Re: [Vo]:got something
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 10:01:17PM -0400, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: I tried all kinds of gasses on all sorts of filaments Got nothing then something happened with ammonia on tungsten filaments. Can you please describe the detail of your experiment, and what exactly happened? http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/1980/F1/f19807600280 I will get to the bottom of what ever melted my wire. Frank Znidarsic -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org __ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://ativel.com http://postbiota.org AC894EC5: 38A5 5F46 A4FF 59B8 336B 47EE F46E 3489 AC89 4EC5
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: just delusioned and selectively blind like what roland benabou describe I think groupthink is a much better explanation for belief in cold fusion than it is for skepticism. Mainstream science is an extremely diverse and diffuse entity that actually encourages and rewards innovation and novelty and disruptive ideas supported by good evidence. But the True Believers in cold fusion are fairly tightly knit group that discourages dissent, and embraces cold fusion's many inconsistencies. It's the reason so many cold fusion advocates (though not all) accepted such an obviously unlikely claim as Rossi's with almost no scrutiny, and from someone with a history of fraud, but none in physics.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Cude not only fails to see this pattern, he mixes up two numbers: The claim that high loading is correlated to claims of excess heat was made early on, but that bit of alleged intelligence has done nothing to help with the reproducibility or to scale the effect up. In fact, both Storms and McKubre emphasized the importance of loading, but reported only about a watt of power and around 10% excess heat, far below what PF had published earlier. Anyway, it is far more plausible that artifacts are correlated to loading (or to the procedure required to achieve the loading) than that nuclear effects are correlated to loading. Especially when you consider that high loading near the surface will occur well before bulk loading is achieved, and the current wisdom has it that it's a surface phenomenon. And especially since, as Storms points out, in gas loading such high loadings are not necessary. You say (elsewhere) it's impossible that loading can be correlated to artifacts, but when nuclear physicists say it's impossible to induce nuclear reactions in Pd with electrolysis, you say they are being closed-minded, and there may be some exotic reaction no one has thought of. Well, I say you are being closed minded by excluding artifacts, since there may be an exotic artifact no one has thought of. The reality is that the effect doesn't stand out (as you put it), it doesn't scale, and quality reports are becoming scarcer. That fits an exotic artifact better than an exotic nuclear reaction, of which no one can dream up a plausible example, and not for the lack of trying.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The role of correlation and real-world control factors is often overlooked, even by supporters. This is critically important. Cold fusion heat with the Pd-D system is correlated with several control factors, including: * Heat appears with D but not H. * Heat only appears with high loading. In the first place, as Storms points out, neither of those are true. Even in electrolysis, there are claims of heat with H as well, and again as Storms says, probably the main reason the claims are scarcer is because far less effort has been put toward it, mainly because PF thought it was DD fusion. High loading correlation seems to be necessary in electrolysis but not in gas loading, and at the subatomic level it's hard to see why that should make a difference. Here is the critical thing about these control parameters: they cannot affect temperature measurements. They cannot cause an artifact that looks like excess heat. When nuclear physicists say nuclear reactions in that context can't produce measurable heat, they are called closed-minded. Has it occurred to you that you are being closed minded by excluding artifacts that might correlate with loading, or with the procedures required to produce the loading. I'm not saying I can identify a plausible artifact, but then you can't identify a plausible nuclear reaction that fits the observations either. And between them, nuclear reactions are far less likely, in the view of people who actually have experience with nuclear reactions. (Alain: You should use an English spell check program. I depend on one!) A logic and coherence checker would help too.