date:20121213

I should have zoomed in on voltage, current and R/R0 by turning off the
temperature traces in the graph, but the comment below is pretty close.
Between 4PM and (almost) midnight PST,

Hot wire current varied by less than 10 milliamps (1.712 - 1.722 amps)
Hot wire voltage varied by less than 20 millivolts (27.99 - 28.01 volts)
R/R0 varied by less than 0.005 ohm.

I am looking at 1 minute averages. This is very solid.

Jeff

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Jeff Berkowitz  wrote:

> I looked at the voltage, current, and R/R0 values over various periods and
> they all look completely flat to me. I don't see any evidence of erratic
> power supply behavior. I'm not so sure about the correlation with T_ambient
> either. If you zoom to the 14:00 - 14:50 period the ambient temp drops
> slightly while the P_Xs rises for many minutes. There are other periods
> like this too.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
>
>> I wrote:
>>
>> Re almost hourly fluctuations in T_Ambient -- the HVAC system kicking in
>>> periodically, maybe?
>>>
>>
>> Also, do any of the electronics folks here know what the effect might be
>> on the instrumentation providing us with a measure for P_in if the external
>> power supply were erratic?
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Direct heating of Celani's wire at EU cell of MFMP

2012-12-13 Thread Alain Sepeda

Note thate ENEA with PdD proved the strong importance of crystalographic
structure.
One kind cause no heat, the other succed at 60%, and mix of two give mixed
results...
http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=674

It seems that DGT discuss of that, increasing the number of surface sites
with less dense cristal...


note also that article from AIP
http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=758&p=2769#p2769


2012/12/13 Terry Blanton 

> Defkalion actually alters the crystalline structure.  Cracks do not
> appear to be the issue in their reaction.  They have found a secret in
> altering the crystal structure to increase the reaction.  I'll bet
> that the reactions occur at the surface still.
>
> Note that Defkalion uses nickel foam, not powder.
>
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:32 PM, Mark Gibbs  wrote:
> > Why is it not an issue?
> >
> > [m]
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Terry Blanton 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> With NiH loading is not an issue.  It seems we have two totally
> >> different LENR reactions occuring.  Are they based on the same
> >> physics?  Maybe yes, maybe no.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Terry Blanton 
> wrote:
> >> > Yes, McKubre takes the endothermic loading and exothermic off loading
> >> > into his calculations in his work at SRI.
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Mark Gibbs  wrote:
> >> >> Something I haven't seen any discussion about is the amount of energy
> >> >> required to load materials with hydrogen to be used in these various
> >> >> LENR/CF
> >> >> devices. If that energy is taken into account, are the claims of
> excess
> >> >> energy from the operation of the devices still valid?
> >> >>
> >> >> [mg]
> >>
> >
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Inteligentry/Plasmerg?PTP Licensing saga continues

2012-12-13 Thread Axil Axil

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax on vortex stated:

*“People are very appreciative of Russ because he's getting his hands
dirty, and that is indeed to be commended. But that's not enough. Cold
fusion flopped about for years with people trying to make reliable heat.
Scientifically, the field did not shift until Miles did much more than
that: he measured helium as correlated with heat, which can cut through
mountains of BS. And which did. That was a huge amount of work, he had to
run many experiments, at the same time as he was losing funding and
support, and it was difficult, to get published and he faced some serious
-- and seriously silly -- opposition, from no less than Steve Jones, who
never saw a real cold fusion result beyond his own tiny reported effect,
that he didn't dislike.”*

Someone posted on Russ’s site that most of the videos about the Papp engine
are currently disabled. I checked a few and its true.

Why would the Rohners do this? Could it be that the open source Papp engine
effort is just far too productive for comfort? Could it be that Russ has
done more to bring back the Papp technology in a month than the Rohner’s
have accomplished in 30 years?

Russ back engineered the Papp popper hardwaredown to the centimeter  right
from those videos; a very impressive accomplishment in my opinion.

We all know that the best way to motivate the development of any product is
to encourage fierce competition.

The first developer who can demonstrate over unity in power production will
have all those disgruntled Rohner investors… you get the idea.

Even without the explicit intention, I think that could be underway shortly.

The Papp engine is just so attractive that it inspires con men and
charlatans in unlimited numbers including Papp himself.

The Rohners spent years learning at the feet of Grandfather Papp, all of
it, the good, the bad and the ugly.

For all those who would aspire to the vision and the dream that the true
Papp technology can be, these men of good and stout heart must be ever
vigilant and watchful of scandal in this regard.
I am sure that if there is anything to the Papp engine, Russ and his
friends will dig it out in the most up front, honest, straightforward and
well documented manner that they can muster.

cheers:   Axil.

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:

> At 04:21 PM 12/12/2012, Axil Axil wrote:
>
>  The reason why Russ is using so much spark power (500 joules ) is because
>> he is following the system that Bob Rohner built which does  NOT use
>> pre-ionization.
>>
>>
>>
> Axil, I'm not particularly interested in why an experimenter did
> something, but in what they did and what can be observed to have resulted.
> There is an obvious question here: does this Popper produce anomalous
> energy? Has *any* Popper (from whomever, following the Papp engine ideas)
> ever produced energy? There are reports of Papp engines long ago running
> continuously and generating substantial power. Has anything like this been
> confirmed, recently?
>
> If there is no single-cycle XP, we cannot expect it to appear in
> multiple-cycle engines. That's the craziness I was pointing to, regarding
> the "licensees" believing they were just on the verge of success. Yeah, *if
> there are clear, confirmed, single-cycle demonstrations*, then the rush
> would be legitimately on to develop an engine with it. What's bizarre is
> that rush *without* the simple demonstration. Building an engine is
> complicated, and there will be many obstacles and thus many excuses for
> failure. But a simple demonstration?
>
> If a simple demonstration cannot be constructed, there is no basis at all
> to conclude that the necessary technology is understood enough to create an
> engine.
>
> There is some phenomenon here of reaction to skepticism. Skeptics demand
> running practical devices to believe in the effect, so people rush out to
> try to create them. Bad Idea. A real skeptic will be reasonably satisfied
> with a conclusive demonstration, regardless if it's a practical engine. It
> can be a small effect. It might not even be practical, in which case the
> possibility of practicality would still be open, but uncontaminated by any
> need to "prove" reality.
>
> The FPHE might *never* be practical, except as a demonstration of LENR.
> But, of course, if it's real, there could be a lot more research needed to
> really answer the "practicality" question. As the message that Cold Fusion
> is real starts to penetrate outside the peer-reviewed journals that have
> allowed publication, as the sober reviews that have concluded there is a
> real effect become more broadly known, that research *will* be funded. It's
> already happening.
>
> "Pre-ionization" could represent building up some level of energy storage
> in the working plasma. It would simply make the matter more confusion and
> less clear. Sure, it's possible that some effect would rise above noise
> under these conditions, but, again, there is only one rea

RE: [Vo]:Direct heating of Celani's wire at EU cell of MFMP

2012-12-13 Thread Arnaud Kodeck

The frequency of T° ambient and P_Xs are the same (Around 50 minutes). Is ir
a coincidence?

Arnaud
> On 2012-12-13 03:29, Craig wrote:
> > This is so strange. I set the data in View Test Celani Cell #2, found
> here:
> >
> > http://data.hugnetlab.com/
> >
> > to view back 4 hours. Then I selected only P_Xs Low. Notice that the
> > excess power is oscillating between 4 watts and 8 watts, in a very
> > precise rhythm, with each wave appearing to have the same shape, and
> > with each wave lasting about an hour. I also see that the wave appears
> > to be tapering with the lows becoming higher and the heights become
> > lower. There also seems to be a correlation with T_Ambient, but why?
> 
> Whatever this is, it didn't happen with the previous overnight run with
> power applied to the inert wire (and the active wire partially loaded,
> in hydrogen atmosphere). This is a user-submitted image from the MFMP
> blog showing it:
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/bB383.png
> (note that "Power (Red)" actually shows W instead of bar)
> 
>  From 2012-12-12 00:00 to about 10:00, external glass temperature (under
> 50W of indirect heating) didn't seem to fluctuate very much with ambient
> temperature. However with direct heating (48W) it does quite much.
> 
> The main difference between those two runs is that the one with indirect
> heating had a starting hydrogen pressure of 2 bar (which increase with
> heat, of course), while the latter ones started at 1 bar, probably
> offering less thermal inertia (but still not explaining how glass
> temperature variations can be larger than ambient ones, assuming that
> these are the ones which drive them).
> 
> Cheers,
> S.A.

