collapse or not.

The next aspect I am aware of but consider less often is that some types of
light, actually lets say photons (packet of EM) from here in, are created
from a single electron moving (or jumping orbit) and the other type I
normally consider comes from a dipole antenna which is
creating detectable electric fields at the ends and magnetic fields in the
middle.

This gives rise to momentary thoughts as to if some photons are more
magnetic and some more electric. This however goes nowhere since I an
perfectly aware that photons move and a moving electric fields creates a
moving magnetic field and visa versa. I generally also then consider that
the magnetic field is just a convenient construct to simplify understanding
relativistic distortions in electric fields that net to zero but have
different motion.

What I only considered last night is a photon that is constructed not from
a moving electron possessing a negative electric field but from
something possessing a positive electric field.

Mainly in my mind the proton or Anti-Electron.
Needless to say, I can't think of anything that emits noticeable light from
either of these sources, but why knows how this positive electric field
light might differ.

 And of course, might not differ in any real way at all.

Can anyone think of any source for such light?
I can only think of an MRI as being an apparent example of such light.

This does give me one other thought though, could a photon type be created
to interact with the nucleus of an atom (perhaps inducing it to
rotate-precess-nutate).

And does a nucleus release such a photon it's self?

Another thought I had, although this one is not new fro me.
I believe that when a photon is absorbed, in reality it is still flying
through but perfectly cancelled by an opposite photon created by the
movement of fields and charges that we consider absorbed it.

Admittedly it would interact with nothing and have no energy.

The final 2 thoughts I had was that you can create an unshieldable  E or M
or EM field by making it of a shape that can't be normally generated, that
way no field can counter it.
This is because shielding only tries to create an equal and opposite field
that matches and cancels the main field.

This is clearly and unambiguously seen in transformers where the magnetic
fields outside the core are alive and well but undetectable until you vary
the flux and then the way they move the inductive influence adds rather
than cancels.

Since the magnetic fields are not really cancelling we can see the same of
electric fields from the atoms, they are still there but balanced (mostly)
until one moves creating a type of electric field you can only feel when
moving, we term this a magnetic field but that is a fiction.

Furthermore that is interesting because it means that the electric fields
of every particle fills the universe out to the stars. The other question
that is generated is at what point does the packet of moving electric field
we call a photon detach from the field since the field extends all the way,
could this transition be the wave collapse in different terms?

Also what of half photons? Just a bit of a wiggle. They must propagate but
I don't know if we normally detect them in the same way, do they form a sub
quanta photon packet (oxymoron) or do they remain as waves?

Final thought, can light created by a proton or positron be
absorbed by an electron and perfectly cancelled (AKA absorbed)?

Perhaps, but I am not sure and these things are fun to wonder about.
What else is there to discover about the universe of which we have no clue.

-- 
If we doubt we can hardly hope to Shine.

Be Alive when you are alive!  You can't BE later.

‎"Life" is not important, significant, serious or weighty.
Life is a dance to be enjoyed. It is You and I that are important, Living
life is at stake!

There is no someday.
There is no right way.
There is only now.

Virtue or Vice, a moment of pain for a lifetime of pleasure, or a moment of
pleasure for a lifetime of pain.
Construction or destruction, it is just a matter of order in which you
experience pain and joy, spirit and integrity or weakness of flesh.

If you aren't making mistakes, you aren't doing enough.

How you feel is feedback on what you are currently doing and not informing
you of what to do, don't wait to feel like it. Do it and see how you feel.

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

So you don't think the way F&P were treated and the fact that 
replication results were either forged or ignored was OK? BTW Mary we 
are still testing and developing a FPE device. Many have given us 
encouragement and assistance. Jed's archives are a Aladdin's Cave of FPE 
wonders. Will I get my hands on a working FPE device? You can bet on it.



On 12/19/2011 2:07 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:



On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat 
mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com>> wrote:


This is so wrong as to make me very upset. I'll do anything I can
to get hold of a FPE device from Leonardo or Defkalion or who ever
and shove it up some FPE deniers back side so far the sun will
never shine on it again. And you wonder why I have no time for
most university chalk heads.



Get one first and *then* brag obscenely all you want to about what you 
plan to do with it.  It seems the most difficult part of your plan is 
to get your hands on a device.  Until you do, if you ever can, I find 
your rants tiresome and the cartoon from Craig Brown is trite and 
ridiculous as is his web site.

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Mary Yugo]

On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
wrote:

> This is so wrong as to make me very upset. I'll do anything I can to get
> hold of a FPE device from Leonardo or Defkalion or who ever and shove it up
> some FPE deniers back side so far the sun will never shine on it again. And
> you wonder why I have no time for most university chalk heads.
>


Get one first and *then* brag obscenely all you want to about what you plan
to do with it.  It seems the most difficult part of your plan is to get
your hands on a device.  Until you do, if you ever can, I find your rants
tiresome and the cartoon from Craig Brown is trite and ridiculous as is his
web site.

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Jed Rothwell]

Aussie Guy E-Cat  wrote:

This is so wrong as to make me very upset. I'll do anything I can to get
> hold of a FPE device from Leonardo or Defkalion or who ever and shove it up
> some FPE deniers back side so far the sun will never shine on it again.


The good news is that revenge is a dish best eaten cold.

I think it is better to focus on the promise of cold fusion. The benefits
it will bring, if someone can make it work. What happened to the
researchers was inevitable. It happens to nearly everyone who tries to
bring something valuable to humanity. That's human nature.

I hope that this history is not forgotten quickly, and that people learn
some caution for a generation. They learn not to jump to conclusions. Not
to let ignorant naysayers dominate society. This lesson has been learned
and forgotten, learned and forgotten, countless times throughout history. I
hope that people wake up, and allow 10 or 20 years of academic freedom and
progress again, before drifting back to sleep . . . back to their old bad
habits.


And you wonder why I have no time for most university chalk heads.


I get it. But Fleischmann, Pons, Bockris and most of the others are
professors. You can't live with 'em and you can't live without 'em.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

Here is a bit of comic relief: 
http://www.cfeis.com/images/pseudoscepsticks_cartoon.jpg



On 12/19/2011 10:13 AM, Horace Heffner wrote:


On Dec 18, 2011, at 2:30 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:

Jed you underestimate the contribution you have made. You have 
invested a lot of time, effort and skin in creating LENR-CANR.org You 
kept the LENR flame visible and alive when many others worked to put 
out the flame and to bury it in an unmarked grave that would never be 
found.


Many others have made efforts of similar magnitude, even risking their 
lives and health.  However, when all is said and done, I expect the 
creation and maintenance of LENR-CANR.org will prove to be the most 
important contribution to the field.  If not sufficient for success of 
the field, it certainly is necessary for that success.  I think it is 
worthy of a Preperata medal even now.


Best regards,

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

[Vo]:Re: Fleischmann Pons Effect replication instructions, including the use of a RFG!

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

More good info on RFG and magnetic stimulation of the FPE (page 7 
section 4.2 Radio Frequency Stimulation):

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BockrisJtriggering.pdf


On 12/19/2011 12:13 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:

Seems Edmund Storms also liked to use the FPE term. Here he describes,
almost blow by blow how to replicated the FPE effect.
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf

Note on page 9. point 7d he states:
"Inductively couple an RF frequency of 81.9 MHz to the cell through a
surrounding coil. Power levels below 30 mW have been found to work well
but values up to 1 W can be used. If excess energy is to be produced, it
will appear immediately."

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

This is so wrong as to make me very upset. I'll do anything I can to get 
hold of a FPE device from Leonardo or Defkalion or who ever and shove it 
up some FPE deniers back side so far the sun will never shine on it 
again. And you wonder why I have no time for most university chalk heads.



On 12/19/2011 1:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
ANYWAY, flash forward to 1989. Arrhenius' granddaughter, Dr. Karen 
Caldwell, was director of the Center for Biopolymers at Interfaces at 
the University of Utah, and a friend of F&P. Quoting Beaudette, p. 
149, Fleischmann recounted:


After the press conference, Dr. Caldwell came up to us and said, 
"Well, when my grandfather proposed electrolytic disassociation, 
he was dismissed from the University. At least that won’t happen 
to you." I said to her, “But you are entirely mistaken. We shall be 
dismissed as well."


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Jed Rothwell]

OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson  wrote:


> > He knew he would be vilified and ridiculed for the rest of his life.
> > He went into it knowing what would happen. That was an act of courage.
> > But as he said, it was nothing like running for you life at age 13.
> >
> > Mind you, it gets his goat. Sheila Fleischmann told me he complains for
> > hours. Who wouldn't?
>
> This is one of the most revealing things I've read about Fleishman in a
> very
> long time.
>

He sure knew what he was getting into. Fleischmann wrote a lighthearted
account of this, quoted in Beaudette's book. It starts off with Arrhenius
in 1883. He was one of the most important electrochemists in history, like
Faraday. He made a revolutionary discovery. As any student of history would
predict, this led the academic authorities to kick him out of the
university. He was vilified and ridiculed for years and years. Finally,
long after, he won a Nobel prize. That happens so often I am astounded
anyone believes the myth that scientists welcome new ideas. ANYWAY, flash
forward to 1989. Arrhenius' granddaughter, Dr. Karen Caldwell, was director
of the Center for Biopolymers at Interfaces at the University of Utah, and
a friend of F&P. Quoting Beaudette, p. 149, Fleischmann recounted:


After the press conference, Dr. Caldwell came up to us and said, "Well,
when my grandfather proposed electrolytic disassociation, he was dismissed
from the University. At least that won’t happen to you." I said to her,
“But you are entirely mistaken. We shall be dismissed as well."


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Horace Heffner]

On Dec 18, 2011, at 3:31 PM, Michele Comitini wrote:


Horace,

Your plan has a much broader scope IMHO, would be nice some politician
were able to understand it and apply it...

mic


Yes it would have been nice.  I think Hillary Clinton had some  
similar plans , but was not elected.  She certainly understood the  
issues I think.  It would have worked far better than estimated, due  
to the extremely cheap solar cells now on the market.  The fund would  
have made a lot of money, and would have completely removed itself  
from the political vagaries of annual national budget cycles. This  
could be an advantage to a private fund, provided the fund has a  
mechanism other than donations, to self sustain through partial  
vested financial interest in patents, stock, etc.


Best regards,

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

[Vo]:"Private information" about Rossi was the Ampernergo tests described by McKubre

[Jed Rothwell]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:

Jed, you have previously stated that you have private information on which
> you base your conclusions as to the reality of Rossi. Please cut the rest
> of us some slack! We have no way of knowing if your private information is
> sound, or if you have been misled, or if you have drawn unsound conclusions
> from what you know.
>

Mainly what I know was revealed by McKubre in his recent talk:

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

See where it says "AmpEnerco Run I"

These were independent tests done by Ampenergo before they made an
agreement with Rossi. Various experts participated, including someone
McKubre knows well. He trusts his expert. I know some of those people too,
and I trust them. That is not to suggest that I can judge calorimetry as
well as McKubre can! Far from it. But it isn't hard to judge these
results. These tests were similar to the public tests conducted by Rossi,
only they were independent, with someone else's instruments. Somewhat
better instruments, proper computers and so on, but basically the same sort
of HVAC test procedures.