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Cude: I missed the obligatory tritium is claimed to be detected, and no even if it's detected, there could be contamination, accidental or deliberate. That is an absurd cop-out. There are dozens of papers by four top PhDs at the top tritium facility in the World, LANL. Yet Cude wants to suggest that the hundreds of experiments at LANL where tritium is detected are all nothing but measure error - and furthermore that the management of the facility was deceived and continued to fund the researchers for many years. Dozens? Really? Storms lists tritium papers in table 6 in chapter 4 of his book. I count 8 papers from LANL, including two from Storms and Talcott. Rothwell has a few more, which Storms presumably skipped because of difficulty accessing them (e.g. Solid State Fusion Update, Los Alamos), or because they are only presentations (not papers) (e.g. NSF workshop). That's still pretty impressive, until you look a little closer. Most of the papers are conference proceedings, or highly obscure journals that don't even rate a calculation of the impact factor (e.g. Trans Fusion Tech, Infinite Energy). That doesn't exactly scream credibility for what would be a revolutionary result. Secondly, the same authors (Claytor, Menlove et al) also claimed to measure neutrons at levels similar to the SE Jones claims, and those claims were later explicitly retracted. So, working at LANL does not make you infallible. Thirdly, the most prominent of the authors' (Menlove) latest co-authorship appears to be 1991, so he appears to have lost confidence, or why abandon such a ground-breaking experiment. Fourthly, the levels really are very low. It's true that tritium can be detected at reaction rates orders of magnitude below those necessary to produce measurable heat, and surprise, surprise, that's where they are detected. The levels are mostly at a fraction of a nCi with one in the range of a nCi (far lower by the way than the BARC claims in 1989), with sensitivity (they claim) of 0.1 nCi. Higher yes, but why always so close. And they spend a lot of time explaining why the detected ionizing material is tritium rather than an artifact of the instrument or some other isotope. That kind of kills the point of looking for tritium, which was supposed to be at unequivocal levels. But just like heat and neutrons and helium, it too appears at levels that are not far from the noise. Finally, the latest paper from LANL on tritium seems to be 1998, even though they certainly hadn't answered any interesting questions about it, like what reaction produces it. I don't think it's clear how much support they got from management, but the stopping of the experiments without resolving anything, or even getting a decent publication out of it, suggests that either the experimenters themselves lost confidence, or LANL killed it. And isn't one of the usual arguments of mainstream suppression that LANL *didn't* support Storms' research? You can't have it both ways. You can't say: LANL supports LENR research so it must be real, and LANL doesn't support LENR research so they must be corrupt. Unless you are in possession of received truth and so you must fit all observations to fit that truth. If this is such indisputable proof, why is it that intelligent people don't buy it? Do they hate the thought of clean and abundant energy? We know that's not the case from the events of 1989. Once again you're trying to conflate tritium with heat. Good grief. It's the advocates that conflate tritium and heat. No one here would care a whit about tritium for scientific interest. The reason it's brought up is to make the excess heat claims more plausible. You yourself say the results crush skepticism about LENR, so that you can carry on believing excess heat is possible too. Did you read what I wrote? I delineated the two carefully, and explained why tritium would still be important to investigate. Here it is again: Its observation would of course have important scientific implications anyway, and since tritium and cold fusion are both nuclear, there might be some connection, so you would expect people to investigate it. Since it avoids the vagaries of and careful control and calibration necessary for calorimetry, and since tritium can be detected at reaction rates orders of magnitude below those necessary to produce measurable heat, the experiments should be vastly easier and more definitive. And one might expect that to be the main direction of research until at least the tritium question is understood. What factors affect it? How does it scale with the mass, shape, loading, and topology of the Pd, or with the electrolysis or gas-loading conditions, and so on. There's no conflation there. The idea is that if there is a connection (and you agree there is because you classify both as LENR), then it makes sense nail down
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Cude wrote: After 24 years, there is still not an experiment that anyone skilled in the art can do, and get quantitatively predictable positive results, whether it's excess heat, tritium, or helium (or an unequivocally positive result).” Yes, there is. It was published in 1996. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf It's not a description of an experiment, it doesn't predict a quantitative result, and it gives no indication the likelihood of success. In 1989, PF said if you do electrolysis of Pd in heavy water, and you have enough patience, you'll see excess heat. The Storms paper is a kind of collection of observations from many experiments, and he's a little more specific than PF, but basically he still says if you follow these instructions, some of which may not be essential, and there may be other factors, and you have enough patience (which he says explicitly), you'll see excess heat. That's no more of a quantitatively predictable result than PF offered. And of course, with the benefit of this paper, the quality of the results did not improve. Storms never claimed the kind of power PF claimed for example. (And he also recommends flawless crack-free palladium in that paper, whereas now the business is believed to happen in the cracks and flaws.) That's why, *after* this paper, you wrote