[Vo]:Way- Off Topic...Royal Nurse= Suicide by Hanging with Injured Wrists

2012-12-13 Thread Ron Kita

Greetings Vortex,

Way Off Topic, but the Royal Nurse suicide by hanging WITH Injured
wrists..does seem somewhat ODD:

http://news.msn.com/world/coroner-nurse-in-royal-hoax-call-was-found-hanging-in-her-room
.

Respectfully,
Ron Kita, Chiralex.would nt an injectible been a less violent way of
dying?

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

They shut the power off from around 4:30 am EST until around 5:45am EST.
Does anyone know why?

Craig

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Akira Shirakawa


On 2012-12-13 13:25, Craig wrote:

They shut the power off from around 4:30 am EST until around 5:45am EST.
Does anyone know why?


It appears they tried loading it with pure H2 instead of an H2-Ar 
mixture (75%-25%). This might (according to Dr.Celani) increase over 
time the apparent excess heat.


According to MFMP calibrations with the inactive wire, at 1 bar of 
pressure the wire should about 1°C hotter at the input power level 
chosen (48 W), which means that their currently estimated excess heat 
under pure H2 should be about 0.7 higher than under H2-Ar for this 
reason alone. Anything significantly higher than this should be a due to 
a genuine increase of temperatures due to a LENR effect or unknown 
artifacts.


By the way, the controversy with "conservative baselines" arose  because 
the very first calibration performed with the inactive wire under H2-Ar 
gas (thick blue line in the graph below) and the last ones performed 
with the active wire under helium (not shown) showed significantly lower 
external glass temperature readings than the rest of those made with the 
inactive wire with different gases and pressures:


http://www.quantumheat.org/images/PinTout-Calib-Final.png

So, in order to avoid problems due to excess enthusiasm (my 
interpretation) they chose as a baseline the calibration showing the 
highest glass temperatures readings, which means that any possible 
excess heat effect with the active wire under hydrogen atmosphere might 
currently be significantly underestimated.


Of course, this is assuming that LENR is indeed occurring inside the 
cell. There's still the chance that this could all be an unexpected 
error artifact especially since they're measuring temperatures from a 
more or less transparent glass tube.


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Direct heating of Celani's wire at EU cell of MFMP

2012-12-13 Thread David Roberson

I think that there is a strong correlation between the ambient and the assumed 
power output.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Arnaud Kodeck 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Dec 13, 2012 4:41 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Direct heating of Celani's wire at EU cell of MFMP


The frequency of T° ambient and P_Xs are the same (Around 50 minutes). Is ir
a coincidence?

Arnaud
> On 2012-12-13 03:29, Craig wrote:
> > This is so strange. I set the data in View Test Celani Cell #2, found
> here:
> >
> > http://data.hugnetlab.com/
> >
> > to view back 4 hours. Then I selected only P_Xs Low. Notice that the
> > excess power is oscillating between 4 watts and 8 watts, in a very
> > precise rhythm, with each wave appearing to have the same shape, and
> > with each wave lasting about an hour. I also see that the wave appears
> > to be tapering with the lows becoming higher and the heights become
> > lower. There also seems to be a correlation with T_Ambient, but why?
> 
> Whatever this is, it didn't happen with the previous overnight run with
> power applied to the inert wire (and the active wire partially loaded,
> in hydrogen atmosphere). This is a user-submitted image from the MFMP
> blog showing it:
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/bB383.png
> (note that "Power (Red)" actually shows W instead of bar)
> 
>  From 2012-12-12 00:00 to about 10:00, external glass temperature (under
> 50W of indirect heating) didn't seem to fluctuate very much with ambient
> temperature. However with direct heating (48W) it does quite much.
> 
> The main difference between those two runs is that the one with indirect
> heating had a starting hydrogen pressure of 2 bar (which increase with
> heat, of course), while the latter ones started at 1 bar, probably
> offering less thermal inertia (but still not explaining how glass
> temperature variations can be larger than ambient ones, assuming that
> these are the ones which drive them).
> 
> Cheers,
> S.A.

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

I went to HUGentView and pulled up a graph with these parameters:

From: 12/12/2012 09:06:31 to 12/13/2012 09:06:31 Type: history (yesterday
and today)

This is only my impression, but these graphs look far too smooth to be cold
fusion. All of the actual cold fusion reactions I have seen fluctuate much
more than this. They increase, decrease and sometimes stop for no apparent
reason. This looks like an instrument artifact.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

Typical real cold fusion excess heat looks like this:

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

See:

"Exp. # 64a . . . Excess Power of up to 34 watts; Average ~20 watts for 17
h"

This is also how Ni-H cold fusion looks.

Perhaps Celani has discovered a particularly stable form of cold fusion.
Frankly, I doubt it, but I am only guessing. In past cases I recall, stable
reactions that look like this all turned out to be artifacts.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Akira Shirakawa


On 2012-12-13 16:02, Jed Rothwell wrote:

This is only my impression, but these graphs look far too smooth to be
cold fusion. All of the actual cold fusion reactions I have seen
fluctuate much more than this. They increase, decrease and sometimes
stop for no apparent reason. This looks like an instrument artifact.


Nevertheless, this appears to be the same effect as reported by Celani 
and Ubaldo Mastromatteo from STMicro: the higher the input power 
applied, the more the glass tube appears to heat compared to calibration 
runs with an inert wire and the active wire under inert conditions. This 
temperature difference appears to be significant. . So, in a way, their 
replication was successful.


It's been suggested in their blog that they should use a steel tube 
(preferably painted in special black paint) instead of borosilicate 
glass, in order to make sure that there isn't some artifact happening 
with the active wire emissivity changing under loaded conditions and 
affecting temperature readings at the external glass thermocouple.


If that quick and cheap test will be successful too, then the final 
answer will come from proper flow calorimetry.


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

Which parameters were you viewing? Just the low power out? If so, then
it won't be to scale on that range and will look like a straight line
with the exception of where they turned the power off this morning.

Are you seeing the fluctuations that are here?

http://i50.tinypic.com/2e49mbd.jpg

I can't pull up that exact graph, but the fluctuations are similar in
the lower P_Xs Low parameter.

Craig

On 12/13/2012 10:02 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> I went to HUGentView and pulled up a graph with these parameters:
>
> From: 12/12/2012 09:06:31 to 12/13/2012 09:06:31 Type: history
> (yesterday and today)
>
> This is only my impression, but these graphs look far too smooth to be
> cold fusion. All of the actual cold fusion reactions I have seen
> fluctuate much more than this. They increase, decrease and sometimes
> stop for no apparent reason. This looks like an instrument artifact.
>
> - Jed
>

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

It may also be that if Celani has found a method which is 100%
reproducible, then it is because his method creates a more stable
reaction. Otherwise it probably wouldn't be 100% reproducible if it was
as erratic as other experiments.

Craig


On 12/13/2012 10:14 AM, Akira Shirakawa wrote:
> On 2012-12-13 16:02, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>> This is only my impression, but these graphs look far too smooth to be
>> cold fusion. All of the actual cold fusion reactions I have seen
>> fluctuate much more than this. They increase, decrease and sometimes
>> stop for no apparent reason. This looks like an instrument artifact.
>
> Nevertheless, this appears to be the same effect as reported by Celani
> and Ubaldo Mastromatteo from STMicro: the higher the input power
> applied, the more the glass tube appears to heat compared to
> calibration runs with an inert wire and the active wire under inert
> conditions. This temperature difference appears to be significant. .
> So, in a way, their replication was successful.
>
> It's been suggested in their blog that they should use a steel tube
> (preferably painted in special black paint) instead of borosilicate
> glass, in order to make sure that there isn't some artifact happening
> with the active wire emissivity changing under loaded conditions and
> affecting temperature readings at the external glass thermocouple.
>
> If that quick and cheap test will be successful too, then the final
> answer will come from proper flow calorimetry.
>
> Cheers,
> S.A.
>

RE: [Vo]:MFM Project

That is not typical. The key to Dardik's technique - the very essence - is
to provide the "superwave" of power input - which is waves of energy
superimposed on other waves. 

One would expect that that a Dardik chart would  look extremely noisy. 

BTW - has Celani ever claimed "cold fusion" ? News to me if he has.


From: Jed Rothwell

Typical real cold fusion excess heat looks like this:

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

See:

"Exp. # 64a . . . Excess Power of up to 34 watts; Average
~20 watts for 17 h"

This is also how Ni-H cold fusion looks.

Perhaps Celani has discovered a particularly stable form of
cold fusion. Frankly, I doubt it, but I am only guessing. In past cases I
recall, stable reactions that look like this all turned out to be artifacts.

- Jed

<>

Re: [Vo]:Direct heating of Celani's wire at EU cell of MFMP

Here's a 33 minute period from this morning. To me they look kind of
inverted - one goes up when the other goes down. At least in this sample.
The 50-minute cycles may be there but have to be confirmed by the math ...
the mind is sometimes too good at finding patterns.