Okay, ask yourself this. Suppose you know that tests similar the 18-hour
February test and the October self-sustaining tests were done, with
instruments supplied and operated by someone you knew to be an expert, and
a trustworthy person. Would that convince you? If the answer is yes, you
can see why McKubre and I are pretty confident this result is real. On the
other hand, if the HVAC-style testing does not satisfy you, then you will
not be convinced.

Mary Yugo has said she demands a blank run. As far as I know they did not
do one. I think she wants to see a Seebeck calorimeter. I am sure they did
not use that. So she would not be satisfied by these tests.

That's all there is to it. I have no knowledge of Rossi's personal
business. For all I know he might be robbing dozens of investors. I do not
think he is. I have absolutely no knowledge of any such thing, no evidence,
and frankly I could not care less if he is robbing people. I am sure his
claims are real. That does not preclude the possibility that he is
defrauding people; it would mean he is defrauding them with a genuine cold
fusion reactor. Not my problem.

Here is a key issue. Rossi's personality is an open book thanks to his
website. That is unique to the 21st century. People who dismiss him because
of his personality should think about that. Suppose in 1879 Edison had a
kept an Internet blog while he invented the incandescent light. Suppose
everyone could follow along with his trials and tribulations and his
frequent crazy ideas. Now, 140 years later, you can read detailed
biographies of him. You can read the lab notebooks. You can see why some of
his investors lost their nerve and sold out for pennies on the dollar as he
floundered around spending rivers of money, changing the design
radically, apparently getting nowhere. In my opinion, his comments were no
less extreme than Rossi's; his behavior no less erratic. That is true of
many other famous inventors. It is also true of many ordinary programmers,
chemists and others doing creative work that is worthy, difficult, but
never becomes famous. It is true of some top notch gourmet chefs; a guy I
know who can climb and cut down just about any tree with minimal equipment
but frightful risk; and many farmers and fishermen in Yamaguchi. People who
do extraordinary, creative, or dangerous things are sometimes odd. If they
were not odd, they would do these things. In the past, we did not know how
odd people such as Edison were until long after they became rich & famous,
when all their sins were forgiven. Now, with Rossi, we learn of it in real
time.

My guess is that people such as Mary Yugo cannot look past Rossi's
personality because they have not read many biographies, diaries and
personal papers left by famous people. They have not met a broad range of
people from other cultures, or eccentric people, or downright crazy people.
I have. I mean that literally. I grew up encountering people who were
diagnosed with mental illness, in the era before effective
psychotropic drugs. You can read about them here:

http://books.google.com/books/about/The_psychiatric_halfway_house.html?id=8wsEAQAAIAAJ

(The authors are my mother and my aunt.)

In other words, I am used to discounting personality quirks, and looking at
the content of the work. That is not an easy thing to do. It is not always
a wise thing to do. It just happens I am good at it, because I have had a
lot of practice.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Possible solution to the Rossi Ni + p byproduct riddle

[Horace Heffner]

On Dec 18, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:

I have consolidated my remarks in this thread, with some additional  
comments, into this paper:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NiProtonRiddle.pdf


As typical for me, I continue to find and correct typos. Somehow I  
submitted a back level version.


Thank you for your patience.

Best regards,

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

[Vo]:Fleischmann Pons Effect replication instructions, including the use of a RFG!

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

Seems Edmund Storms also liked to use the FPE term. Here he describes, 
almost blow by blow how to replicated the FPE effect. 
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf


Note on page 9. point 7d he states:
"Inductively couple an RF frequency of 81.9 MHz to the cell through a 
surrounding coil. Power levels below 30 mW have been found to work well 
but values up to 1 W can be used. If excess energy is to be produced, it 
will appear immediately."

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

One way to remember their achievement would be to rename LENR to the 
"Fleischmann-Pons Effect" (FPE). ALL FPE devices should include it in 
their name. Leonardo's E-Cat then becomes the Leonardo FPE E-Cat device. 
Defkalion's Hyperion then becomes the Defkalion FPE Hyperion device. 
Jed's web site would become FPE.CANR.org. Easy to redirect hits using 
old links.


LENR is not correct as we really don't have a solid theory. However FPE 
does describe the effect and honours the men and their contribution.


So what do you think Jed? Move away from LENR as Cold Fusion was moved 
away from. FPE describes the effect we all know, honours Fleischmann and 
Pons, removes Nuclear (as we know it) and raises the middle finger to 
those who are working to put out the FPE flame. While they may never get 
the Noble they deserve, at least we can ensure the effect they 
discovered, lives on with their name given to the effect.


I like the "Fleischmann and Ponds Effect". Anyone else like it?


On 12/19/2011 11:31 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner > wrote:


You kept the LENR flame visible and alive when many others
worked to put out the flame and to bury it in an unmarked
grave that would never be found.


Many others have made efforts of similar magnitude, even risking
their lives and health.  However, when all is said and done, I
expect the creation and maintenance of LENR-CANR.org will prove to
be the most important contribution to the field.


Perhaps. I hope so. But the point is, it did not call for any moral 
courage. I have no standing in academia and nothing to lose. I 
sacrificed nothing, other than money. Okay, lots of money. Other than 
that, it was tedious work and some rudimentary programming.


People like Mallove and Mizuno made tremendous personal sacrifices. I 
would not want to be compared to them. Gene went from a top academic 
career to working in a warehouse at night to feed his family. Mizuno 
spent every yen he ever earned on equipment. (He has the Japanese 
equivalent to Social Security, and they have national health 
insurance.) He went without a promotion for 20 years, and was still 
doing junior professor assignments at the end.


Fleischmann and Pons had a terrible time. I think it traumatized Pons. 
It did not bother Fleischmann as much because he is a tough, cynical 
person who had nightmare experiences during WWII. The Gestapo beat his 
father to death, and he himself barely escaped. He told me that he 
knew calling that press conference would mean the end of his career. 
He knew he would be vilified and ridiculed for the rest of his 
life. He went into it knowing what would happen. That was an act of 
courage. But as he said, it was nothing like running for you life at 
age 13.


Mind you, it gets his goat. Sheila Fleischmann told me he complains 
for hours. Who wouldn't?


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Daniel Rocha]

Wow!

Can't we start an open source development of CF?

2011/12/18 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson 

> From Jed
>
> ...
>
> > Fleischmann and Pons had a terrible time. I think it traumatized Pons.
> > It did not bother Fleischmann as much because he is a tough, cynical
> > person who had nightmare experiences during WWII. The Gestapo beat his
> > father to death, and he himself barely escaped. He told me that he
> > knew calling that press conference would mean the end of his career.
> > He knew he would be vilified and ridiculed for the rest of his life.
> > He went into it knowing what would happen. That was an act of courage.
> > But as he said, it was nothing like running for you life at age 13.
> >
> > Mind you, it gets his goat. Sheila Fleischmann told me he complains for
> > hours. Who wouldn't?
>
> This is one of the most revealing things I've read about Fleishman in a
> very
> long time.
>
> Thanks for posting it, Jed.
>
> Regards,
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> www.orionworks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>
>
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

RE: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Jed

...

> Fleischmann and Pons had a terrible time. I think it traumatized Pons.
> It did not bother Fleischmann as much because he is a tough, cynical
> person who had nightmare experiences during WWII. The Gestapo beat his
> father to death, and he himself barely escaped. He told me that he
> knew calling that press conference would mean the end of his career.
> He knew he would be vilified and ridiculed for the rest of his life.
> He went into it knowing what would happen. That was an act of courage.
> But as he said, it was nothing like running for you life at age 13.
>
> Mind you, it gets his goat. Sheila Fleischmann told me he complains for
> hours. Who wouldn't?

This is one of the most revealing things I've read about Fleishman in a very
long time.

Thanks for posting it, Jed.

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

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Jed Rothwell]

Horace Heffner  wrote:

>
> You kept the LENR flame visible and alive when many others worked to put
>> out the flame and to bury it in an unmarked grave that would never be found.
>>
>
> Many others have made efforts of similar magnitude, even risking their
> lives and health.  However, when all is said and done, I expect the
> creation and maintenance of LENR-CANR.org will prove to be the most
> important contribution to the field.


Perhaps. I hope so. But the point is, it did not call for any moral
courage. I have no standing in academia and nothing to lose. I sacrificed
nothing, other than money. Okay, lots of money. Other than that, it was
tedious work and some rudimentary programming.

People like Mallove and Mizuno made tremendous personal sacrifices. I would
not want to be compared to them. Gene went from a top academic career to
working in a warehouse at night to feed his family. Mizuno spent every yen
he ever earned on equipment. (He has the Japanese equivalent to Social
Security, and they have national health insurance.) He went without a
promotion for 20 years, and was still doing junior professor assignments at
the end.

Fleischmann and Pons had a terrible time. I think it traumatized Pons. It
did not bother Fleischmann as much because he is a tough, cynical person
who had nightmare experiences during WWII. The Gestapo beat his father to
death, and he himself barely escaped. He told me that he knew calling that
press conference would mean the end of his career. He knew he would
be vilified and ridiculed for the rest of his life. He went into it knowing
what would happen. That was an act of courage. But as he said, it was
nothing like running for you life at age 13.

Mind you, it gets his goat. Sheila Fleischmann told me he complains for
hours. Who wouldn't?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:CALL FOR REDIRECT OF SOME TOPICS OR DISCUSSIONS TO VORTEX-B

[Terry Blanton]

Hey,Bill,

Do you have a Paypal account?  It's time for Vorts to ante up.

T

On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Michele Comitini
 wrote:
>> I think there is a way using Paypal, but I don't know what it is.
>
> For the oversears of us would be nice to have it...
>
> mic
>

Re: [Vo]:CALL FOR REDIRECT OF SOME TOPICS OR DISCUSSIONS TO VORTEX-B

[Michele Comitini]

> I think there is a way using Paypal, but I don't know what it is.

For the oversears of us would be nice to have it...

mic

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Michele Comitini]

Horace,

Your plan has a much broader scope IMHO, would be nice some politician
were able to understand it and apply it...

mic


2011/12/19 Horace Heffner :
>
> On Dec 18, 2011, at 3:06 PM, Michele Comitini wrote:
>
>>>
>>> The problem is in the methodology used to determine who gets the money.
>>
>>
>> As many other foundations do.
>> If someone does not agree with a foundation politics, then he can make
>> a better one.
>> The good thing of LENR is that however expensive the research is, it
>> is to a level that it can avoid state/national funding, and that is
>> Rossi's lesson.
>> Having competition on how to manage funding? would happen for sure,
>> but that would be a positive thing, as always when there is fair
>> competition.
>> The important thing is to get started at some point, since the
>> existing public institutions fail to see the benefits and since we
>> know that it is something that if realized would benefit all, we must
>> take our responsibilities at some point.
>>
>> mic
>>
>
> Still some guidelines are required, and money needs to be compartmentalised.
>  Such an institution should not give all its money to one person or group,
> for example. Grants should not all be in the same size range - many should
> be small, some large.  Larger grants should be for follow-on work based on
> successful work. Considerations need to be made for fund investing.
>
> Here is a funding plan I put together for more commercially oriented
> research and development of renewable energy in general:
>
> http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/LegacyPlan.pdf
>
> This is not appropriate for LENR work only, but provides some ideas about
> what kinds of considerations need to be made.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Horace Heffner
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:CALL FOR REDIRECT OF SOME TOPICS OR DISCUSSIONS TO VORTEX-B

[Horace Heffner]

On Dec 18, 2011, at 2:44 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:

[snip]





How are the donations made?


http://amasci.com/weird/wvort.html

Being an old fogey I snail mail mine to:

William J. Beaty
6632 Corson Ave S
Seattle, WA 98108
206-543-6195 USA

I think there is a way using Paypal, but I don't know what it is.

Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Horace Heffner]

On Dec 18, 2011, at 3:06 PM, Michele Comitini wrote:



The problem is in the methodology used to determine who gets the  
money.


As many other foundations do.
If someone does not agree with a foundation politics, then he can make
a better one.
The good thing of LENR is that however expensive the research is, it
is to a level that it can avoid state/national funding, and that is
Rossi's lesson.
Having competition on how to manage funding? would happen for sure,
but that would be a positive thing, as always when there is fair
competition.
The important thing is to get started at some point, since the
existing public institutions fail to see the benefits and since we
know that it is something that if realized would benefit all, we must
take our responsibilities at some point.

mic



Still some guidelines are required, and money needs to be  
compartmentalised.  Such an institution should not give all its money  
to one person or group, for example. Grants should not all be in the  
same size range - many should be small, some large.  Larger grants  
should be for follow-on work based on successful work. Considerations  
need to be made for fund investing.


Here is a funding plan I put together for more commercially oriented  
research and development of renewable energy in general:


http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/LegacyPlan.pdf

This is not appropriate for LENR work only, but provides some ideas  
about what kinds of considerations need to be made.


Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Michele Comitini]

>
> The problem is in the methodology used to determine who gets the money.

As many other foundations do.
If someone does not agree with a foundation politics, then he can make
a better one.
The good thing of LENR is that however expensive the research is, it
is to a level that it can avoid state/national funding, and that is
Rossi's lesson.
Having competition on how to manage funding? would happen for sure,
but that would be a positive thing, as always when there is fair
competition.
The important thing is to get started at some point, since the
existing public institutions fail to see the benefits and since we
know that it is something that if realized would benefit all, we must
take our responsibilities at some point.

mic

Re: [Vo]:Mysterious "white web" found growing on nuclear waste

[Horace Heffner]

On Dec 18, 2011, at 2:31 PM, MJ wrote:

http://io9.com/5868883/mysterious-white-webs-found-growing-on- 
nuclear-waste






This reminds me of a weak Ni sulfate solution codeposition on  
aluminum electrodes CF experiment I did years ago. Ni filaments  
formed in solution - massive amounts, that looked like cob webs.   
When a filament path formed between anode and cathode, a bright flash  
disintegrated the filament.  It was like a miniature lightning bolt.   
The really weird thing about it was this happened at a fast rate, yet  
it was completely silent.  It was like a storm in a beaker.  There  
was no cavitation sound.  There was no clear indication of excess  
heat, so I didn't follow up on it. That was an experiment that should  
have been followed up on for heavy element transmutation. I don't  
have the tools available for that.


It is remotely possible the radiation, charged particle flux through  
the fuel rod cladding, or thermal stress, induces nickel or tin metal  
whiskers to grow to arbitrary lengths.


See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisker_(metallurgy)

This article has some great photos of tin whiskers:

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1742110&show=html

Google (tin whiskers).

Just wild speculation.


Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Jed Rothwell]

Horace Heffner  wrote:


> If LENR research is suppressed in the US then the US will be the worse off
> for it.
>

If?!? What do you mean "if"? It is already as suppressed as anything can
be! There are not more than a 6 or 8 researchers in the U.S., and they are
all being paid for from private money or DARPA. DARPA does not answer to
the DoE. If it did, there would not be a penny from Uncle Sam.

Okay, there may be a few others keeping a low profile. Don't ask me.

By the way, there has been a discussion here about of CMNS and the
Beardsworth letter. I would like to address that --

I am the polar opposite of Steve Krivit. I *never* upload a paper without
permission. I never discuss a paper without permission. I have edited or
translated many that I never discuss. I never ask nosy questions or try to
dig up information on people who ask to be left alone. I supply
information. I do not want to hear secrets. If someone asks me to delete a
paper or information sent previously, I delete it at once, no questions
asked.

Krivit kept the letter from Beardsworth of Royal Dutch Shell, even
though Beardsworth asked him to remove it:

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/16/shells-interest-indicates-major-shift-for-lenr/

If  Beardsworth had sent me that, I would probably have copied it here
without thinking about it. I would assume he wants me to disseminate it, to
find applicants. Why else would he send it to me? I might put it in the
News section at LENR-CANR.org. If Beardsworth were then to contact me and
said "that was confidential" I would be acutely embarrassed. I would
apologize. I never intend to make things public that the author wants to
keep secret. That is why I am not a member of CMNS.

(Krivit is not a member either. Someone leaks to him, I suppose.)

I have no objection to those people at CMNS carrying on confidential
discussions. None! There was some confusion about that. People thought I
left the place in hissy fit because I oppose secrecy. Secrecy is great.
Ducky. But I personally do not want to hear any technical secrets about
cold fusion. I do not wish to hear anything you would not say at an ICCF
conference. I am happy to hear other secrets: personal, business,
financial, sexual . . . bring it on! *Tell me all you know, dahling.* Just
nothing technical relating to cold fusion. Arthur Clarke told me that was
his policy. I liked it, so I adapted it.

I want no adversarial relationship with anyone in this field. I have never
turned down a submission to LENR-CANR because I disagreed with the content.
It is a library, not a journal. I have turned down ~5 submissions, because
they were off-topic, handwritten, or never published elsewhere.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:CALL FOR REDIRECT OF SOME TOPICS OR DISCUSSIONS TO VORTEX-B

[Jeff Sutton]

Well worded and couldn't agree more.
On Dec 18, 2011 6:29 PM, "Horace Heffner"  wrote:

> First, let me say we should all keep in mind at year end contributing the
> suggested $10 donation for vortex-l operation.
>
> The main purpose of this post is to bring up the issue of possibly routing
> all non-technical material relating to the Rossi E-cat to vortex-B.
>
> The technical content of this list has been highly diluted, and the
> posting rate greatly expanded.  Many of the posts are now more appropriate
> for tweeting than for posting on a scientific discussion list.
>
> The Rossi fraud-no-fraud issue is a dead horse that has been beaten to
> death, worse than beaten, pulverized. The discussion has degenerated to
> name calling and comparisons to antifeminism and racism.
>
> We have to remember the reason this list was created in the first place:
>
> http://amasci.com/weird/vmore.**html 
>
> "A few years ago the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup was increasingly
> becoming a battleground for the two types.  Those who reasoned that "we
> must study cold fusion because there is some evidence that it is real" were
> constantly attacked by those who believe "we must reject cold fusion
> because there is little evidence for it."  And vice versa.  Particularly
> shameful was the amount of hostility including sneering ridicule, emotional
> arguments, arrogant self-blindness, and great use of the low, unscientific
> techniques outlined in ZEN AND THE ART OF DEBUNKERY. (See
> http://amasci.com/weird/**wclose.html
> )"
>
> Rule 2 is found here:
>
> http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/**weird/wvort.html#rules
>
> "2. NO SNEERING.   Ridicule, derision, scoffing, and ad-hominem is
>   banned. "Pathological Skepticism" is banned (see the link.)  The tone
>   here should be one of legitimate disagreement and respectful debate.
>   Vortex-L is a big nasty nest of 'true believers' (hopefully having some
>   tendency to avoid self-deception,) and skeptics may as well leave in
>   disgust.  But if your mind is open and you wish to test "crazy" claims
>   rather than ridiculing them or explaining them away, hop on  board!  "
>
> The problem is what is reasonable to discuss on this list> It is rather
> like: what is pornography?  You know it when you see it.
>
> Personally I think the following are OK, even if about Rossi, if discussed
> in a respectful and scientific fashion:
>
> 1. News developments (after all this is a news list), including news
> reports, new papers, announcements, etc.
>
> 2. Experiment reports
>
> 3. Theory and theory papers
>
> 4. Related history of the field
>
> The problem is much discussion of Rossi has become repetitive, devoid of
> technical content, and virulent.  The problem is throwing out the bath
> water and not the baby.  What is needed is common sense and self restraint.
> Given that is missing to a large extent at the moment, some remedy is
> needed.
>
> We are losing members and/or meaningful member participation. The posting
> volume is too high to keep up, at least for me. I only read about half of
> what is posted, if that.  I think something should be done. Anyone else
> feel the same?
>
> Suggestions or comments are requested.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Horace Heffner
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:CALL FOR REDIRECT OF SOME TOPICS OR DISCUSSIONS TO VORTEX-B

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

Horace we are discussing a technology and a device which may totally 
alter the future pathway of the human race, how this technology has been 
suppressed and is still being attempted to be suppressed on this forum 
by those that make silly claims like "there are no working LENR devices 
in any laboratory anywhere" and "there are no peer reviewed LENR papers" 
despite considerable peer reviewed papers and clear statements by NASA, 
SPAWAR and other researchers to the contrary. I would suggest this would 
be expected to increase the volume of posts.


How are the donations made?


On 12/19/2011 9:58 AM, Horace Heffner wrote:
First, let me say we should all keep in mind at year end contributing 
the suggested $10 donation for vortex-l operation.


The main purpose of this post is to bring up the issue of possibly 
routing all non-technical material relating to the Rossi E-cat to 
vortex-B.


The technical content of this list has been highly diluted, and the 
posting rate greatly expanded.  Many of the posts are now more 
appropriate for tweeting than for posting on a scientific discussion 
list.


The Rossi fraud-no-fraud issue is a dead horse that has been beaten to 
death, worse than beaten, pulverized. The discussion has degenerated 
to name calling and comparisons to antifeminism and racism.


We have to remember the reason this list was created in the first place:

http://amasci.com/weird/vmore.html

"A few years ago the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup was increasingly 
becoming a battleground for the two types.  Those who reasoned that 
"we must study cold fusion because there is some evidence that it is 
real" were constantly attacked by those who believe "we must reject 
cold fusion because there is little evidence for it."  And vice 
versa.  Particularly shameful was the amount of hostility including 
sneering ridicule, emotional arguments, arrogant self-blindness, and 
great use of the low, unscientific techniques outlined in ZEN AND THE 
ART OF DEBUNKERY. (See http://amasci.com/weird/wclose.html)"


Rule 2 is found here:

http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html#rules

"2. NO SNEERING.   Ridicule, derision, scoffing, and ad-hominem is
   banned. "Pathological Skepticism" is banned (see the link.)  The tone
   here should be one of legitimate disagreement and respectful debate.
   Vortex-L is a big nasty nest of 'true believers' (hopefully having 
some

   tendency to avoid self-deception,) and skeptics may as well leave in
   disgust.  But if your mind is open and you wish to test "crazy" claims
   rather than ridiculing them or explaining them away, hop on  board!  "

The problem is what is reasonable to discuss on this list> It is 
rather like: what is pornography?  You know it when you see it.