After twelve years of painstaking replication attempts, most experiments produce a fraction of a watt of heat, when they work at all. Such low heat is difficult to measure. It leaves room for honest skeptical doubt that the effect is real. It's why an executive director at the Office of Naval Research, who had funded experiments by Miles and others said (from a NewScientist article in 2003): For close to two years, we tried to create one definitive experiment that produced a result in one lab that you could reproduce in another,” Saalfeld says. “We never could. What China Lake did, NRL couldn't reproduce. What NRL did, San Diego couldn't reproduce. We took very great care to do everything right. We tried and tried, but it never worked. It's why McKubre said in 2008 that there is no quantitive reproducibility nor inter-lab reproducibility. Even if the effect is small, if it is quantitatively reproducible, then it's possible to use systematic experiments to scale it up like Curie did, or Lavoisier did, and then it becomes credible. But again, a single really prominent effect (especially from an isolated device) would suffice if it were reliable enough so that it can be widely demonstrated, or so that anyone can follow a prescription and with suitable enough devices see the it in a reasonable amount of time. But cold fusion has neither a reliable indisputable demonstration (at any statistical level), nor a more subtle, but statistically reproducible effect that can be carefully studied, and so credibility eludes the field. See also: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDtheenablin.pdf This is a statistical analysis of all the experiments up to 2007. That's the opposite of what I was asking for; namely a single experiment that produces an expected result. I have respect for statistics, but this is nonsense. I'm sure Cravens and Letts could do a Bayesian study of bigfoot sightings and come up with a vanishingly small probability that it's not real, and it would be taken about as seriously. Probably someone's done it. Statistics have an important place, but I think this is sort of thing Rutherford was talking about when he said: if your experiment needs statistics, you should have done a better experiment.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: plate tectonics evidence where overwhelming much before they were accepted. there was explanation for the moving mechanisme decades before. Maybe much before they were universally accepted. Support grew with the evidence, as might be expected. Cold fusion has stagnated at essential rejection for 24 years. Obviously the controversy isn't over. I meant it is comparable to the time when plate tectonics was considered fringe science. It took about 45 years from the time continental drift was first proposed in 1912 to its acceptance. However, the concept is really much older and was first proposed in 1596. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift According to Wikipedia it seems the concept of continental drift wasn't firmly rejected until the mid 19 th century due to certain findings and the influence of James Dana, a prominent geologist of the time. It's not at all comparable because of the very different scales of the phenomena. Cold fusion is a table-top experiment, in which the experimenter is control of all the parameters, and the conditions (pressure, temperature, etc) are easily accessible. Fields like geology, paleontology, and cosmology, yield evidence on a much slower time scale. The big bang theory and black holes and neutron stars were also accepted rather slowly. But it's difficult to come up with a phenomenon on the scale of cold fusion that was rejected for decades and was later vindicated. There is, as described in Hagelstein's essay, Semmelweis, and to a lesser degree there is Ohm, but both of those go back 150 years, when progress was slower, and scientific thought was different. In any case, I'd be interested in a more recent example. People have cited the laser, and quasicrystals, but those were never dismissed to the same degree, and vindication came in a very short time. Van Neumann was skeptical of the laser, but he was persuaded over a beer with paper and pencil. Those large scale theories (big bang etc) represent ordinary competition of ideas, which are resolved as the evidence improves, or a new theory is introduced that accommodates all the evidence. One of the supporters of continental drift also proposed a theory that the earth is expanding. In this, he was wrong, and the mainstream thought was right. So what do these things tell us? That mainstream thought can be wrong. Of course, we know that from the Ptolemaic solar system, and absolute time, and continuous energy, and Lamarckism etc. But surely it doesn't say that mainstream thought *must* be wrong whenever a new idea is introduced, because that rapidly leads to a catch-22. So, can we predict whether mainstream thought is right based on previous phenomena? Well, scientists should obviously make their judgements based on the evidence. As for observers trying to decide what to bet on, the consensus of experts is surely the most likely approximation to the truth. What else is there? The consensus of plumbers? The consensus of your friends? The consensus of true believers of the fringe view? Your own preference? Should we accept creationism, homeopathy, dowsing, telekinesis? Wegener's theory is different from cold fusion in another way. In the case of Wegener's