Jeff


On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:00 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

> I think that there is a strong correlation between the ambient and the
> assumed power output.
>
>  Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Arnaud Kodeck 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Thu, Dec 13, 2012 4:41 am
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Direct heating of Celani's wire at EU cell of MFMP
>
>  The frequency of T° ambient and P_Xs are the same (Around 50 minutes). Is ir
> a coincidence?
>
> Arnaud
> > On 2012-12-13 03:29, Craig wrote:
> > > This is so strange. I set the data in View Test Celani Cell #2, found
> > here:
> > >
> > > http://data.hugnetlab.com/
> > >
> > > to view back 4 hours. Then I selected only P_Xs Low. Notice that the
> > > excess power is oscillating between 4 watts and 8 watts, in a very
> > > precise rhythm, with each wave appearing to have the same shape, and
> > > with each wave lasting about an hour. I also see that the wave appears
> > > to be tapering with the lows becoming higher and the heights become
> > > lower. There also seems to be a correlation with T_Ambient, but why?
> >
> > Whatever this is, it didn't happen with the previous overnight run with
> > power applied to the inert wire (and the active wire partially loaded,
> > in hydrogen atmosphere). This is a user-submitted image from the MFMP
> > blog showing it:
> >
> > http://i.imgur.com/bB383.png
> > (note that "Power (Red)" actually shows W instead of bar)
> >
> >  From 2012-12-12 00:00 to about 10:00, external glass temperature (under
> > 50W of indirect heating) didn't seem to fluctuate very much with ambient
> > temperature. However with direct heating (48W) it does quite much.
> >
> > The main difference between those two runs is that the one with indirect
> > heating had a starting hydrogen pressure of 2 bar (which increase with
> > heat, of course), while the latter ones started at 1 bar, probably
> > offering less thermal inertia (but still not explaining how glass
> > temperature variations can be larger than ambient ones, assuming that
> > these are the ones which drive them).
> >
> > Cheers,
> > S.A.
>
>
>
<>

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

Jones Beene  wrote:

That is not typical. The key to Dardik's technique - the very essence - is
> to provide the "superwave" of power input . . .


Input is atypical, but the fluctuations in output are typical.

Here is another example:

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-2.jpg

The fluctuations in the live cell are larger than the ones in the control
cell.

Figure 1 here shows a remarkably stable reaction:

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

It still fluctuations more than the MFM reaction.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

Jones Beene  wrote:

> BTW - has Celani ever claimed "cold fusion" ? News to me if he has.
>

I believe he has, but in any case, that is what I call all unexplained
non-chemical heat anomalies in hydrides and deuterides. Whether they are
all actually the same effect or not is no concern of mine. The effect is
also known as LENR, CANR and by various other names. They are all the same
thing until proven otherwise. Anyway, as another Italian put it:

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet . . ."

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Harry Veeder

An elecrochemical environment might simply be more complex and so the
power produced is more erractic. A notable exception is "heat after
death" when an electrolyte boils away and becomes more like a Celani
wire in a gaseous environment.

Harry

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> That is not typical. The key to Dardik's technique - the very essence - is
>> to provide the "superwave" of power input . . .
>
>
> Input is atypical, but the fluctuations in output are typical.
>
> Here is another example:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-2.jpg
>
> The fluctuations in the live cell are larger than the ones in the control
> cell.
>
> Figure 1 here shows a remarkably stable reaction:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMelectrochec.pdf
>
> It still fluctuations more than the MFM reaction.
>
> - Jed
>

RE: [Vo]:MFM Project

What you are objecting to is more an artifact of software leveling and
choices made in how data is presented - than an actual problem of results
being too smooth. McKubre's chart has already been leveled and could be
leveled more - and the MFM charts could be altered the other way to
accentuate the small point-to-point differences, and it would appear spikier
- if they desired to present it that way.

 

I do not see this as a real issue.

 

 

From: Jed Rothwell 

 

Jones Beene wrote:

 

That is not typical. The key to Dardik's technique - the very essence - is
to provide the "superwave" of power input . . .

 

Input is atypical, but the fluctuations in output are typical.

 

Here is another example:

 

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-2.jpg

 

The fluctuations in the live cell are larger than the ones in the control
cell.

 

Figure 1 here shows a remarkably stable reaction:

 

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

 

It still fluctuations more than the MFM reaction.

 

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:MFM Project

You may personally not want to make this important distinction, but "cold
fusion" obviously refers to fusion, most notably with deuterium - and this
is only a fraction of what can be covered by LENR. The term "cold fusion"
should be dropped for all references to NiH - unless and until there is
arguable evidence of fusion. There is none.

Celani does not claim fusion, and "cold fusion" even as a non-specific
generality, is unlikely to be relevant to his work - nor to these results
from MFM/Quantum.

In contrast to "what's in name" the more relevant cliché of the moment is
"nomen est numen". 

It is a mistake to be sticking with "nomen nudum" ... even when it is from a
POV of nostalgia. "Cold fusion" only makes the NiH field look less
scientific, even tainted to some degree.

Jones

From: Jed Rothwell 

Jones Beene wrote:
 
BTW - has Celani ever claimed "cold fusion" ? News to me if
he has.

I believe he has, but in any case, that is what I call all
unexplained non-chemical heat anomalies in hydrides and deuterides. Whether
they are all actually the same effect or not is no concern of mine. The
effect is also known as LENR, CANR and by various other names. They are all
the same thing until proven otherwise. Anyway, as another Italian put it:

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet . . ."

- Jed

<>

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

On 12/13/2012 11:52 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
> You may personally not want to make this important distinction, but "cold
> fusion" obviously refers to fusion, most notably with deuterium - and this
> is only a fraction of what can be covered by LENR. The term "cold fusion"
> should be dropped for all references to NiH - unless and until there is
> arguable evidence of fusion. There is none.
>
>

Didn't Eugene Mallove once write, when referring to pathological
skeptics, that we must keep the name 'Cold Fusion' so that we can hear
them utter the words they so dreaded, after Pons and Fleishmann have
been shown to be correct?

Craig

RE: [Vo]:MFM Project

With all deference to Dr. Mallove, this is simply not a smart rationale. It
smacks of some kind of psychological payback.

Science "aspires" to be more than vindictive (even when it is not above that
sin, most of the time)... and if anything, if LENR proponents take the high
road, they are not giving up very much.


-Original Message-
From: Craig 

> You may personally not want to make this important distinction, but "cold
> fusion" obviously refers to fusion, most notably with deuterium - and this
> is only a fraction of what can be covered by LENR. The term "cold fusion"
> should be dropped for all references to NiH - unless and until there is
> arguable evidence of fusion. There is none.

Didn't Eugene Mallove once write, when referring to pathological
skeptics, that we must keep the name 'Cold Fusion' so that we can hear
them utter the words they so dreaded, after Pons and Fleishmann have
been shown to be correct?

Craig

<>

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Harry Veeder

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Craig  wrote:
> On 12/13/2012 11:52 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
>> You may personally not want to make this important distinction, but "cold
>> fusion" obviously refers to fusion, most notably with deuterium - and this
>> is only a fraction of what can be covered by LENR. The term "cold fusion"
>> should be dropped for all references to NiH - unless and until there is
>> arguable evidence of fusion. There is none.
>>
>>
>
> Didn't Eugene Mallove once write, when referring to pathological
> skeptics, that we must keep the name 'Cold Fusion' so that we can hear
> them utter the words they so dreaded, after Pons and Fleishmann have
> been shown to be correct?
>
> Craig
>

Mallove knew what it is on a poetic level:
Fire from Ice.

The rest is just science. ;-)

Harry

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Terry Blanton

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>Anyway, as another Italian put it:
>
> "What's in a name? that which we call a rose
> By any other name would smell as sweet . . ."

Juliet Capulet was Italian?

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Terry Blanton

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>
>>Anyway, as another Italian put it:
>>
>> "What's in a name? that which we call a rose
>> By any other name would smell as sweet . . ."
>
> Juliet Capulet was Italian?

Verona, IT.  Hmm, we learn something every day.

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

Craig  wrote:

> Are you seeing the fluctuations that are here?
>
> http://i50.tinypic.com/2e49mbd.jpg
>
> I can't pull up that exact graph, but the fluctuations are similar in
> the lower P_Xs Low parameter.
>

Ah, that does look better. The periodicity is maybe a little too regular.
But better.

As noted, calling up two days of data may have smoothed things too much.

Jones Beene  wrote:

You may personally not want to make this important distinction, but "cold
> fusion" obviously refers to fusion, most notably with deuterium - and this
> is only a fraction of what can be covered by LENR. The term "cold fusion"
> should be dropped for all references to NiH - unless and until there is
> arguable evidence of fusion. There is none.
>

I don't care how many angels can dance on that particular pin-head.