Personally I think the following are OK, even if about Rossi, if 
discussed in a respectful and scientific fashion:


1. News developments (after all this is a news list), including news 
reports, new papers, announcements, etc.


2. Experiment reports

3. Theory and theory papers

4. Related history of the field

The problem is much discussion of Rossi has become repetitive, devoid 
of technical content, and virulent.  The problem is throwing out the 
bath water and not the baby.  What is needed is common sense and self 
restraint. Given that is missing to a large extent at the moment, some 
remedy is needed.


We are losing members and/or meaningful member participation. The 
posting volume is too high to keep up, at least for me. I only read 
about half of what is posted, if that.  I think something should be 
done. Anyone else feel the same?


Suggestions or comments are requested.

Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Horace Heffner]

On Dec 18, 2011, at 2:30 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:

Jed you underestimate the contribution you have made. You have  
invested a lot of time, effort and skin in creating LENR-CANR.org  
You kept the LENR flame visible and alive when many others worked  
to put out the flame and to bury it in an unmarked grave that would  
never be found.


Many others have made efforts of similar magnitude, even risking  
their lives and health.  However, when all is said and done, I expect  
the creation and maintenance of LENR-CANR.org will prove to be the  
most important contribution to the field.  If not sufficient for  
success of the field, it certainly is necessary for that success.  I  
think it is worthy of a Preperata medal even now.


Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Horace Heffner]

On Dec 18, 2011, at 2:02 PM, Michele Comitini wrote:


How about creating a foundation for distributing grants to researchers
in the field of LENR?
Of course the founding would come from private individuals and  
institutions.

Would that make sense?

mic


I think this is a good idea.

The problem is in the methodology used to determine who gets the money.

Best regards,

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

[Vo]:Mysterious "white web" found growing on nuclear waste

[MJ]

http://io9.com/5868883/mysterious-white-webs-found-growing-on-nuclear-waste

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

Jed you underestimate the contribution you have made. You have invested 
a lot of time, effort and skin in creating LENR-CANR.org You kept the 
LENR flame visible and alive when many others worked to put out the 
flame and to bury it in an unmarked grave that would never be found.



On 12/19/2011 9:38 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner > wrote:


One lasting achievement of Rossi's genius at generating free
publicity may have been to bring young people into the field.


I hope that will be the outcome. It hasn't happened yet.

The timing of all this is unfortunate.  Should an ignominious
failure of Rossi' s venture occur, following the Solyndra, Inc.
bankruptcy and scandal,  that will likely result in the ferreting
out and dismantling, unfunding, of any LENR work in the government
or academia whatsoever.


In the U.S. LENR work in the government was dismantled and unfunded 
between 1992 and 1995. The field is dead as a doornail. Things can't 
get any worse. I am not kidding. I am not worried about the fallout 
from Rossi being revealed as a fake. Even if that happens he has done 
more good than harm.


Incidentally, as far as I know, the only fake in the history of the 
field was from MIT in 1989. It upset Gene. I thought it was silly. It 
was unimportant. I doubt the original was a genuine positive, so who 
cares if they lied about it? I think Ed Storms concluded the original 
was just noise.


There may be other fakes, but I have not discovered them. There may be 
some fake positives, but I doubt it. Why there would be? Publishing 
positive data gets you into a world of trouble. It is like holding up 
a dead skunk at a picnic. People do not flock to your side 
to congratulate you.


I know of about a dozen compelling results such as the ones Beene and 
Stolper described at MIT that were never published because -- as one 
of the authors said to me -- "I want to keep my job." Very reasonable. 
People who have families and responsibilities do not wish to martyr 
themselves to the cause of academic freedom. Especially when you are 
sure to lose, and you will accomplish nothing. I wouldn't do that! I 
have no great moral courage. If I were an academic researcher, 
dependent on the good well of the establishment, there would be no 
LENR-CANR.org. I can do it because I am not a member of that congregation.


It is odd that someone wrote to me recently saying I am a "leader" in 
"supporting and promoting LENR" and I have "position of authority." 
That's absurd. Imagine a grad student asking for a letter of 
recommendation from me! It would be the kiss of death. It would be 
applying for a job at Republican National Committee with a letter of 
recommendation from David Plouffe (Obama's campaign manager).


- Jed

[Vo]:CALL FOR REDIRECT OF SOME TOPICS OR DISCUSSIONS TO VORTEX-B

[Horace Heffner]

First, let me say we should all keep in mind at year end contributing  
the suggested $10 donation for vortex-l operation.


The main purpose of this post is to bring up the issue of possibly  
routing all non-technical material relating to the Rossi E-cat to  
vortex-B.


The technical content of this list has been highly diluted, and the  
posting rate greatly expanded.  Many of the posts are now more  
appropriate for tweeting than for posting on a scientific discussion  
list.


The Rossi fraud-no-fraud issue is a dead horse that has been beaten  
to death, worse than beaten, pulverized. The discussion has  
degenerated to name calling and comparisons to antifeminism and racism.


We have to remember the reason this list was created in the first place:

http://amasci.com/weird/vmore.html

"A few years ago the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup was increasingly  
becoming a battleground for the two types.  Those who reasoned that  
"we must study cold fusion because there is some evidence that it is  
real" were constantly attacked by those who believe "we must reject  
cold fusion because there is little evidence for it."  And vice  
versa.  Particularly shameful was the amount of hostility including  
sneering ridicule, emotional arguments, arrogant self-blindness, and  
great use of the low, unscientific techniques outlined in ZEN AND THE  
ART OF DEBUNKERY. (See http://amasci.com/weird/wclose.html)"


Rule 2 is found here:

http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html#rules

"2. NO SNEERING.   Ridicule, derision, scoffing, and ad-hominem is
   banned. "Pathological Skepticism" is banned (see the link.)  The  
tone

   here should be one of legitimate disagreement and respectful debate.
   Vortex-L is a big nasty nest of 'true believers' (hopefully  
having some

   tendency to avoid self-deception,) and skeptics may as well leave in
   disgust.  But if your mind is open and you wish to test "crazy"  
claims
   rather than ridiculing them or explaining them away, hop on   
board!  "


The problem is what is reasonable to discuss on this list> It is  
rather like: what is pornography?  You know it when you see it.


Personally I think the following are OK, even if about Rossi, if  
discussed in a respectful and scientific fashion:


1. News developments (after all this is a news list), including news  
reports, new papers, announcements, etc.


2. Experiment reports

3. Theory and theory papers

4. Related history of the field

The problem is much discussion of Rossi has become repetitive, devoid  
of technical content, and virulent.  The problem is throwing out the  
bath water and not the baby.  What is needed is common sense and self  
restraint. Given that is missing to a large extent at the moment,  
some remedy is needed.


We are losing members and/or meaningful member participation. The  
posting volume is too high to keep up, at least for me. I only read  
about half of what is posted, if that.  I think something should be  
done. Anyone else feel the same?


Suggestions or comments are requested.

Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Jed Rothwell]

Horace Heffner  wrote:


> One lasting achievement of Rossi's genius at generating free publicity may
> have been to bring young people into the field.
>

I hope that will be the outcome. It hasn't happened yet.



> The timing of all this is unfortunate.  Should an ignominious failure of
> Rossi' s venture occur, following the Solyndra, Inc. bankruptcy and
> scandal,  that will likely result in the ferreting out and dismantling,
> unfunding, of any LENR work in the government or academia whatsoever.
>

In the U.S. LENR work in the government was dismantled and unfunded between
1992 and 1995. The field is dead as a doornail. Things can't get any worse.
I am not kidding. I am not worried about the fallout from Rossi being
revealed as a fake. Even if that happens he has done more good than harm.

Incidentally, as far as I know, the only fake in the history of the field
was from MIT in 1989. It upset Gene. I thought it was silly. It was
unimportant. I doubt the original was a genuine positive, so who cares if
they lied about it? I think Ed Storms concluded the original was just noise.

There may be other fakes, but I have not discovered them. There may be some
fake positives, but I doubt it. Why there would be? Publishing positive
data gets you into a world of trouble. It is like holding up a dead skunk
at a picnic. People do not flock to your side to congratulate you.

I know of about a dozen compelling results such as the ones Beene and
Stolper described at MIT that were never published because -- as one of the
authors said to me -- "I want to keep my job." Very reasonable. People who
have families and responsibilities do not wish to martyr themselves to the
cause of academic freedom. Especially when you are sure to lose, and you
will accomplish nothing. I wouldn't do that! I have no great moral courage.
If I were an academic researcher, dependent on the good well of the
establishment, there would be no LENR-CANR.org. I can do it because I am
not a member of that congregation.

It is odd that someone wrote to me recently saying I am a "leader" in
"supporting and promoting LENR" and I have "position of authority." That's
absurd. Imagine a grad student asking for a letter of recommendation from
me! It would be the kiss of death. It would be applying for a job at
Republican National Committee with a letter of recommendation from David
Plouffe (Obama's campaign manager).

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Michele Comitini]

How about creating a foundation for distributing grants to researchers
in the field of LENR?
Of course the founding would come from private individuals and institutions.
Would that make sense?

mic


2011/12/18 Horace Heffner :
>
> On Dec 18, 2011, at 8:22 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Daniel Rocha  wrote:
>
>> Jed, among LENR researchers, who is not old, or very old?
>
>
> The ones who are dead.
>
> Only old people can do this. For a young researcher cold fusion would be
> career suicide. Even talking about it. She would be fired and would never
> get another job. Even Bockris was nearly fired. Miles -- a distinguished
> fellow of the institute -- was reassigned as a stock room clerk. Mizuno was
> told he would never be promoted unless he renounced it. He never was. Nearly
> every researcher I know has been subjected to harassment, bullying,
> threats, sabotage, and so on.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>
> One lasting achievement of Rossi's genius at generating free publicity may
> have been to bring young people into the field.  Once it becomes clear in
> the mind that nuclear reactions triggered by chemical potentials, without
> nuclear waste, is a reality, however impractical at this point, and the
> desperately needed benefit to society such a process can have, if
> successfully optimized and engineered, the field has more lure than sirens
> singing and combing their hair sitting on a rock.
>
> The timing of all this is unfortunate.  Should an ignominious failure of
> Rossi' s venture occur, following the Solyndra, Inc. bankruptcy and scandal,
>  that will likely result in the ferreting out and dismantling, unfunding, of
> any LENR work in the government or academia whatsoever.   Perhaps that is
> already underway.
>
> Despite the lure, if no proven major practical development occurs, the field
> will be once again be left to old retired folks,  self funded personal time
> efforts, wildcat businesses, dilettantes, hobbyists, and frauds.
>
> If LENR research is suppressed in the US then the US will be the worse off
> for it.
>
> The opposite approach is justified.  As I wrote on page 36 of:
>
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf
>
> "There are clearly extensive possibilities for the exploration of LENR. The
> best way to do so is through use of an interdisciplinary team, backed by
> extensive laboratory and computing facilities. Expertise in
> electrochemistry, nanotechnology, materials science, particle physics,
> supercomputer simulation, and a wide variety of engineering fields is
> required. The best lattices and operating conditions are not likely to be
> found by Edisonian search, but through a combined computational
> experimental approach which is team directed."
>
> Best regards,
>
> Horace Heffner
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Horace Heffner]

On Dec 18, 2011, at 8:22 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Daniel Rocha  wrote:

Jed, among LENR researchers, who is not old, or very old?