theory, the objections were based largely on gut instincts that forces to move the continents could not exist. There was no scientific evidence for this line of thought, and as you point out, it was kind of recent -- continental drift of some form had been considered much earlier. But with cold fusion, the alleged phenomenon is contrary to copious experimental results that are highly consistent with a robust description of subatomic interactions. Consider this analogy as a kind of reductio ad absurdum: Mainstream thought currently has it that the solar system is Copernican, with evidence so strong as to be as close to truth as one can imagine. If someone came along now and proposed that Ptolemy was right after all, he would be dismissed unless he produced evidence at least as strong as the evidence we have for the Copernican system. It wouldn't matter that the mainstream has been wrong before; no one would believe that they're wrong now. Just as no one takes the flat-earth society seriously just because their view is now opposite to the mainstream. Now, I'm not saying that nuclear physicists are as certain that cold fusion can't happen as astronomers are that the solar system is Copernican, but they are much more certain than most casual observers understand, and their certainty is justified by much more hard evidence than the rejection of Wegener was. And cold fusion will not be taken seriously until the evidence for it is at least as robust as the evidence that suggests it won't happen. And
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:36 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Doesn't answer the question. ***Of course it does. The question was why don't intelligent people believe cold fusion. If the mainstream believed it, then believers would not suffer derision. It just establishes the failure of the evidence. ***No, it establishes the real reason why intelligent people don't get involved in Cold Fusion. The reason for the derision ***Sneering is against the rules here. As important as this forum is, it does not have jurisdiction over mainstream science, which is where the derision I was talking about allegedly takes place. is because intelligent people don't buy your indisputable proof. ***Nope. It's because you're a skeptopath. Others just like to pile on and when we scratch the surface, we find they're utterly uninformed about the evidence. If the evidence were indisputable, the ones who do get informed on DOE panels or journal reviews would be convinced (they're anonymous), and then the masses would take note, become convinced, and it would be 1989 all over. If intelligent people bought it, the skeptics would be the ones whose careers would be dragged through the mud. ***You proceed from an odd form of idealism. Scientists are human. Nothing ideal about it. People that are skeptical of relativity would have no career in physics. People skeptical of evolution would have no career in biology. People skeptical of the mood landing would have no career with NASA.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: interlab reproducibility is still a bitch. ***True enough, but that doesn't make it a pathological science. It makes it a difficult one. Something is not made pathological. Poor interlab reproducibility is characteristic of pathological science.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:42 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: That's a reflection of what mainstream science thinks of cold fusion. It doesn't answer the question of why, if the proof is so obvious, ***Interesting little conditional you've inserted here. The proof is not obvious but the evidence is. With so much evidence, with 14000 replications, the evidence is compelling. This is far from a pathological science. There are a lot of claimed examples of excess heat. They are not replications, because many of the experiments are different, and the levels of claimed heat are all over the map. The question stands. If the evidence is so compelling, why don't intelligent people accept it? A graduate student in science would probably ruin their career by studying astrology or creationism too. It says something about the fields. ***If a grad student in physics were to study astrology, it's obvious they've stepped out of their core competence. But if they want to study Condensed Matter Nuclear Science and LENR, they're within their core competence. It says nothing particularly relevant about the field of astrology. Your ridiculous analogy says something about human nature. Is said science, not physics. A psychology student could propose to study astrology. And a biology student could propose to study intelligent design.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Mainstream does not believe the evidence for cold fusion. Therefore, it is not credible. ***What a ridiculous line of reasoning. It's what the words mean. Credible means believable. If something is not believed, then it is not credible. It can be credible to some and not others, but in the main, it is not credible.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: So, Pons Fleischmann were careless researchers, eh? Yes, sadly. Then how is it that their findings have been replicated 14,700 times? They weren't How did they become 2 of the most preeminent electrochemists of their day before they took on this anomaly? Pons wan't, but Fleischmann was. Smart people can be careless, especially when they are also clueless about nuclear physics, and the potential prize is huge.