I do not know anyone who has even looked for evidence, so I don't think
that is significant.

For now I will stick with McKubre's principle of the conservation of
miracles.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

Terry Blanton  wrote:

> > Juliet Capulet was Italian?
>
> Verona, IT.  Hmm, we learn something every day.
>

Yes, Italians spoke English remarkably well in those days. Lots of cliches
though.

You might be thinking of the Verona Beach, FL version with the well-known
Italian Leonardo De Vinci DiCaprio. His English is also good.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

Harry Veeder  wrote:

An elecrochemical environment might simply be more complex and so the
> power produced is more erractic.

That's true. And fluctuations are not desirable. This could be a sign of
progress, and not a sign of an artifact.

Rossi's heat is also pretty stable. I am pretty sure that is real heat, at
least in the graphs that have been published. It wasn't working when NASA
was there. I have no idea what that data looked like. As I read in a
medical report long ago, the absence of pulse was present.

> A notable exception is "heat after
> death" when an electrolyte boils away and becomes more like a Celani
> wire in a gaseous environment.
>

Good point. Still, it fluctuates after a while, as shown in Fig. 7 here:

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

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:OT (Holiday Spirit): Christmas Flash Mob... or Group Mind occasionally waking up?

At 10:39 PM 12/12/2012, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

In reply to  Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Wed, 12 Dec 2012 17:50:54 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>Great minds think alike, could be the saying, but, of course, this is
>just the ordinary human mind! We can "think alike," in unexpected
>ways. My own theory is that the intense visual concentration that
>accompanies this exercise, people are sitting face-to-face, watching
>each other, leads to an "entrainment" of the two mental processes,
>through observation of much more than what is said. The movements of
>eyes, the fine-muscle movements of the face, lead to something that
>I'd call "presence." It's not "individual," it is collective.

...in the case of humans, I think telepathy is actually real (and the Schumann
resonance is the medium).

It may also be real for birds, but I don't think it's necessary to 
explain flock

behaviour.

It's also not necessary to explain human behavior, AFAIK. Look, that 
resonance is ELF. Possible data rate, a few Hz, maybe. No mechanism 
known for even emitting signals. No signals observed.

However, there are obvious communication links between human beings. 
Visual, very high bandwidth. Audio, relative low bandwidth, with most 
information being contained in "tone." (and this would precede 
language, per se, developmentally, i.e., as evolved. Language content 
(as text), low bandwidth, it would mostly serve as confirmation of 
information being transmitted and received at high bandwidth through 
visual cues and tone.

What is not normally noticed is what I called "entrainment," where we 
anticipate what the other person thinks, because we are thinking 
using roughly the same information and response patterns. We do this 
in understanding the spoken word, all the time, i.e., anticipate what 
the other person is about to say. We often -- maybe even usually -- 
have it exactly right. We don't have to think about it, and there 
would be no time to do so.

Where rapport is weak, i.e., *entrainment* is weak, these predictions 
can be off.

If there is a physical communications medium, it would not ordinarily 
be called "telepathy," but my point was that it can seem so. When the 
mechanism I've described is operating, full-blown, it *seems* like 
mindreading. The "colors exercise" blows people's minds.

Landmark doesn't emphasize that. It's used in training to show how 
there is communication that isn't about text. It's about "presence," 
the presence of what Landmark calls the Self, which is not 
individual, though, again, that is not emphasized. The Self is the 
collective human intelligence, it appears to operate on an entirely 
different level than the individual. The individual intelligence is 
concerned with individual survival, mostly, or at least about 
survival of a closely-defined group. The Self is not personally 
attached. How to awaken this Self is the focus of much Landmark work, 
beginning with the Advanced Course. It's transformative, it is not 
merely some "improvement" (which would be judged within the "realm of 
survival"). In the Advanced Course, the activity of Self is called 
the "realm of enrollment," because of the effect as to expression and 
the inspiration of others. The whole next course is called the Self 
Expression and Leadership Program, and is about developing community 
projects -- not about Landmark! -- using the technology developed.

Community projects are about how to inspire and lead people to some 
activity that benefits the whole community, or some other community. 
How to avoid the traps that small-self-survival will set up. How to 
inspire others to support the project and even to lead it.

(The program encourages people to turn their projects over to someone 
else and so people see their inspirations move out of the realm 
of personal achievement into community achievement, where they 
become. personally, still valuable, maybe, but no longer necessary. 
John Rohner should take the Landmark Curriculum for Living, eh? Or, 
for that matter, Steve Krivit. Either of them might have done this 
work, very creative/very active people often have, but abandoned it 
before getting to the critical understanding of moving beyond 
personal survival into community expression. Except John Rohner is 
*very* caught up in story, to the point of practical insanity. People 
believe their own stories, it's routine and heavily habitual, but 
it's very limiting, and when taken to extremes, crazy.)

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

I wrote:

> http://i50.tinypic.com/2e49mbd.jpg
>>
>> I can't pull up that exact graph, but the fluctuations are similar in
>> the lower P_Xs Low parameter.
>>
>
> Ah, that does look better. The periodicity is maybe a little too regular.
> But better.
>

If I had to pick a likely instrument artifact, I would guess those
fluctuations are the HVAC cycle. Maybe not; they seem too long for that.
They turn on and increase for 30 to 50 minutes, and then off for about that
long, turning on again as soon as the baseline is reached. That is what a
thermostat does, but 50 minutes is longer than it takes to heat most
buildings.

Maybe the ambient temperature recording (T_Ambient) can rule out this
possibility.

I assume those are minutes on the X-scale.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Direct heating of Celani's wire at EU cell of MFMP


At 12:55 AM 12/13/2012, Eric Walker wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Craig 
<cchayniepub...@gmail.com> wrote:


to view back 4 hours. Then I selected only P_Xs Low. Notice that the 
excess power is oscillating between 4 watts and 8 watts, in a very 
precise rhythm, with each wave appearing to have the same shape, and 
with each wave lasting about an hour. I also see that the wave 
appears to be tapering with the lows becoming higher and the heights 
become lower. There also seems to be a correlation with T_Ambient, but why?



Re almost hourly fluctuations in T_Ambient -- the HVAC system 
kicking in periodically, maybe?


If this is so, if it persists, then it could show that the 
calorimetry is sensitive to ambient, as others have noted. This could 
easily be tested. In some work, there is an outer environmental 
chamber that is temperature-controlled. I'm seeing some work now 
being done with isoperibolic or Seebeck calorimetry done inside of a 
larger Seebeck. A temperature-controlled environment has often been 
considered important, to remove that variable.


(Basically, a calibration at one ambient temperature is not accurate 
at another.) Either all work must be done with constant ambient, or 
calibrations must be done across the ambient temperature range. Cold 
fusion calorimetry can be tricky, and I consider that the antifusion 
coffin was only nailed shut by correlation with helium. We don't know 
the ash with NiH reactions. If massive heat is ultimately confirmed, 
that can overwhelm skepticism, but ... it has not been confirmed.


If the ash is deuterium, as Storms proposes, it's going to be 
difficult, because deuterium is a normal and substantial contaminant. 
But if the reaction is sustained for long enough, at high enough 
levels, and especially with deuterium-depleted water (it's 
available), a heat/deuterium correlation could be measured.

Re: [Vo]:Direct heating of Celani's wire at EU cell of MFMP


At 01:00 AM 12/13/2012, Eric Walker wrote:

I wrote:

Re almost hourly fluctuations in T_Ambient -- the HVAC system 
kicking in periodically, maybe?



Also, do any of the electronics folks here know what the effect 
might be on the instrumentation providing us with a measure for P_in 
if the external power supply were erratic?


Power supply monitoring is essential. The usual suspected problem is 
the presence of transients that would cause error in voltage or 
current measurements, or, even if those are done in a way that 
produces correct averages, the power with complex signals can differ 
from the product of average current and average voltage.


So workers look at the power supply voltage/current with 
high-bandwidth oscilloscopes, and use power calculations that are not 
naive. For example, the voltage and current may be sampled 
simultaneously at high data rate, and multiplied to calculate 
instantaneous power, and then *that* is averaged and reported 
periodically, as every second or every minute.


I've seen attempts to criticize the SRI results based on claims that 
the input power was not accurately measured. That is Garwin's last 
stated opinion, by the way, that there "must be some error." Looking 
at the overall data, it's preposterous, but this kind of claim can be 
made, armchair, by those who concluded long ago that it wasn't 
necessary to get into the details. Since cold fusion is "impossible," 
of course.