The ones who are dead.

Only old people can do this. For a young researcher cold fusion  
would be career suicide. Even talking about it. She would be fired  
and would never get another job. Even Bockris was nearly fired.  
Miles -- a distinguished fellow of the institute -- was reassigned  
as a stock room clerk. Mizuno was told he would never be promoted  
unless he renounced it. He never was. Nearly every researcher I  
know has been subjected to harassment, bullying, threats, sabotage,  
and so on.


- Jed





One lasting achievement of Rossi's genius at generating free  
publicity may have been to bring young people into the field.  Once  
it becomes clear in the mind that nuclear reactions triggered by  
chemical potentials, without nuclear waste, is a reality, however  
impractical at this point, and the desperately needed benefit to  
society such a process can have, if successfully optimized and  
engineered, the field has more lure than sirens singing and combing  
their hair sitting on a rock.


The timing of all this is unfortunate.  Should an ignominious failure  
of Rossi' s venture occur, following the Solyndra, Inc. bankruptcy  
and scandal,  that will likely result in the ferreting out and  
dismantling, unfunding, of any LENR work in the government or  
academia whatsoever.   Perhaps that is already underway.


Despite the lure, if no proven major practical development occurs,  
the field will be once again be left to old retired folks,  self  
funded personal time efforts, wildcat businesses, dilettantes,  
hobbyists, and frauds.


If LENR research is suppressed in the US then the US will be the  
worse off for it.


The opposite approach is justified.  As I wrote on page 36 of:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf

"There are clearly extensive possibilities for the exploration of  
LENR. The best way to do so is through use of an interdisciplinary  
team, backed by extensive laboratory and computing facilities.  
Expertise in electrochemistry, nanotechnology, materials science,  
particle physics, supercomputer simulation, and a wide variety of  
engineering fields is required. The best lattices and operating  
conditions are not likely to be found by Edisonian search, but  
through a combined computational experimental approach which is team  
directed."


Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Horace Heffner]

On Dec 18, 2011, at 8:22 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Daniel Rocha  wrote:

Jed, among LENR researchers, who is not old, or very old?

The ones who are dead.

Only old people can do this. For a young researcher cold fusion  
would be career suicide. Even talking about it. She would be fired  
and would never get another job. Even Bockris was nearly fired.  
Miles -- a distinguished fellow of the institute -- was reassigned  
as a stock room clerk. Mizuno was told he would never be promoted  
unless he renounced it. He never was. Nearly every researcher I  
know has been subjected to harassment, bullying, threats, sabotage,  
and so on.


- Jed





One lasting achievement of Rossi's genius at generating free  
publicity may have been to bring young people into the field.  Once  
it becomes clear in the mind that nuclear reactions triggered by  
chemical potentials, without nuclear waste, is a reality, however  
impractical at this point, and the desperately needed benefit to  
society such a process can have, if successfully optimized and  
engineered, the field has more lure than sirens singing and combing  
their hair sitting on a rock.


The timing of all this is unfortunate.  Should an ignominious failure  
of Rossi' s venture occur, following the Solyndra, Inc. bankruptcy  
and scandal,  that will likely result in the ferreting out and  
dismantling, unfunding, of any LENR work in the government or  
academia whatsoever.   Perhaps that is already underway.


Despite the lure, if no proven major practical development occurs,  
the field will be once again be left to old retired folks,  self  
funded personal time efforts, wildcat businesses, dilettantes,  
hobbyists, and frauds.


Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Alain Sepeda]

I agree with your analysis.
stupidity, selfishness, greed, conformism, is the main result of applying
Occam razor

2011/12/18 Jed Rothwell 

> There is no conspiracy against cold fusion but there are sure are a lot of
> nasty people trying to crush it, aren't there? As Bill Beaty pointed out,
> there was no conspiracy against women in the 1950s but sexism was
> everywhere.

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> Even Bockris was nearly fired.
>

See:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BockrisJaccountabi.pdf

Some outlandish research, but someone's gotta try it:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BockrisJthehistory.pdf



> Miles -- a distinguished fellow of the institute -- was reassigned as a
> stock room clerk.
>

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMisoperibol.pdf

p. 19, quote:

"With the loss of the ONR funding, management at China Lake dictated that
no further work on the F-P effect was to be done. Dr. Johnson moved on to a
position in Idaho, and Dr. Miles was assigned by the Head of the Chemistry
Department at China Lake (Dr. Robin A. Nissan) to report to the
stockroom clerk for the inventory of chemicals [24]. No further studies of
the F-P effect were made at China Lake after 1995."

There is no conspiracy against cold fusion but there are sure are a lot of
nasty people trying to crush it, aren't there? As Bill Beaty pointed out,
there was no conspiracy against women in the 1950s but sexism was
everywhere.

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: Possible solution to the Rossi Ni + p byproduct riddle

[Horace Heffner]

I have consolidated my remarks in this thread, with some additional  
comments, into this paper:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NiProtonRiddle.pdf

Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Robert Lynn]

Wow that's a pretty bleak and discouraging assessment Jed, you must be
tremendously frustrated.  I am just thankful that I am such a LENR
neophyte.  Fingers crossed it appears the genie is now out of the bottle
and someone (Celani, Miley, Piantelli, Arata, McKubre, Ahern, Rossi,
Brillouin, Dekaflion ) will do an unimpeachable demo in the next few
months (as Rossi could have done if he cared, his fat-cat demos were a step
backwards).

I think the breakthrough demo is now most likely to come from one of the
older hands as they seem to care more for the science than the pursuit of
financial gain, the only explanation I can see for the other researchers in
the game going into stealth mode of late.  A well executed demo will change
everything, and should then give you license to go around for the rest of
your life wearing an "I told you so" t-shirt.

On 18 December 2011 17:22, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Daniel Rocha  wrote:
>
> Jed, among LENR researchers, who is not old, or very old?
>
>
> The ones who are dead.
>
> Only old people can do this. For a young researcher cold fusion would be
> career suicide. Even talking about it. She would be fired and would never
> get another job. Even Bockris was nearly fired. Miles -- a distinguished
> fellow of the institute -- was reassigned as a stock room clerk. Mizuno was
> told he would never be promoted unless he renounced it. He never was.
> Nearly every researcher I know has been subjected to harassment, bullying,
> threats, sabotage, and so on.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 12:31 PM 12/18/2011, Mary Yugo wrote:
I also noted that Rossi's modus operandi is in virtually EVERY WAY 
analogous to some recent flagrant scams involving investor (not 
customer) fraud.  That's not guilt by association -- as far as I 
know, Rossi is not associated with any of the people I 
mentioned.  It's an objective, independent and accurate set of 
observations -- something Rossi and other cold fusion proponents 
should try sometime.


I have not read everything Mary has written here, but from what I've 
seen, almost all of her criticism has been directed at some very 
obvious problems with the Rossi claims. Jed, you have previously 
stated that you have private information on which you base your 
conclusions as to the reality of Rossi. Please cut the rest of us 
some slack! We have no way of knowing if your private information is 
sound, or if you have been misled, or if you have drawn unsound 
conclusions from what you know.


Mary, my big concern, expressed here and privately to LENR 
researchers, was that lack of caution with regard to Rossi's claims 
could damage the field by association. I'm still concerned about 
that. If Rossi's claims prove to be founded, it's all over, LENR is 
established, though the Rossi approach obviously would involve a 
different mechanism than those normally proposed for other LENR of 
the Pons-Fleischmann type.


There has been sober review of LENR claims, and, over the last five 
years or so, the extreme skeptical position ("Impossible!") has 
totally disappeared from peer-reviewed literature in relevant fields. 
The physicists have normally asserted a kind of primacy here, but 
cold fusion is a cross-disciplinary field, since the techniques 
involve chemistry and techniques familiar to chemists, such as 
electrolysis and reaction calorimetry.


The status has long been that the majority opinion among physicists 
has been "this cannot be nuclear physics," and the predominant 
position among chemists, especially electrochemists, has been "this 
cannot be chemistry." I was aware of the flap in 1989, and had 
assumed, from what ensued, that it was all a mistake, until quite 
recently I had occasion to review the literature.


It wasn't a mistake, the majority opinion among experts, my estimate, 
is now that there is anomalous heat being generated. It's not 
artifact, or if it is, it is one very unusual and very unexpected 
artifact, one that can baffle experts in calorimetry.


In 1989, the DoE review concluded that more research was needed. 
That, however, was probably a political compromise. In 2004, it was 
the unanimous opinion of the reviewers. Politics, however, has still 
effectively continued to suppress research.


Those reviews have been presented by skeptics as having "rejected" 
cold fusion. That's not the case, but it takes a careful study of the 
reports, which are available, to see this. What's clear, though, is 
the recommendation for research. That isn't done for a field that is 
clearly bogus.


I've studied the 2004 report, and have concluded that the review 
paper failed to adequately communicate the primary evidence that, not 
only are nuclear reactions taking place, but the ash is helium. That 
paper was written by researchers who wrote it in academic fashion, 
not as polemic. They did present most of the evidence for the 
heat/helium correlation, but it was confused by a confusing appendix, 
and at least one reviewer and the bureaucrat who summarized the 
reviews, both of them, radically misinterpreted the appendix, turning 
what was very strong evidence for heat & helium, into the opposite, 
anti-correlation.


Huizenga, the co-chair of the first DoE review in 1989, called Cold 
fusion "The Scientific Fiasco of the Century," as the title of his 
book. He was right. It's an amazing story of the breakdown of 
scientific protocols and traditions. It is as if polywater and N-rays 
had been rejected only on theoretical grounds, without ever 
identifying the artifacts behind those erroneous claims.


There is anomalous heat, and helium is being generated correlated 
with that heat. There are disagreements over the heat/helium ratio, 
and the measurement is difficult, but it's been quite adequately 
confirmed to establish the correlation within about a factor of two 
of the value expected from deuterium fusion.


LENR researchers are more inclined than other scientists to accept 
Rossi's claims because they know that LENR is generally possible. 
However, as I pointed out, "possible" does  not establish "probable," 
and there have been lots of red herrings and blind alleys in LENR 
research. Indeed, if Rossi is a scammer, we would not be surprised to 
see him taking advantage of a knowledge of possibility.


It's possible that I have a piece of paper purporting to be a deed to 
the land on which the Brooklyn Bridge sits, eh? I'm offering it for 
cheap because I need some cash. That's not only possible, it's true! 
At least about the cash! 

Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research

[fznidarsic]

I don't know.  The hotter the better the reaction.  The hotter the more 
hydrogen is driven out and the worse the reaction.
If I knew I would do it.


Frank


Frank!

As I understand your theory, you believe that cold fusion can be
optimized within a lattice vibrating with an angular velocity of
(1.094 / pi) meters / sec, right? Can you predict the optimum
temperature of Rossi's nickel that would facilitate this effect?