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: At least I know how to spell his name. ***Gee, that's about as semantically irrelevant as an argument can get. Lighten up. It was a gentle poke, since you were chiding me on not being as great as Arata. He has considerable stature, yes. I don't know how much of that is justified, but it is certainly not due to his work in cold fusion. ***It was due to his work in Nuclear Physics. Are those others representative of cold fusion debunkers?How many debunkers have won their nation's highest honor due to work in Nuke Physics? All the skeptics I listed won the *world's* highest honor for their work in subatomic physics. How many have buildings named after them? Fortunately that's not a criterion, or Donald Trump would be dictating scientific phenomena.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: It's self evident that there are images of an unknown physical entity. ***Wow, you put more credence into bigfoot than cold fusion. Who can deny that some of those photos are not explained? Therefore they are images of an unknown physical entity. It's also self-evident that there are unknown aspects to cold fusion experiments. It's a meaningless statement. But come to it, there probably is more likelihood of a large monster somewhere than there is for cold fusion. But I'm not familiar with the literature. You? Note that National Instruments DID NOT go out on a limb to say what you just did over bigfoot, Like I said. They didn't have to. It's self-evident.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:57 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Again with the semantics. I don't really care what word you use. To me, both polywater and cold fusion are almost certainly bogus phenomena, ... In my vocabulary ... ***Now that your position has been obliterated, you're moving onto Humpty Dumpty definitions. Yet another way we can all see you're full of shit. Sue me. I'm an anti-semantic. I'm not saying cold fusion is bad because it's pathological. I call it pathological because it's bad. Labels provide a shorthand, and allow more economic comparisons to previous episodes. I subscribe to a descriptive grammar, and pathological science has acquired a pretty recognized meaning. It is science of things that are not so, and its main characteristics are the lack of progress and the diminishing publication rate. It is usually contrary to well-established experimental evidence, and it helps if its reality would be a revolutionary advance, raining glory upon its discoverers. Cold fusion fits.
Re: [Vo]:got something
Frank, tungsten has a very high melting point that is lowered by addition of any element to its structure. Tungsten forms a nitride that melts at a much lower temperature than the metal. Why not consider that you simply changed the melting point of the wire, which cause a break in the circuit and a sudden relesse of electrical energy at that location? You really need to consider the chemical reactions that can occur with the gas. If you want to cause CF, you need to try a method that is known to work, not something you think might work. Lots of methods do not work. This does not mean the phenomenon is not real. After all, many materials are not superconductors yet superconductivity exists. Ed Storms On May 9, 2013, at 9:18 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Do you see a charge in conductivity in the wire just before it overheats? Increase conductivity could also cause your tank circuit to increase in frequency. Can you measure for this? On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:52 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: I was applying RF energy 60 to 500 mega hertz to a thin tungsten wire in ammonia at one atmosphere. The ammonia container was very small plastic container to limit any explosion hazard. It was a plastic candy tube from Starbucks. I have done this with many wires, palladium, nickel, copper, nichrome etc. The tungsten wire got hot and blew apart at one point. I don't believe that is was a cold fusion reaction. I believe that the ammonia disassociated near the warm wire and caused some local heating. After doing the experiment many times with hydrogen, natural gas, propane, helium, chlorine, the ammonia tungsten experiment reacted differently. The tungsten wire was extracted from a retro light bulb. I did not like the tungsten because of its high resistance. It did not resonate in my RF tank circuit very well, it tended to damp the RF oscillations. I wish there was more to offer. I am beginning to doubt the results of others as I observed nothing but this. Not much. I could make a battery out of any two metals and a potato for demo purposes. I could not, however, build a high performance high tech battery. I could not demonstrate a low performance cold fusion reaction no matter what I tried. I am beginning to become suspect of the whole field. Frank Z -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, May 9, 2013 6:19 pm Subject: re: [Vo]:got something Frank, A little more information please.. the citation is for reaction rate over a thermal range and for different pressure values. Are you doing an exact replication of same experiment or did you current thru your filament? Tungsten can be melted if you created a Langmuir torch… I do keep an eye on tungsten as a good candidate for LENR because it’s high melting temp could allow smaller more active final