Dieter Britz also, recently, at the suggestion of a skeptic with whom 
I was engaged in extensive discussions, examined the issue. Bubble 
noise causes transients in power supply voltage, and Britz looked at 
the actual effect, based on known experimental data from the past. He 
found that any possible error was insignificant.


But caution is needed, obviously, and naive beginners in the field 
might miss some of these possibilities.

Re: [Vo]:Direct heating of Celani's wire at EU cell of MFMP


At 01:50 AM 12/13/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote:
I looked at the voltage, current, and R/R0 values over various 
periods and they all look completely flat to me.


At what frequencies? How did you look? If you are looking at a 
low-bandwidth display, you might miss high-frequency transients.

Re: [Vo]:Direct heating of Celani's wire at EU cell of MFMP


At 02:04 AM 12/13/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote:

Got from another LENR researcher:

"There are several reported values for the enthalpy of formation 
of  nickel hydride with -8.8 kJ/mol being the lowest and -16.3 
kJ/mol being the highest at standard temperature and pressure."


He went on to show that given a wire containing 0.3g of Ni, enthalpy 
could account for less than 10 watts for 10 seconds. I took away 
that no matter how you torture the numbers, the resulting values are 
going to be orders of magnitude too small to account for Celani-type results.


I have a spreadsheet with the calculations. If anyone wants to see 
it I'll go back to him and ask him about sharing.


The heat of formation of nickel hydride will create apparent XP as 
loading is increased (i.e., during set-up or later if factors cause 
loading to increase), and apparent negative XP as it is decreased. 
It's a significant effect that researchers must consider, but it does 
not persist, and it is irrelevant when loading is constant. 
Generally, cold fusion researchers attempt to measure and monitor 
loading. It is typically a critical variable.

Re: [Vo]:Direct heating of Celani's wire at EU cell of MFMP


Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

Generally, cold fusion researchers attempt to measure and monitor 
loading. It is typically a critical variable.


I think that would be very difficult with this system. Probably 
impossible. The mass of the wire is small and it does not absorb much gas.


It is a good idea to measure that, if you can.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Direct heating of Celani's wire at EU cell of MFMP


At 03:07 AM 12/13/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote:


I am looking at 1 minute averages. This is very solid.


Okay. This would not detect "invisible" excess input power due to 
power supply high-frequency variations. At all.


This is what SRI did. They used a constant-current power supply, with 
high-bandwidth control. The supply, then, faced with transients in 
resistance, rapidly varies the voltage. So voltage is sampled at high 
frequency, and is averaged and reported periodically.


However, it's rather obvious, there must be some variation in 
current, or the supply would not "know" to alter the voltage. 
Supplies actually produce constant voltage naturally, if they are 
beefy enough, which they usually are. Internal feedback rapidly 
changes the voltage to maintain constant current, when the supply is 
in constant current mode.


What Britz studied was the effect of current noise. It was very low. 
If the current is tightly controlled, power remains the product of 
average voltage times the constant current. Thus the challenged 
assumption was "constant current."


As McKubre has written, these supplies -- at least the one he used, 
which was documented -- are very good.


To be sure, workers in the field have examined the current with 
high-bandwidth oscilloscopes. (They had not documented this in the 
papers, one cannot possibly, in normally-published papers, document 
*everything*, but we asked.) They don't see the high-frequency noise 
that would cause a problem.


The researchers should nail this down, and check for true solidity in 
the power supply, otherwise, indeed, high-frequency noise could cause 
misreporting of input power.

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

The possible correlation with T_Ambient was being discussed in another
thread. Eric and Arnaud (?) pointed it out, I argued against jumping to
conclusions. Dunno.
Jeff



On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> I wrote:
>
>
>> http://i50.tinypic.com/2e49mbd.jpg
>>>
>>> I can't pull up that exact graph, but the fluctuations are similar in
>>> the lower P_Xs Low parameter.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, that does look better. The periodicity is maybe a little too regular.
>> But better.
>>
>
> If I had to pick a likely instrument artifact, I would guess those
> fluctuations are the HVAC cycle. Maybe not; they seem too long for that.
> They turn on and increase for 30 to 50 minutes, and then off for about that
> long, turning on again as soon as the baseline is reached. That is what a
> thermostat does, but 50 minutes is longer than it takes to heat most
> buildings.
>
> Maybe the ambient temperature recording (T_Ambient) can rule out this
> possibility.
>
> I assume those are minutes on the X-scale.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project


At 10:02 AM 12/13/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

I went to HUGentView and pulled up a graph with these parameters:

From: 12/12/2012 09:06:31 to 12/13/2012 09:06:31 Type: history 
(yesterday and today)


This is only my impression, but these graphs look far too smooth to 
be cold fusion. All of the actual cold fusion reactions I have seen 
fluctuate much more than this. They increase, decrease and sometimes 
stop for no apparent reason. This looks like an instrument artifact.


That does not match the Arata gas-loading results. It's very true 
with the electrochemical-loading approaches. There is plenty of sign 
that NiH reactions may be more stable, indeed, that is part of the 
hope for NiH.


Please remember: we do not know that NiH heat is "cold fusion." We 
don't know what it is. We certainly, however, are not going to 
discard apparent XP results because they are too smooth!

Re: [Vo]:The Inteligentry/Plasmerg?PTP Licensing saga continues


At 04:07 AM 12/13/2012, Axil Axil wrote:

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax on vortex stated:

People are very appreciative of Russ because 
he's getting his hands dirty, and that is indeed 
to be commended. But that's not enough. Cold 
fusion flopped about for years with people 
trying to make reliable heat. Scientifically, 
the field did not shift until Miles did much 
more than that: he measured helium as correlated 
with heat, which can cut through mountains of 
BS. And which did. That was a huge amount of 
work, he had to run many experiments, at the 
same time as he was losing funding and support, 
and it was difficult, to get published and he 
faced some serious -- and seriously silly -- 
opposition, from no less than Steve Jones, who 
never saw a real cold fusion result beyond his 
own tiny reported effect, that he didn't dislike.


Someone posted on Russs site that most of the 
videos about the Papp engine are currently 
disabled. I checked a few and its true.


John Rohner makes a big deal out of this. 
Apparently the Rohner brothers claimed copyright 
on some of those and demanded that youtube take 
them down. That's according to John Rohner. When 
he first wrote that, all he did was blame his 
brothers for trying to censor him. But if he 
actually had the right to post those videos, all 
he had to do was certify that to youtube, and, 
absent a court decision, youtube would normally 
put them back up, as I understand the DCMA. 
That's called a "counterclaim" and if you make a 
fraudulent counterclaim, you are in legal hot water.


Why would the Rohners do this? Could it be that 
the open source Papp engine effort is just far 
too productive for comfort? Could it be that 
Russ has done more to bring back the Papp 
technology in a month than the Rohners have accomplished in 30 years?


The Papp technology has not been "brought back." 
There are people starting to look at it again.


Russ back engineered the Papp popper 
hardwaredown to the centimeter  right from those 
videos; a very impressive accomplishment in my opinion.


Axil has not been specific here. What videos? 
Russ's study followed the Bob Rohner video, 
that's what he's written, but he says that most 
of the work was his own. And he's provided no data.



We all know that the best way to motivate the 
development of any product is to encourage fierce competition.


The first developer who can demonstrate over 
unity in power production will have all those 
disgruntled Rohner investors you get the idea.


Sure. However, look. We have people claiming that 
they are operating, not only demonstrations, but 
actual engines. Except nobody has seen those 
engines. And the demonstrations do not show 
over-unity power, nor, as far as I can tell, has 
Russ even attempted this. What he's done is to 
move a piston by dumping 500 joules into it. 
Which does not demonstrate overunity. It does 
demonstrate what I've stated, a willingness to 
get his hands dirty. But what I wonder is why he 
has not taken this to the next step, which is 
pretty simple, by comparison. If he documents the 
mass of the pistion and what's connected to it, 
and he documents the movement of that piston (in 
time), the force on the piston and the distance 
over which this force is active, and thus the 
power, can be estimated, and integrated to 
energy. If that is close to or less than 500 
joules, he has no demonstration of over unity. If 
it is substantially greater, he's got something. 
If it's close, he *doesn't yet have something 
that could be the basis of an engine,* and he'd 
need to explore the parameter space to see if he 
can improve the results. He's using hydrogen, not 
the noble gas mixture considered necessary for 
Papp engines, and reported as so by all the Rohners.



Even without the explicit intention, I think that could be underway shortly.

The Papp engine is just so attractive that it 
inspires con men and charlatans in unlimited numbers including Papp himself.


Yes. The existence of such con men does not 
negate the effect. Con men have attempted to 
exploit cold fusion in various ways. It means 
nothing about cold fusion itself. Just because 
cold fusion is real does not meant that Charley 
Amazing's device, ready for investment, send your 
money in Now and get in on the ground floor! is real.