Craig Haynie
Manchester, NH

[Vo]:Re: Possible solution to the Rossi Ni + p byproduct riddle

[Horace Heffner]

THE RIDDLE AND POSSIBLE SOLUTION

Deflation fusion theory provides a potential solution to the riddle  
of why the radioactive byproducts 59CU29, 61Cu29, 58CO27, and 62Cu29  
to the Ni + p reactions do not appear in Rossi's byproducts.  This  
solution of the specific problem byproducts problem is manifest if  
the following rules are obeyed by the environment, except in  
extremely improbable instances:


   1.  The initial wavefunction collapse involves the Ni nucleus  
plus two p*


   2.  As with all LENR, radioactive byproducts are energetically  
disallowed.


Here p* represents a deflated hydrogen atom, consisting of a proton  
and electron in a magnetically bound orbital, and v represents a  
neutrino.


The above two rules result in the following energetically feasible  
reactions:


 58Ni28 + 2 p* --> 60Ni28 + 2 v + 18.822 MeV [-0.085]

 60Ni28 + 2 p* --> 62Ni28 + 2 v + 16.852 MeV [-1.842]
 60Ni28 + 2 p* --> 58Ni28 + 4He2 + 7.909 MeV [-10.786]
 60Ni28 + 2 p* --> 61Ni28 + 1H1 + v + 7.038 MeV [-11.657]

 61Ni28 + 2 p* --> 62Ni28 + 1H1 + v + 9.814 MeV [-8.777]

 62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 64Ni28 + 2 v + 14.931 Mev [-3.560]
 62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 64Zn30 + 13.835 MeV [-4.656]
 62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 60Ni28 + 4He2 + 9.879 MeV [-8.612]
 62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 63Cu29 + 1H1 + 6.122 MeV [-12.369]
 62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 59Co27 + 4He2 + 1H1 + 00.346 MeV [-18.145]

 64Ni28 + 2 p* --> 66Zn30 + 16.378 MeV [-1.918]
 64Ni28 + 2 p* --> 62Ni28 + 4He2 + 11.800 MeV [-6.497]
 64Ni28 + 2 p* --> 65Cu29 + 1H1 + 7.453 MeV [-10.843]

   Ni28 + 2 p* ---> 2 1H1 + 0 MeV


THE ZERO POINT ENERGY FUELED CASES

Note that in the case where the second p* is rejected and results in  
1H1, ultimately a hydrogen atom, that the electron and proton are not  
ejected at the same time.  The large positive nuclear charge ejects  
the proton immediately with approximately 6 MeV kinetic energy.


This kind of zero point energy fueled proton ejection should result  
in detectible brehmstrahlung.  This energy is in addition to the mass  
change energy listed above.  The approximately 6 MeV free energy so  
gained is made up from the zero point field via uncertainty pressure  
expanding any remaining trapped electron's wavefunction. Such energy  
may also be obtained from the direct magnetic attraction of a pair of  
deflated protons, without the aid of a lattice nucleus.  This is of  
the form:


   p* + P* --> 2 1H1

However, the repulsion of a proton from a proton is far less than  
from a large nucleus, and the electrons in this case are not trapped  
when the protons separate. However, some EuV radiation can be  
expected from the ensemble breakup. A very very small rate of pep  
reactions may occur:


  p + p* --> D + e+ v + 0.42 MeV

These are followed immediately by:

  e- + e+ --> 2 gamma + 0.59 MeV

and this gamma producing reaction was not observed above background  
in the Rossi E-cats.



COMPARISON WITH PURELY STRONG REACTIONS

The following represent energetically feasible initial strong  
reactions based on deflation fusion theory:


Compare to 18.822 MeV:

 58Ni28 + p* --> 59Cu29 # + 3.419 MeV [-4.867 MeV]

 58Ni28 + 2 p* --> 56Ni28 # + 4He2 + 5.829 MeV [-10.650 MeV]
 58Ni28 + 2 p* --> 60Zn30 # + 8.538 MeV [-7.941 MeV]

Compare to: 16.852 MeV:

 60Ni28 + p* --> 61Cu29 # + 4.801 MeV [-3.394 MeV]

 60Ni28 + 2 p* --> 58Ni28 + 4He2 + 7.909 MeV [-8.391 MeV]
 60Ni28 + 2 p* --> 62Zn30 # + 11.277 MeV [-5.022 MeV]

Compare to: 9.814 MeV

 61Ni28 + p* --> 58Co27 # + 4He2 + 00.489 MeV [-7.661 MeV]
 61Ni28 + p* --> 62Cu29 # + 5.866 MeV [-2.284 MeV]

 61Ni28 + 2 p* --> 59Ni28 # + 4He2 + 9.088 MeV [-7.125 MeV]
 61Ni28 + 2 p* --> 62Cu29 # + 1H1 + 5.866 MeV [-10.347 MeV]
 61Ni28 + 2 p* --> 63Zn30 # + 12.570 MeV [-3.643 MeV]

Compare to: 14.931 Mev

 62Ni28 + p* --> 59Co27 + 4He2 + 00.346 MeV [-7.760 MeV]
 62Ni28 + p* --> 63Cu29 + 6.122 MeV [-1.984 MeV]
 62Ni28 + 2 p* --> 64Zn30 + 13.835 MeV [-2.293 MeV]

Compare to: 16.378 MeV

 64Ni28 + p* --> 65Cu29 + 7.453 MeV [-0.569 MeV]
 64Ni28 + 2 p* --> 66Zn30 + 16.378 MeV [00.415 MeV]

   * Note - reaction products marked with * above are radioactive.

In all cases the net reaction energies of the proposed reactions  
exceed those the net energies from reactions that produce radioactive  
isotopes. This makes rule 2 reasonable and understandable on an  
energy only basis.  The mechanism that enforces the rule is more  
difficult to understand.  Understanding the mechanism requires  
understanding the initial energy deficit due to the trapped electron.  
This electron trapping energy deficit is shown in brackets above.   
The deficit shown is a net of the Coulomb trapping energy less the  
nuclear reaction energy.  This deficit provides a limit to how far an  
energetically ejected electron can travel out of the coulomb well  
before being pulled back.  If an electron is in the nucleus at the  
site of the initial reaction, then a large part of the energy that  
normally goes into ejecting a gamma goes into ejecting the trapped

Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research

[Peter Gluck]

Back to SPAWAR, why should we mix the point of view- killing of SPAWAR was
the problem. Rossi is an entirely different problem
When SPAWR started I was very busy working as a journalist, plus I could
not feel much enthusiasm for it because it was not about energy.
I have not understood its philosophy.
In our (my OLTCHIM lab)practice of Project Management the very first
question for any project was ; *What will it give us in case it is a
perfect success?*
Yes, what could give "us" a triumphant SPAWAR?
My impression is that it had generated endless
discussions about a "poor man's" method of measurement and not more.Was it
really killed or has it comited a slow suicide?
I humbly recognize thta I am not well informed in this case

Peter



On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Mary Yugo  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>>
>> You remind of elderly white bigots in Georgia who say they got along well
>> with black people and loved them like family. Yet these people were in
>> charge until the 1970s, and they maintained race divided schools in
>> Atlanta, where the black schools had no books, no laboratory equipment,
>> filthy bathrooms with backed up toilets, and such crowded classes that half
>> the kids attended in the morning, and half in the afternoon, and most
>> dropped out. This was a machine intended to destroy lives and keep people
>> in dire poverty. The older people deny that is how things were. They say
>> they didn't know, they never saw it. They deny it was their fault. But it
>> was their fault.
>>
>
> Yikes!
>
>


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

Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research

[Mary Yugo]

On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
> You remind of elderly white bigots in Georgia who say they got along well
> with black people and loved them like family. Yet these people were in
> charge until the 1970s, and they maintained race divided schools in
> Atlanta, where the black schools had no books, no laboratory equipment,
> filthy bathrooms with backed up toilets, and such crowded classes that half
> the kids attended in the morning, and half in the afternoon, and most
> dropped out. This was a machine intended to destroy lives and keep people
> in dire poverty. The older people deny that is how things were. They say
> they didn't know, they never saw it. They deny it was their fault. But it
> was their fault.
>

Yikes!

Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research

[Daniel Rocha]

please, continue :)

2011/12/18 Vorl Bek 

> > It remains to be seen
> > whether Rossi's demonstrations and sales will convince the wider
> > world.
>
> How can they not?
>
> The October 28 customer has had the 50 e-cats for 6 weeks. I can
> hear the dialogue now:
>
> "So how's it going with the e-cats, Manny?"
>
> "The sons-of-guns have been running for six weeks, Bob, and no
> sign of slowing down! It's the damndest thing"
>
> "Any luck on reverse engineering the core?"
>
> "Hell, yes! In fact, we are building them now. Our insider at
> Defkalion has given us the plans for their enhanced geometry, so
> that the reaction will be more controllable".
>
> "Can we beat Rossi to the punch with a patent?"
>
> "I think so; the guy is a genius, but he tends to run off in all
> directions at once."
>
> Meanwhile, Chinese spies disguised as trustworthy visiting japanese
> researchers have been photographing the plans with a camera built
> into their horn-rimmed glasses and emailing them back to Beijing,
> where
>
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research

[Vorl Bek]

> It remains to be seen
> whether Rossi's demonstrations and sales will convince the wider
> world.

How can they not?

The October 28 customer has had the 50 e-cats for 6 weeks. I can
hear the dialogue now:

"So how's it going with the e-cats, Manny?"

"The sons-of-guns have been running for six weeks, Bob, and no
sign of slowing down! It's the damndest thing"

"Any luck on reverse engineering the core?"

"Hell, yes! In fact, we are building them now. Our insider at
Defkalion has given us the plans for their enhanced geometry, so
that the reaction will be more controllable".

"Can we beat Rossi to the punch with a patent?"

"I think so; the guy is a genius, but he tends to run off in all
directions at once."

Meanwhile, Chinese spies disguised as trustworthy visiting japanese
researchers have been photographing the plans with a camera built
into their horn-rimmed glasses and emailing them back to Beijing,
where

Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research

[Jed Rothwell]

Mary Yugo  wrote:


> Nonsense.  I have told you many times by private email and in public
> postings that I favor funding for cold fusion/LENR research.
>

You say that, and I think you are sincere. But your actions prove you
are deceiving yourself. You despise cold fusion. You are working tirelessly
to prevent funding and destroy the field. Whenever it is mentioned in the
mass media, you go to the comment section and fill it with unfounded,
ignorant blather, technical mistakes about papers you have not read, guilt
by associations, and baseless accusations of fraud. You and hundreds of
others like you poison the well and destroy people's lives and careers with
your reckless accusations. You think it is all a game, and words have no
consequences. You pretend this does not matter.

Ask yourself: Have you ever once, in the mass media, mentioned that there
is quality work out there, or "I favor funding for cold fusion"? You say it
here, to this audience. Have you written at Time magazine, or Fox News? I
doubt it.

You remind of elderly white bigots in Georgia who say they got along well
with black people and loved them like family. Yet these people were in
charge until the 1970s, and they maintained race divided schools in
Atlanta, where the black schools had no books, no laboratory equipment,
filthy bathrooms with backed up toilets, and such crowded classes that half
the kids attended in the morning, and half in the afternoon, and most
dropped out. This was a machine intended to destroy lives and keep people
in dire poverty. The older people deny that is how things were. They say
they didn't know, they never saw it. They deny it was their fault. But it
was their fault.