geometry if matched with an appropriate alloy.. perhaps you found it if your melting occurred without the electrical arcing normally required for welding :_) Fran http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/AtomicH/atomicH.html Invented by Langmuir in 1926 , this device produces a temperature of 3700 degrees centigrade. Tungsten can be melted, diamond vapourised. A jet of hydrogen gas is dissociated as it passes through an electric arc. H2 H + H - 422 kJ. An endothermic reaction, with the intensely hot plasma core of the arc providing the dissociation energy. The atomic hydrogen produced soon recombines; and this recombination is the source of such high temperatures (easily outperforming oxy-hydrogen: 2800oC and oxy-acetylene: 3315oC). The hydrogen can be thought of as simply a transport mechanism to extract energy from the arc plasma and transfer it to a work surface. It produces a true flame, as the heat is liberated by a chemical reaction. H + H H2 + 422kJ. The molecular hydrogen burns off in the atmosphere, contributing little to the heat output. From the May 1, 1926 issue of The Science News-Letter - ...developed by Dr. Irving Langmuir, assistant director of the Schenectady laboratory, and makes use of what he calls flames of atomic hydrogen Electric currents of 20 amperes and at voltages ranging from 300 to 800 From A Text Book of Inorganic Chemistry, Partington 1946 - Atomic hydrogen. - Langmuir (1912) has shown that hydrogen in contact with a tungsten wire heated by an electric current at low pressure, is dissociated into atoms: H2 = 2H. This splitting of the hydrogen molecule is attended by the absorption of a large amount of energy, about 100kcal per gram molecule. The atomic hydrogen so formed is chemically very active. Langmuir also showed that atomic hydrogen is formed when an electric arc between tungsten electrodes is allowed to burn in hydrogen at atmospheric pressure. The atomic hydrogen was blown out of the arc by a jet of molecular
[Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial 2
Walker wrote: Yes, definitely -- conflation is a critical mistake, but it is most likely to occur when it is convenient for one's position. Throw perpetual motion machines, homeopathy, polywater and cold fusion all into the same category. It does not matter that there appear to be basic differences that make the comparison strained, at best. There are differences of course. Identical analogies serve no purpose. I assume we all agree that homeopathy and polywater and perpetual motion are bogus. And so when someone makes an argument that applies equally to all of them, then the comparison shows why it is not persuasive to someone who also thinks cold fusion is bogus. That's the purpose of analogies. If you want to convince skeptics that cold fusion is real, arguments that apply to perpetual motion won't work.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial 2
Rothwell wrote: Cude and others conflate many different assertions and issues. They stir everything into one pot. You have to learn to compartmentalize with cold fusion, or with any new phenomenon or poorly understood subject. That's nonsense. It's the believers who are forever using tritium and neutrons at ridiculously low levels to prove PF were right. The skeptics are skeptical of both, but are fully aware that even if low level neutrons a la SE Jones were valid, it wouldn't prove PF right. That's why Jones got into nature and PF didn't. Turned out, Jones retracted, until he made claims again. But they're marginal too. In this case, the tritium findings by Storms and soon after at TAMU and NCFI proved beyond doubt that cold fusion is a real, nuclear phenomenon. After they published that 1990 it was case closed. Every scientist on earth should have believed it. Unfortunately computer programmers don't get to tell every scientist on earth how to make scientific judgements. Morrison followed the field in detail until 2001, and he had the background and experience to make credible judgements and he was skeptical. So did Huizenga. And I'd put more credence in the Gell-Manns who considerd it briefly than the Rothwells or Storms who devoted their lives to it, but can't tell a likely charlatan (Rossi) from a scientist or inventor. And if the tritium was so conclusive, why were the results so variable, and given the variability, why has tritium research stopped before anyone settled anything about it? That's not the behavior of scientists. It's the behavior of pathological scientists. The excess heat results proved that it is not a chemical effect, in the normal sense. Perhaps it is a Mills effect. Again, there is so much evidence for this, at such high s/n ratios, it is irrefutable. The helium results support the hypothesis that this is some sort of deuterium fusion, at least with Pd-D. There is no doubt about the helium, but no one has searched for helium or deuterium from Ni-H cells. All the other claims are fuzzy, in my opinion. There is not as much evidence for them. All the results are fuzzy, and the levels are determined by the quality of the experiment. Heat levels comparable to inputs, or chemical background, or typical artifacts. Helium levels comparable to atmospheric background. Neutrons and tritium, for which instruments are far more sensitive, appear at guess what, far lower levels. The point is, DO NOT CONFUSE THESE QUESTIONS. Do not conflate them! Gee. Someone learned a new word, and is gonna get all the mileage he can from it.