The Rohners spent years learning at the feet of 
Grandfather Papp, all of it, the good, the bad and the ugly.


For all those who would aspire to the vision and 
the dream that the true Papp technology can be, 
these men of good and stout heart must be ever 
vigilant and watchful of scandal in this regard.
I am sure that if there is anything to the Papp 
engine, Russ and his friends will dig it out in 
the most up front, honest, straightforward and 
well documented manner that they can muster.


Let's hope so. He's positioned to do it, but 
hasn't shown thoroughness, and I'm not sure he 
readily understands all the issues. He did not 
disclose aspects of what he got

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project


Jed, all those examples are PdD FPHE cells, if I'm correct. Right?

At 11:07 AM 12/13/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

That is not typical. The key to Dardik's technique - the very essence - is
to provide the "superwave" of power input . . .


Input is atypical, but the fluctuations in output are typical.

Here is another example:

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-2.jpg

The fluctuations in the live cell are larger than the ones in the 
control cell.


Figure 1 here shows a remarkably stable reaction:

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

It still fluctuations more than the MFM reaction.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Direct heating of Celani's wire at EU cell of MFMP

No argument. All we can say right now is neither factor (HF supply noise /
enthalpy) appears to be significant based on the available data for the
supplies and reasonable analysis on the chemical side. Neither the data nor
the analysis is everything one could ask for.

Jeff


On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:

> At 03:07 AM 12/13/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote:
>
>  I am looking at 1 minute averages. This is very solid.
>>
>
> Okay. This would not detect "invisible" excess input power due to power
> supply high-frequency variations. At all.
>
> This is what SRI did. They used a constant-current power supply, with
> high-bandwidth control. The supply, then, faced with transients in
> resistance, rapidly varies the voltage. So voltage is sampled at high
> frequency, and is averaged and reported periodically.
>
> However, it's rather obvious, there must be some variation in current, or
> the supply would not "know" to alter the voltage. Supplies actually produce
> constant voltage naturally, if they are beefy enough, which they usually
> are. Internal feedback rapidly changes the voltage to maintain constant
> current, when the supply is in constant current mode.
>
> What Britz studied was the effect of current noise. It was very low. If
> the current is tightly controlled, power remains the product of average
> voltage times the constant current. Thus the challenged assumption was
> "constant current."
>
> As McKubre has written, these supplies -- at least the one he used, which
> was documented -- are very good.
>
> To be sure, workers in the field have examined the current with
> high-bandwidth oscilloscopes. (They had not documented this in the papers,
> one cannot possibly, in normally-published papers, document *everything*,
> but we asked.) They don't see the high-frequency noise that would cause a
> problem.
>
> The researchers should nail this down, and check for true solidity in the
> power supply, otherwise, indeed, high-frequency noise could cause
> misreporting of input power.
>

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

Jeff Berkowitz  wrote:

The possible correlation with T_Ambient was being discussed in another
> thread.

Yup. I realized that after posting the message.

> Eric and Arnaud (?) pointed it out, I argued against jumping to
> conclusions. Dunno.

Yup again. It is the kind of thing that bears looking into.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:

Jed, all those examples are PdD FPHE cells, if I'm correct. Right?
>

Well, the data from Pons is in heat after death, which is sort of like gas
loading. No electrolysis or input noise.

We are all familiar with Rossi's data, which is noisy at times. Like this:

http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Lynn%20%20Oct%206%20Calorimetry%20based%20on%20steam%20temp.gif

Ararta's gas cells produce very smooth curves. Too smooth.

Here are a bunch if curves of heat from chemical reactions during loading
and de-loading of metals:

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

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Jack Cole

I ran a correlational analysis on the last 4 hours of data.  T ambient is
correlated -.79 with P_xs.  So, pxs rises when ambient drops (or vice
versa).  That may have to do with the spiking and dipping, but probably not
with the baseline level of Pxs.

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:
>
> Jed, all those examples are PdD FPHE cells, if I'm correct. Right?
>>
>
> Well, the data from Pons is in heat after death, which is sort of like gas
> loading. No electrolysis or input noise.
>
> We are all familiar with Rossi's data, which is noisy at times. Like this:
>
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Lynn%20%20Oct%206%20Calorimetry%20based%20on%20steam%20temp.gif
>
> Ararta's gas cells produce very smooth curves. Too smooth.
>
> Here are a bunch if curves of heat from chemical reactions during loading
> and de-loading of metals:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Dmitriyevamechanisms.pdf
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:OT (Holiday Spirit): Christmas Flash Mob... or Group Mind occasionally waking up?

2012-12-13 Thread Alain Sepeda

our capacity to use hiden channel of information to get data on other
people is surprising.

any actor know that if you don't feel what you say, spectators can see it
instantly.

more surprising it have been show that humans can detect som mental states
characteristics throug the walking move. In fact humans can detect if the
walking human is male/female, dominant/dominated personality, the mood,
just with the move of the ankle and foot.
they tested that with motion capture transforming a real human move into
few point, and found out that reducing up to the foot only was enough to
get the data.

the TV serie, lie to me is based on similar research on face move
detection, even if there is exaggeration. As I said before it won't
surprise an actor, who know that you have to feel your character and the
situation when you play. Liars do that naturally, and microexpression
detection is just a way to detect failures in that fraud about feelings
(liars modify their mental state like actors, it is not just statement but
acting).

more surprising any driver, especially urban bicyclist like me know how to
detect intention of drivers, even without signaling lights, and at least
the unclear intentions that might be dangerous.

When our survival depend on detecting others intent and mood, we use all
fuzy data we can.
Not surprising that it work, if you look how some fraud detectors work in
finance and banking.

to fall back to cold fusion, i notice that many of those competence are
inhibited by believers and denialists around LENR. Some people restrict
their intelligence to conscious and clear messages, or filter out them with
a huge bias, to avoid seeing the facts (most also often use sophism to help
if needed). Only people who will potentially invest much wealth (money,
fame, credibility) in something, but did not yet invest it, can be openmind
enough to use all data to take the good decision... very transient
situation, since soon after having decided to commit or reject, they will
be biased to justify their decision, and thus unable to see inconvenient
facts (see Roland Benabou Groupthink/Denial theory). people who just talk
are not motivated enough to analyze well. people who have invested already,
are no more balanced and protect their mental comfort.

I'm not an exception. That is a problem.

See the people who jump into LENR as evidence that it is convincing.

Warned of my usual bias, I observe that there are enough of such jump to
trust LENR and industrial LENR+ to be convincing. More convincing than
calorimetry papers for me.

2012/12/13 Jed Rothwell 

> mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
>
>  The point I have been trying to make, is that no telepathy is required
>> for this,
>> just sharp eyes and a sense of self preservation.
>>
> Probably. But you never know with birds. They can sense magnetism, for
> example, which they use to migrate. Who knows what else they can sense.
>
> It is not inconceivable they use some sort of RF signaling.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

I'll agree. Mallove was talking about the FPHE, which *is* cold fusion 
(remaining arguments are semantic/pedantic. If deuterium is being converted to 
helium, and it is, no matter what the mechanism, it is fusion as to result.)

But we don't know the mechanism for NiH. We don't really even know if the 
results are LENR. We just aren't there yet, as to what has been sufficiently 
confirmed.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 13, 2012, at 12:13 PM, "Jones Beene"  wrote:

> With all deference to Dr. Mallove, this is simply not a smart rationale. It
> smacks of some kind of psychological payback.
> 
> Science "aspires" to be more than vindictive (even when it is not above that
> sin, most of the time)... and if anything, if LENR proponents take the high
> road, they are not giving up very much.
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Craig 
> 
>> You may personally not want to make this important distinction, but "cold
>> fusion" obviously refers to fusion, most notably with deuterium - and this
>> is only a fraction of what can be covered by LENR. The term "cold fusion"
>> should be dropped for all references to NiH - unless and until there is
>> arguable evidence of fusion. There is none.
> 
> Didn't Eugene Mallove once write, when referring to pathological
> skeptics, that we must keep the name 'Cold Fusion' so that we can hear
> them utter the words they so dreaded, after Pons and Fleishmann have
> been shown to be correct?
> 
> Craig
> 
>

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:

> Please remember: we do not know that NiH heat is "cold fusion." We don't
> know what it is.

Mike McKubre and I suspect that whatever it is, it is the same thing as
Pd-D heat, based on the conservation of miracles.

Since no one has checked for products yet, fusion is a good a guess as any
other.

> We certainly, however, are not going to discard apparent XP results
> because they are too smooth!
>

I wouldn't discard them but I would be wary of them. That's not how cold
fusion heat looks. Whether it comes from electrolysis or gas loading, it is
usually more lumpy.