>   I'd like to see much more of it but I'd like to see it done better, with
> more use of gradient layer "boundary" calorimeters such as those that were
> made by Thermonetics.
>

In other words, you want people to things your way, or the highway. To hell
you would like to see this. You want this research ended. You think it is
fraud and pathology. You read nothing, you know nothing, and yet yesterday
you dismissed Pam Boss's work as a failure, based on EarthTech. You have
never seen an experiment that meets your high standards, and you never
will. Frankly, you should at least have the decency to use your real name,
and say what you really believe, the way Robert Park does. I prefer him to
you for the reasons Abraham Lincoln described in 1855:

"When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where
they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where
despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy."

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:unsubscribe

[Harry Veeder]

That is a great idea.
I'm leaving too.
Correa was right. The Vortex list does not live up to its ideals.
Harry

On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Dusty Bradshaw wrote:

> unsubsribe
>
> -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-
>
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux

Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research

[Mary Yugo]

On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Going through my notes again . . . I should say there is still some hope
> at SPAWAR that after-hours or weekend research may be allowed. They are
> still negotiating, so let us not raise a big stink about this. No point in
> riling up the opposition more than usual.
>
> They are discouraged.
>
> As I said, most cold fusion research is done on a shoestring, tucked away
> in a corner were the people in charge will not notice it. You have to keep
> a low profile in this business. So please do not write letters to the Navy
> demanding this be allowed. You will only make things worse. I will greatly
> regret relaying this news here if people bring pressure on the Navy, and
> the Navy makes life even more miserable for cold fusion researchers.
>
> The skeptics should feel free to keep writing to authorities. Mary Yugo
> should continue to respond to any mass media article in the comment section
> with unfounded, vile allegations of fraud and guilt by association, written
> under a a pen name. It is only words, and words have no consequences.
>

In my public responses to overly optimistic and sometimes highly misleading
main line news media reports and claims, I simply pointed out that Rossi
had a checkered and controversial past which included two previous high
profile technology failures followed by multiple legal charges and
arrests.  I also pointed out that he failed to get independent tests and
failed to follow appropriate and clever suggestions for improving his own
tests.  I noted that he did not run long enough or make use of
control/blank tests.  That is simply the truth.  It is not "unfounded, vile
allegations of fraud".

I also noted that Rossi's modus operandi is in virtually EVERY WAY
analogous to some recent flagrant scams involving investor (not customer)
fraud.  That's not guilt by association -- as far as I know, Rossi is not
associated with any of the people I mentioned.  It's an objective,
independent and accurate set of observations -- something Rossi and other
cold fusion proponents should try sometime.

Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research

[Jed Rothwell]

Vorl Bek  wrote:


> The battle has been won. The genie is out of the bottle. Rossi's
> demos have proven cold fusion is real.
>

Fleischmann, Will and McKubre proved cold fusion is real in 1990. That did
not convince many people. It remains to be seen whether Rossi's
demonstrations and sales will convince the wider world. Rossi has often
botched opportunities and made things difficult for himself. Perhaps he
will succeed, but it has not happened yet.

So far every battle has been lost.

Defkalion has not yet begun to fight.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research

[Mary Yugo]

On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I am sorry to report that the authorities have finally closed down cold
> fusion research at SAPWAR. After Frank Gordon left, the project was on life
> support. Recent reports on Fox News and elsewhere mentioned it, bringing
> about the inevitable coup de grace.
>
> Like most cold fusion projects, this was a shoestring or "bootlegged"
> operation. It was done by retired researchers such as Szpak, and others
> working nights and weekends. The equipment was scavenged or bought by
> private individuals. But, as we all know, people opposed to cold fusion
> will not tolerate any project, even if it costs essentially nothing.
> Academic freedom means nothing to them. It never occurs to them they might
> be wrong, because -- Like Park and Yugo -- they have read nothing and they
> know nothing. They make no distinction between cold fusion and a perpetual
> motion machines or water memory. Any research they disagree with *must
> not be allowed*, period.
>

Nonsense.  I have told you many times by private email and in public
postings that I favor funding for cold fusion/LENR research.  I'd like to
see much more of it but I'd like to see it done better, with more use of
gradient layer "boundary" calorimeters such as those that were made by
Thermonetics.   Of course I make a distinction between perpetual motion and
water memory and cold fusion.  The problem is that some cold fusion
advocates degrade their credibility by pushing other nonsense like
homeopathy and using water for fuel or magnetic motors that require no
energy input.   They support fools and crooks like Bedini, Dennis Lee,
Thane and many others.



> Whenever cold fusion appears in the mass media I shudder, because I know
> it will trigger a backlash. Cold fusion researchers keep a low profile for
> a good reason. They know perfectly well that when some nitwit such as
> Krivit reveals there may be a source of funding, or a project being
> organized, that will trigger opposition. Robert Park will pull strings.
> Others will organize letter-writing campaigns. Mary Yugo will publish
> unfounded accusations of fraud and guilt by association.
>

There is nothing unfounded about the disaster and high costs to Italy that
came from Rossi's Petroldragon fiasco.  There is no question that Rossi
lied to and cheated the DOD when he proposed and could not demonstrate the
construction of efficient thermoelectric devices.   There is no question
and even you agree that Rossi has resisted every opportunity for
independent testing, even at no risk to his secrecy.  He has also resisted
all suggestions to improve his existing demos to where they could become
less controversial-- again without risk or high cost or long delays.I
have not accused Rossi of fraud.  I have said and shown that his operation
is very similar to those of Steorn, Sniffex, Carl Tilley and Dennis Lee
(and others).  And yes, those are frauds and scams.



> The people in charge of the Navy and the DoE know nothing about cold
> fusion, and they do not care about it.
>

The interesting thing about cold fusion is that you can test a robust
example of it without in any way understanding the mechanism.   And almost
everyone cares about a cheap and inexhaustible source of power.  That's why
all the scams out there like the ones I already mentioned and those that
are like Bedini's have long lives.  It's why Sterling Allan and Craig Brown
and Paul Story can continue to run web sites that feature such nonsense as
cars that run on water, overunity magnetic motors that require no energy,
and even ideas everyone finds ridiculous such as that Obama went to Mars or
that Iran captures US drones with flying saucers.   Plenty of people in
charge believe such things and much money is wasted on scams.  The
successor to the Sniffex one caused expenditure of almost $100 million
dollars in Iraq, Thailand and even Afghanistan before it was (partly) shut
down after costing perhaps hundreds of lives as well.   Military leaders in
several countries promoted the purchase of the ineffective, improperly
tested and unproven explosive detector dowsing rod devices for as much as
$80,000 per copy!   You can convince some people of almost anything.
Dowsing rod explosive detector scams still go on!

Fortunately, Rossi and Defkalion are privately funded and immune to
> interference. Rossi is well aware of how academic politics work in the U.S.
> That is one of the reasons he has not made much of an effort to work with
> universities and national labs. Even if they get positive results, it will
> be reported as a failure and fraud.
>

No it won't-- it can't.  Look at NyTeknik's thorough if somewhat misguided
reporting.  Look at the articles about Rossi from Forbes and other main
line news sources. Only AP held back and that's because Rossi invited them
to a silly dog and pony show in which they were not allowed to see and
verify and of the data being taken.   Rossi has not made AN

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:

Jed, among LENR researchers, who is not old, or very old?


The ones who are dead.

Only old people can do this. For a young researcher cold fusion would be
career suicide. Even talking about it. She would be fired and would never
get another job. Even Bockris was nearly fired. Miles -- a distinguished
fellow of the institute -- was reassigned as a stock room clerk. Mizuno was
told he would never be promoted unless he renounced it. He never was.
Nearly every researcher I know has been subjected to harassment, bullying,
threats, sabotage, and so on.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research

[Daniel Rocha]

This is kind of ironic.. Jed behaves as those Rossi's tests were faked and
CF is still on shoe strings...

2011/12/18 Vorl Bek 

> >
> > As I said, most cold fusion research is done on a shoestring,
> > tucked away in a corner were the people in charge will not
> > notice it. You have to keep a low profile in this business. So
> > please do not write letters to the Navy demanding this be
> > allowed. You will only make things worse. I will greatly regret
> > relaying this news here if people bring pressure on the Navy,
> > and the Navy makes life even more miserable for cold fusion
> > researchers.
>
> What difference does any of that make? Rossi is churning out
> megawatts of e-cats and Defkalion is preparing to sell their
> well-engineered devices.
>
> Customers will talk, they will show off their new toys, they will
> contact the highest officials. China will steal the technology and
> heat yurts in Tibet and sell e-cats to Sears.
>
> The battle has been won. The genie is out of the bottle. Rossi's
> demos have proven cold fusion is real.
>
> Haven't they?
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research

[Vorl Bek]

> 
> As I said, most cold fusion research is done on a shoestring,
> tucked away in a corner were the people in charge will not
> notice it. You have to keep a low profile in this business. So
> please do not write letters to the Navy demanding this be
> allowed. You will only make things worse. I will greatly regret
> relaying this news here if people bring pressure on the Navy,
> and the Navy makes life even more miserable for cold fusion
> researchers.

What difference does any of that make? Rossi is churning out
megawatts of e-cats and Defkalion is preparing to sell their
well-engineered devices.

Customers will talk, they will show off their new toys, they will
contact the highest officials. China will steal the technology and
heat yurts in Tibet and sell e-cats to Sears.

The battle has been won. The genie is out of the bottle. Rossi's
demos have proven cold fusion is real.

Haven't they?

Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research

[Jed Rothwell]

Going through my notes again . . . I should say there is still some hope at
SPAWAR that after-hours or weekend research may be allowed. They are still
negotiating, so let us not raise a big stink about this. No point in riling
up the opposition more than usual.

They are discouraged.

As I said, most cold fusion research is done on a shoestring, tucked away
in a corner were the people in charge will not notice it. You have to keep
a low profile in this business. So please do not write letters to the Navy
demanding this be allowed. You will only make things worse. I will greatly
regret relaying this news here if people bring pressure on the Navy, and
the Navy makes life even more miserable for cold fusion researchers.

The skeptics should feel free to keep writing to authorities. Mary Yugo
should continue to respond to any mass media article in the comment section
with unfounded, vile allegations of fraud and guilt by association, written
under a a pen name. It is only words, and words have no consequences. You
cannot make things worse than you already have. Maintain your unshakable
conviction that anything you disagree with, you do not understand, or you
have not bothered to read must be "pathological science" or fraud. We get
it. Research you don't like must not be allowed. Ever. Even on weekends,
done by 85-year-old professors. You want stasis and the end of science, and
that is what you will get. As Martin Fleischmann said: "People do not want
progress. It makes them uncomfortable. They don't want it, and they shan't
have it."

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research

[Mary Yugo]

On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat  wrote:

> With respect as I in no way mean to make this statement personal: What a
> load of self service CRAP. Are you blind as well as mentally impaired?


That's not "personal"?  If I said something like that about someone here,
everyone would be talking about expelling me from the email list.

Want respect?  Get Rossi to agree to a proper test of an E-cat module (who
cares about silly and unnecessary large collections of them under the
misleading name of "plants"?).  Better yet, get Rossi to name a single,
credible and independent customer who can be interviewed and whose test
results can be examined.

It is absurd to say that Murray, Cude and I are against cold fusion/LENR.
Nothing would please (and amuse) us more than if it worked robustly the way
Rossi and Defkalion claim.   So stop insulting people and start finding
proof that Rossi has something --  not scattered bits of inconclusive
evidence and improperly performed "demonstrations" but clear independent
tests that prove it works.   First, try to find a single solitary person or
company other than someone connected to Rossi or some anonymous "customer",
who actually has a device and can talk about it.

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Craig Haynie]

On Sun, 2011-12-18 at 11:09 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Two or three people have contacted me suggesting we raise funds for
> Miley. I appreciate the sentiments, and I am sure George would too,
> but as far as I know universities only accept money from official
> sources such as corporations, philanthropic organizations, government
> agencies, etc. They cannot just take money from private individuals.
> There has to a formal agreement, which is a complicated multi-page
> legal document. There is 40% to 60% overhead for the university
> itself.


Miley was pushing this company during his Oct talk.

http://www.cfeis.com/

I was under the impression that he was involved in this company and was
trying to develop a commercial product.

If this is true then I'm sure you can deliver money to him through this
company.

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Daniel Rocha]

Jed, among LENR researchers, who is not old, or very old?

2011/12/18 Jed Rothwell 

> Two or three people have contacted me suggesting we raise funds for Miley.
> I appreciate the sentiments, and I am sure George would too, but as far as
> I know universities only accept money from official sources such as
> corporations, philanthropic organizations, government agencies, etc. They
> cannot just take money from private individuals. There has to a formal
> agreement, which is a complicated multi-page legal document. There is 40%
> to 60% overhead for the university itself.
>
> I have been involved in a few of these arrangements. That's how it works
> as far as I know.
>
> It is not that big a hurdle. If you know a corporation that has money, I
> expect the university would happy to arrange something. But you cannot walk
> in off the street as a private individual with a suitcase full of money.
> (I'll take it!)
>
> I believe the other problem is that the grad students who were doing this
> as an after-hours labor of love have moved on in life. Even grad students
> graduate eventually. It may be difficult to find some young person bold
> enough to do this. (Reckless enough.) Miley himself is too old, I believe.
> He can assist.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Akira Shirakawa]

On 2011-12-18 17:18, Terry Blanton wrote:

It wouldn't hurt to fill out this form:

http://www.shell.com/home/content/innovation/innovative_thinking/game_changer/submit_idea/


This might actually be a good idea.
By the way, until Krivit leaked that email from the ISCMNS mailing list, 
I've never heard of this "GameChanger" program by Shell.


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Terry Blanton]

On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> It is not that big a hurdle. If you know a corporation that has money, I
> expect the university would happy to arrange something.

It wouldn't hurt to fill out this form:

http://www.shell.com/home/content/innovation/innovative_thinking/game_changer/submit_idea/

T

[Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources

[Jed Rothwell]

Two or three people have contacted me suggesting we raise funds for Miley.
I appreciate the sentiments, and I am sure George would too, but as far as
I know universities only accept money from official sources such as
corporations, philanthropic organizations, government agencies, etc. They
cannot just take money from private individuals. There has to a formal
agreement, which is a complicated multi-page legal document. There is 40%
to 60% overhead for the university itself.

I have been involved in a few of these arrangements. That's how it works as
far as I know.

It is not that big a hurdle. If you know a corporation that has money, I
expect the university would happy to arrange something. But you cannot walk
in off the street as a private individual with a suitcase full of money.
(I'll take it!)

I believe the other problem is that the grad students who were doing this
as an after-hours labor of love have moved on in life. Even grad students
graduate eventually. It may be difficult to find some young person bold
enough to do this. (Reckless enough.) Miley himself is too old, I believe.
He can assist.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Kick starter for funding?

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Heckert  wrote:

>
> Miley is closely working together with CETI ( Clean Energy Technologies,
> Incorporated) and has without doubt created a lot of free advertisement for
> them.


This company has been defunct for many years. It was owned by the late
James Patterson.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research

[Craig Haynie]

> 
> Without a dramatic new source energy, I see nothing but a continuing
> decline of our industrialized western society.
> No jobs, no marriages, no reason to study hard, and a virtual only
> life.  I hope Rossi does it, I have been been burnt out for a long
> time.
> 
> 
> Frank Z

Frank!

As I understand your theory, you believe that cold fusion can be
optimized within a lattice vibrating with an angular velocity of
(1.094 / pi) meters / sec, right? Can you predict the optimum
temperature of Rossi's nickel that would facilitate this effect?

Craig Haynie
Manchester, NH

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research

[fznidarsic]

I wonder what this will do for Rossi if, as is speculated, SPAWAR was his 
secret customer?







If Rossi were the customer and it worked, would they not be expanding the 
program.  This suggests that nothing has happened.  My papers also have fallen 
on mostly deaf ears.  Personalty I have moved away from cold fusion and energy 
research.  If I find some free time I will study Spanish or do something else.  
I would not want to wind up on my death bed and realize then that I had spent 
my entire life chasing a windmill.


Without a dramatic new source energy, I see nothing but a continuing decline of 
our industrialized western society.
No jobs, no marriages, no reason to study hard, and a virtual only life.  I 
hope Rossi does it, I have been been burnt out for a long
time.


Frank Z






 

[Vo]:unsubscribe

[Dusty Bradshaw]

unsubsribe

-BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-



Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux

Re: [Vo]:Kick starter for funding?

[Peter Heckert]

Am 18.12.2011 05:17, schrieb Sean True:

If Dr. Miley is in need of low thousands of dollars to get to a breakthrough, 
is there a possibility of using kickstarter.com to raise the money? I'd kick in 
a thousand dollar pledge if Jed said it would get the good doctor over the hump.

Miley is closely working together with CETI ( Clean Energy Technologies, 
Incorporated) and has without doubt created a lot of free advertisement 
for them.


I think CETI or their investors should give him the money, because these 
will also get the results, and if true, then they will all get very, 
very rich.


Peter

Re:[Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research

[Energy Liberator]

  
  
I've been lurking here for
  a couple of months now and have learned a great deal from all the
  comments. But reading this really saddened me. I truly hope that
  one day these so called scientists that refuse to admit there is
  something going on with CF or LENR end up being discredited and
  ripped apart by the media for only looking out for their own
  interests and not for the better of science. What goes round must
  come round.
  
  I wonder what this will do for Rossi if, as is speculated, SPAWAR
  was his secret customer?

  

[Vo]:NASA and LENR research

[Aussie Guy E-Cat]

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/research.htm

"Tests conducted at NASA Glenn Research Center in 1989 and elsewhere 
consistently show evidence of anomalous heat during gaseous loading and 
unloading of deuterium into and out of bulk palladium. At one time 
called “cold fusion,” now called “low-energy nuclear reactions” (LENR), 
such effects are now published in peer-reviewed journals and are gaining 
attention and mainstream respectability. The instrumentation expertise 
of NASA GRC is applied to improve the diagnostics for investigating the 
anomalous heat in LENR."


New slide show:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/LENR_at_GRC_2011.pdf

Re: [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research

[Horace Heffner]

On Dec 17, 2011, at 9:55 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:

Here is where Frank Gordon and crew are working now. They are ready  
to remediate nuclear waste with their foils and they too are  
working under the radar, given the maturity of their knowledge and  
trade craft. SPAWAR / DOD says they know how to burn nuclear waste,  
DOE says that's impossible therefore not real. To admit that  
nuclear waste can be remediated with co-dep foils is to admit that  
all their energy clients are wrong. http:// 
www.globalenergycorporation.net/


Here is some stunning stuff:

http://www.globalenergycorporation.net/Tech.aspx

"While there are numerous products possible, GEC is currently  
focusing on the GeNiE Hybrid Fusion, Fast-Fission Reactor that will  
use either natural uranium or existing hazardous waste as fuel."


This is an amazing claim.  Frank Gordon is a reliable scientist.  The  
technology is apparently still not developed, but I think this kind  
of claim would not be made lightly.


I have to wonder if the day has arrived or close to arriving that I  
need no longer concern myself with cold fusion and can go on to the  
other things in my queue.  Perhaps they finally got around to testing  
tritium in their protocol, for reasons discussed on p. 29 of:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf

A DT reaction, even if by cold fusion, always produces a neutron.  
There is only one probably channel. For this reason I have suggested  
tritium doping of deuterium experiments is an important LENR  
diagnostic technique.


I note there is no mention of cold fusion. This leads me to believe  
it is more likely the neutron source may be a DT neutron tube.


For some background see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_generator

Here is some background on neutron tubes from a now defunct web site:

http://www.mfphysics.com/About%20NG.htm

 
-

About MF Physics Neutron Generators

Neutron Sources

Neutrons may be produced using a number of techniques including isotopic
sources, small deuterium-tritium neutron generators, and large  
accelerators.


Isotopic neutron sources produce continuous fluxes of neutrons. The most
common isotopic source our neutrons is from spontaneous fission of
Californium-252 (252Cf). The average energy of neutrons from 252Cf is  
2.3
MeV. The half life is 2.6 years. Neutrons may also be produced by  
mixing an
isotope which emits a particle with beryllium-9. Neutrons are  
produced by

the (a, n) reaction with beryllium. Common (a,n) sources are:

239Pu with 9Be, 226Ra with 9Be, and 241Am with 9Be

Isotopic neutron sources have the advantage having a long useful life  
and

producing a relatively constant flux of neutrons. They may also be
relatively inexpensive for low flux (<108 neutrons per second) sources.
However, isotopic sources have several disadvantages. The neutron  
output can
not be turned off, requiring that they be contained within bulky  
shielding

at all times. Isotopic neutron sources can not be pulsed and the energy
spectrum of the emitted neutrons is broad and peaks at energies below  
the

threshold for some important reactions.

Neutron Generators

Small neutron generators using the deuterium (2H) - tritium (3H)  
reaction

are the most common accelerator based (as opposed to isotopic) neutron
sources. Neutrons are produced by creating deuterium ions and  
accelerating
these ions into a tritium or deuterium target. The D-D reaction is  
used only
in special circumstances because the neutron yield from the D-T  
reaction is

~100 times higher.

D + T¨ n + 4He   En = 14.2 MeV

D + D¨ n + 3He   En = 2.5 MeV

Yield(D,T) ~ 100 x Yield(D,D)

 Neutrons produced from the D-T reaction are emitted isotropically
(uniformly in all directions) from the target. Neutron emission from  
the D-D
reaction is slightly peaked in the forward (along the axis of the ion  
beam)

direction. In both cases, the He nucleus (a particle) is emitted in the
exact opposite direction of the neutron.

Most small d-t accelerators are sealed tube neutron generators. The ion
source, ion optics and the accelerator target are enclosed in within a
vacuum tight enclosure. High voltage insulation between the ion optical
elements of the tube is provided by either glass or ceramic insulators.

The neutron tube is, in turn, enclosed in a metal housing, the  
accelerator
head, which is filled with an dielectric media to insulate the high  
voltage
elements of the tube from the laboratory surroundings. The  
accelerator and

ion source high voltages are provided by external power supplies. The
control console allows the operator to adjust the operating  
parameters of
the neutron tube. The power supplies are normally located within  
10-30 feet
of the accelerator head. The Control Console may be located as far as  
50-100

feet from the accelerator head.

The basic features of a sealed neutron tube