That's how things look when you imagine you are seeing excess heat, but you
made a mistake. I have seen such results time after time, from many people.

One way to resolve this would be to put the whole cell into the air-flow
calorimeter. Assuming that device works properly. Ed Storms has expressed
some doubts about it. He thinks the time constant is too long and changes
in air pressure and humidity may affect the instrument too much.

If the signal really is as stable as it appears here I guess the time
constant will not be a problem. I suppose you could catch changes in air
pressure by installing a heater next to the cell and doing on-the-fly
re-calibration.

I think Ed would prefer a Seebeck calorimeter.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

My suggestion. For more effective communication, don't use language that treats 
a guess as if were known fact. Even if it seems like a good guess.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 13, 2012, at 4:56 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:
>  
>> Please remember: we do not know that NiH heat is "cold fusion." We don't 
>> know what it is.
> 
> Mike McKubre and I suspect that whatever it is, it is the same thing as Pd-D 
> heat, based on the conservation of miracles.
> 
> Since no one has checked for products yet, fusion is a good a guess as any 
> other.
> 
>  
>> We certainly, however, are not going to discard apparent XP results because 
>> they are too smooth!
> 
> I wouldn't discard them but I would be wary of them. That's not how cold 
> fusion heat looks. Whether it comes from electrolysis or gas loading, it is 
> usually more lumpy.
> 
> That's how things look when you imagine you are seeing excess heat, but you 
> made a mistake. I have seen such results time after time, from many people.
> 
> One way to resolve this would be to put the whole cell into the air-flow 
> calorimeter. Assuming that device works properly. Ed Storms has expressed 
> some doubts about it. He thinks the time constant is too long and changes in 
> air pressure and humidity may affect the instrument too much.
> 
> If the signal really is as stable as it appears here I guess the time 
> constant will not be a problem. I suppose you could catch changes in air 
> pressure by installing a heater next to the cell and doing on-the-fly 
> re-calibration.
> 
> I think Ed would prefer a Seebeck calorimeter.
> 
> - Jed
>

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:

My suggestion. For more effective communication, don't use language that
> treats a guess as if were known fact. Even if it seems like a good guess.
>

Any statement about the nature of cold fusion is a guess. There are no
generally accepted theories. I'll take "fusion" over the W-L theory or
Mills. LENR means more or less the same thing as "fusion" since it sure
doesn't see likely to be fission. What other reactions are there starting
with H or D? Nowhere to go but up. I doubt the entire thing is host metal
reactions.

You have to call it something. Any name will include some assumptions and
exclude others. Even "the FP effect" assumes that Ni-H is the same effect
as Pd-D.

It is axiomatic in language that: Words are not in themselves the thing
they represent; they are partial descriptions at best; and (also along
these lines) word etymology has no bearing on present meaning. I was going
to mention that with regard to your discussion about the word "Allah." Even
if it did once mean "Moon God" that has no bearing on what it means now. (I
will take your word that it did not derive from that.)

The English word "Monday" is derived from the word "moon" but it now has no
connection whatever to the moon. The word "understand" no longer means
standing under, even though it originally had that meaning a metaphoric
sense. Computer folders no longer fold in any sense.

Most words were originally derived from metaphor.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson

I agree with Jed,

I wish we could stop obsessing over what the phrase “Cold Fusion”
really means. The truth of the matter is: nobody really knows for sure
what kind of phenomenon “Cold Fusion” really represents. Big deal! Get
over it!  The phrase “Cold Fusion” is nothing more than a place
holder.

I find it to be an exercise in absurdity that others continue to make
such a big deal out of the fact that others continue to sue the phrase
“Cold Fusion” - as if doing so is a horrible thing to do to science.
What I see is far more political foreplay in harping on this issue, as
compared to focusing on actual scientific investigation.

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

[Vo]:Proposed MFMP Test Proceedure

2012-12-13 Thread David Roberson


I proposed a simple test procedure for the MFMP team at the EU site to conduct. 
 


First, they need to let the cell cool down to around room temperature.  Then, 
the 48 watt step drive function should be applied to the inactive wire for 1 
hour. 


After that period has elapsed, the drive needs to be rapidly switched to the 
active wire for the next 1 hour period.


Next, the drive should be reapplied to the inactive wire as quickly as possible 
and allowed to continue for the next 1 hour period.


My reasoning is as follows:  First, any ambient wave effects should be visible 
during the entire period if they are a result of HVAC or air currents.  It is 
unlikely that the center time frame will be treated differently to external 
forces.  Second, I have an excellent curve fitting routine that follows the 
time domain responses for the power input steps and it is suggesting strongly 
that there appears to be excess power during the time that the outer glass 
temperature exceeds 100 C when drive is applied to the active wire.  Below that 
temperature, the fit is consistent.


It seems logical that the drive power, if it reaches the outer glass surface, 
will behave the same to a large extent regardless of which wire is driven.  
When the drive is applied to the inactive wire, the actual temperature of the 
active wire will be much lower than when the drive is switched.  This state 
should correspond to the region where my curve fit routine matches the 
measurements well since little excess power appears to be generated at the 
lower active wire temperature.


With the data, I should be able to generate a rock solid curve fit for the 
first hour that will allow comparisons against the second hour during the 
active wire drive.  The third hour should then fall onto the curve fit as 
continued from the first hour.


If the outer glass temperature indeed shows the 2.5 C rise that I suspect, then 
I will be fairly confident that excess power is generated.  The only hole in 
the hypothesis is if the true outer glass temperature depends upon which wire 
is driven due to some strange geometry.


Earlier testing tended to suggest that there was little if any excess heat 
being generated.  There appeared to be periods of time during which energy was 
absorbed followed by release of roughly the same amount of excess energy.  This 
needs to be followed up upon since something strange is suggested to be 
occurring.


I think it is important to understand the breathing response and see if it is 
correlated with some process.  It will be most interesting if the breathing 
only happens when the active wire is driven!


The MFMP team has done a great job with their testing and we should support 
them at every opportunity.


Dave

Re: [Vo]:Direct heating of Celani's wire at EU cell of MFMP


At 03:40 PM 12/13/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote:
No argument. All we can say right now is neither factor (HF supply 
noise / enthalpy) appears to be significant based on the available 
data for the supplies and reasonable analysis on the chemical side. 
Neither the data nor the analysis is everything one could ask for.


I want to make it clear that what I've written about this work is not 
a specific criticism of it. My comments have been general, not specific.


In a certain sense, proceeding first with a Celani replication, 
rather than jumping to more accurate calorimetry, is quite sensible. 
A "replication" aims to reproduce original results, where possible 
Using the *same* calorimetry as Celani, even though that calorimetry 
is subject to criticism, if it shows the same results, serves as a 
replication. *Then* more accurate calorimetry can be used, in an 
effort to discover artifact.

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

At 04:15 PM 12/13/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:

Jed, all those examples are PdD FPHE cells, if I'm correct. Right?

Well, the data from Pons is in heat after death, which is sort of
like gas loading. No electrolysis or input noise.

But, often, one chaotic environment.

We are all familiar with Rossi's data, which is noisy at times. Like this:

http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Lynn%20%20Oct%206%20Calorimetry%20based%20on%20steam%20temp.gif

Ararta's gas cells produce very smooth curves. Too smooth.

I.e., Jed, you are questioning experimental results because they
don't look right to you. "Right" is based on long experience with a
particular kind of cell.

That's okay, but ... just so it's clear where the suspicion comes from.

I'll say, about the Arata results -- I have in mind those temperature
plots that show a large heat release with initial loading, i.e., from
the heat of formation of the hydride (presumably), then a decline,
settling at 2 degrees of temperature difference between the chamber
internal temp and a hollow chamger surrounding it, and two more
degrees to ambient (which was surrounded with insulation). First of
all, there is nothing to disturbe the internal environment, unless
the reaction itself, which is taking place at a relatively low
level,disturbs it, and, second, this rough indication of generated
heat is not precise, and would rather naturally be averaged already.
So what is "too smooth" about the Arata curves?

Arata took down his cells after 50 hours, still going strong, to
measure helium, but I've never seen his results. (These were PdD
gas-loading cells.)

Here are a bunch if curves of heat from chemical reactions during
loading and de-loading of metals:

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

Dmitriyeva. Cool. She just got her PhD. For cold fusion work. Times
are changing, Jed.

Re: [Vo]:Proposed MFMP Test Proceedure

David Roberson  wrote:

 I proposed a simple test procedure for the MFMP team at the EU site to
> conduct.
>

Glad you suggested this to them directly. This open communication is a
breath of fresh air for this field.



> First, they need to let the cell cool down to around room temperature.
>  Then, the 48 watt step drive function should be applied to the inactive
> wire for 1 hour.
>
>  After that period has elapsed, the drive needs to be rapidly switched to
> the active wire for the next 1 hour period.
>
>  Next, the drive should be reapplied to the inactive wire as quickly as
> possible and allowed to continue for the next 1 hour period.
>
>  My reasoning is as follows:  First, any ambient wave effects should be
> visible during the entire period if they are a result of HVAC or air
> currents.  It is unlikely that the center time frame will be treated
> differently to external forces.
>

I like it!

Good plan. Calibrating before and after.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:


> Dmitriyeva. Cool. She just got her PhD. For cold fusion work. Times are
> changing, Jed.
>

She never got any excess heat! Years of work with no interesting results.
That part has not changed.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project


At 05:41 PM 12/13/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:

My suggestion. For more effective communication, don't use language 
that treats a guess as if were known fact. Even if it seems like a good guess.



Any statement about the nature of cold fusion is a guess.


No, or more accurately, only as "cold fusion" came to be a term for 
suspected LENR of many kinds.


The Fleischmann-Pons Heat effect is the result of the conversion of 
deuterium to helium, at least primarily.


That is a statement about the nature of cold fusion which is not a 
guess. It's a conclusion from the analysis of experimental data. 
While it could be wrong, it's very unlikely to be so. There are no 
credible artifacts that have been proposed and which match the 
experimental data. None. While there are a few unexplained results in 
early data, Stuff Happens. For example, helium was missing from an 
Arata-Zhang replication attemped by SRI, and McKubre says that he 
suspects the cell, a DS-cathode, leaked or was somehow prematurely 
opened. That cell *did* show tritium, and He-3 as would be expected 
from tritium generated from reactions inside the cell.


There is no work that impeaches heat/helium.

Don't confuse the entire class of statements, theories, with a 
specific class, in this case about *mechanism*. What's true is that 
we don't know the mechanism, we only know the result. Helium is being 
generated commensurate with the heat, and the amount of helium 
generated is consistent with experimental conditions and accuracy and 
the value for deuterium-helium conversion, regardless of mechanism or 
intermediate products. Only if an intermediate product persists would 
it change this, and if there are intermediates, they do not appear to 
be sticking around in quantity enough to affect the heat measurements.


 There are no generally accepted theories. I'll take "fusion" over 
the W-L theory or Mills.


WRT the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect, you would be on solid ground. 
However, that effect results in deuterium fusion. Straight deuterium 
fusion, for starters, is much easier to accomplish than, say, protium 
fusion. Deuterium fusion is not an explanation for NiH results. It is 
obviously different.


Now, the concept of "conservation of miracles." We need to stop 
referring to cold fusion as a miracle. It might be, but it's quite 
likely that all that happened was that people failed to anticipate -- 
and thus to calculate -- a possible physical configuration. The 
application of quantum mechanics to the solid state is a primitive 
field, it's extremely difficult to model more than two-body problems. 
That's what Takahashi is doing, that's what Kim is doing (in a more 
general way), and there is work on this going on elsewhere. This can 
take years. The math is difficult and complex.


My suggestion: don't "take" anything. There were plenty of errors on 
the pseudoskeptical physicist side, but the other side made the error 
of insisting on "nuclear" when the evidence was still circumstantial. 
As a result of the crystallization of opinon, the physicists mostly 
stopped looking, but Huizenga noticed Miles, and commented with 
genuine amazement. If confirmed, he wrote, this would solve a major 
mystery of cold fusion. I.e., the ash. Well, Miles was confirmed, but 
it seems Huizenga was infirm


Thinking that was are obviously two distinct effects, experimentally, 
must be the same because each one is a "miracle" is not going to help 
the field. No, the FPHE is not a miracle, it's natural, under the 
conditions. And a real conservation of miracles leads me to suspect 
that this is also true for NiH, if it's real and confirmed.


There is NiH work going on right now at SRI, or at least being set 
up. Brillouin.


There is the Celani work and the MFMP replication, and these people, 
I suspect, aren't going to stop with mere replication, they will 
attempt falsification, at least I hope they will!


Meanwhile, *we do know,* at least, the fuel/ash relationship for PdD. 
It's obviously going to be different for NiH. While the mechanism may 
be "similar," it's unlikely to be exactly the same. If it were the 
same, the NAE for PdD would work with H. If it does, it's only at 
very low levels.


Calling NiH "cold fusion" is jumping the shark. Even calling it LENR, 
without confirmed nuclear products, is premature. It *may be* LENR, 
and, yes, if it's LENR, some kind of fusion is most likely. However, 
not all LENR would be fusion as to product. For example, neutron 
activation is not normally called fusion (though it can be thought of 
as the fusion of an element with neutronium), and it can lead to 
energy release from *fission*. I'll agree that the reaction is 
*probably* some kind of fusion, but that is *only* speculation.


I'd say its very important for those who accept cold fusion to back 
off from "belief" and take on the skeptical role that the 
pseudoskeptics a

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project


At 06:32 PM 12/13/2012, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:

I agree with Jed,

I wish we could stop obsessing over what the phrase âCold Fusionâ
really means. The truth of the matter is: nobody really knows for sure
what kind of phenomenon âCold Fusionâ really represents. Big deal! Get
over it!  The phrase âCold Fusionâ is nothing more than a place
holder.


It was at one time. It was quickly realized that 
this was misleading, because we didn't know it 
was fusion. However, as soon as Miles was 
confirmed, that was obsolete. The FPHE is a 
result of the conversion of deuterium to helium through an unknown mechanism


That is, we have not identified the burglar, but 
we know what was taken and what was left behind. 
We don't have to know who the burglar is to call the incident "burglary."


It's actually very important to establish "cold 
fusion" as meaning the conversion of lighter 
elements into heavier ones, releasing the energy 
expected from the mass deficit. Not as meaning 
"d-d fusion," bringing up images of colliding 
deuterons. Bad Idea. It might be similar to that, 
or very different, but the fuel-product 
relationship is clear, at least for the main 
reaction. All kinds of stuff might be happening 
in there, explaining those minor effects, like 
tritium production or ... neutrons! (at extremely low levels).


Krivit has been damaging the field by saying 
"it's not fusion." He's doing this because he 
imagines that W-L theory isn't "fusion." It may 
not be as to specific reaction mechanism, but 
even Larsen acknowledges that certain SRI work 
showing a heat/helium ratio a bit above 30 
MeV/He-4 is sound, he merely interprets it 
differently, but he *does* acknowledge helium as 
a product, and his reactions start with 
deuterium. (In the PdD environment.) So what is 
accomplished is "fusion," and *maybe* there are 
some other things going on in there, but that has not been established.)


Krivit does not understand this, unfortunately. I 
tried to meet with him when I was there. Hostile, 
and gratuitously so. Unfortunate. He's trashing his career.



I find it to be an exercise in absurdity that others continue to make
such a big deal out of the fact that others continue to sue the phrase
âCold Fusionâ - as if doing so is a horrible thing to do to science.
What I see is far more political foreplay in harping on this issue, as
compared to focusing on actual scientific investigation.


I now refer to the FPHE as "cold fusion." Storms 
did so in his 2010 review, "Status of cold fusion 
(2010)", which is a remarkable shift. He didn't 
use the word in the title of his book, only three 
years earlier. "The Science of Low Energy Nuclear 
Reaction." However, it's in the subtitle: "A 
Comprehensive Compilation of Evidence and 
Explanations about Cold Fusion." Nothing changed 
of importance on this issue between 2007 and 2010.


I think it's very important. But until there is 
solid evidence that NiH reactions are real and 
involve fusion, I'm going to discourage it, and 
probably challenge it. It's important to 
distinguish what is scientifically established 
from what is not. That obvious does not mean that 
we should discard NiH! The opposite. There are 
persistent reports, and the big problem with the 
entire field has been that there are extremely 
interesting findings that nobody replicates. They 
may be real, they may be artifact. We really need to know!


My favorite example is biological LENR. If 
Vysotskii's work can be confirmed, it could be an 
approach to LENR that would blow all the others 
out of the water. Imagine, biologically 
engineering Nuclear Active Environment. Growing 
cold fusion cells, literally, in culture medium. 
Not to mention other applications Has 
*anyone* tried to replicate Vysotskii? I have 
heard of nothing. This is not difficult work, it 
could be expected. For one approach, one simply 
needs a strain that works, I presume Vysotskii 
would cooperate, and access to a Mossbauer 
spectrometer for a few measurements. Those are not rare.


Hah! The pseudoskeptics think that 
Naturwissenschaften is a biology journal. So, 
where would a Vysotskii replication be published? NW? Not a bad idea.

Re: [Vo]:Direct heating of Celani's wire at EU cell of MFMP