[Vo]:News about Rossi from PESN
For what it's worth: http://pesn.com/2013/05/09/9602311_LENR-to-Market_Weekly_May9/ http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Whats-Happened-to-Andrea-Rossi-and-his-E-Cat.html QUOTE from latter: What Rossi and the enthusiasts have learned is it’s a very long path from the lab demonstration unit to production. Mr. Rossi’s credibility has taken quite hit from observers without familiarity in making such a jump. Every little glitch in the scaling that fails has to be worked back, discovered, redesigned or engineered and then the process starts in again. To build the 1-megawatt unit takes 106 reactors, so getting each one built is quite an undertaking for a startup. Meanwhile the company is well, starting up, getting located, equipped, supplied, staffed and all the myriad details to build something. Days means weeks and weeks could be months adding up to years. I could have told them that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:News about Rossi from PESN
Another quote, from: http://pesn.com/2013/05/07/9602310_Interview_with_Andrea_Rossi_About_1-MW-E-Cat-Plant_Delivery/ . . . Early in the interview, Rossi explained that the 1 MW plant that I saw demonstrated on October 28, 2011 was not delivered to the confidential military customer. There were many glitches that needed to be worked through first: hydraulics, distribution, common rail distribution, choice of coolant; didn't have well-balanced distribution of 100+ of reactors. In contrast, he said: The plant as of now is very mature. A separate unit was built for the military customer then shipped, and Rossi said that it has now logged many thousands of hours of run time. He said the data from this plant easily corroborates the guaranteed coefficient of performance of 6 (six times more energy out than what is put in to make it run). The plant that is now on its way to the U.S. customer is an upgraded version of the unit that was demonstrated on October 28, 2011. He just recently (April 30 - May 1, 2013) finished a 24-hour test of the unit before preparing it for shipping; and now, it is somewhere en route. Rossi estimates that it will take about 20 days to transport, and it could be a month before that unit is operational at the customer's facility, where the customer will be selling heat made by the plant. This confirms what I said earlier, that the large box was a 1 MW reactor of the original low temperature design, similar to the one he demonstrated. It has 100 small reactors. That's the claim. It is not a hot cat. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:‘Pathological Science’ is not Scientific Misconduct (nor is it pathological)
Given that the topic is phrases that should be abandoned, can we do away with extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence ? This repellent remark is glibly repeated to justify the bias of whoever happens to be using it. It should be asked, extraordinary to whom? There are large numbers of equally educated people in other cultures such as Brazil or China who have no problem believing in any number of phenomena denied here, as with ESP or UFOs. The phrase should be honestly reworked into I REQUIRE extraordinary evidence. Claims require evidence. Saying extraordinary makes the matter relative and is often associated with deception in switching between the fixed and the relative, as with extraordinary claims... and there is no evidence for [ fill in the blank, UFO's, Cold Fusion, ESP, whatever]. If this phrase was started by Carl Sagan, then I would rather think of him as a brilliant scientist who aided in our appreciation of the Cosmos and not a pothead who cursed us with this foolish 'aphorism'. and and if that sounds ad hominem, I'm sorry.
Re: [Vo]:News about Rossi from PESN
This is easy to understand: it is a long way from the discovery of an enhanced form of excess heat to a stable, well controlled commercial energy source. A long way with many obstacles, barriers and problems that must be solved.Mainly engineering, technology, materials science. However enhanced excess energy is the first, sine qua non step. Rumors circulating about the Professors' Hot Cat report pre-publication text on the Web accessible for very selected persons. Not confirmed yet. Peter On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: For what it's worth: http://pesn.com/2013/05/09/9602311_LENR-to-Market_Weekly_May9/ http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Whats-Happened-to-Andrea-Rossi-and-his-E-Cat.html QUOTE from latter: What Rossi and the enthusiasts have learned is it’s a very long path from the lab demonstration unit to production. Mr. Rossi’s credibility has taken quite hit from observers without familiarity in making such a jump. Every little glitch in the scaling that fails has to be worked back, discovered, redesigned or engineered and then the process starts in again. To build the 1-megawatt unit takes 106 reactors, so getting each one built is quite an undertaking for a startup. Meanwhile the company is well, starting up, getting located, equipped, supplied, staffed and all the myriad details to build something. Days means weeks and weeks could be months adding up to years. I could have told them that. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:‘Pathological Science’ is not Scientific Misconduct (nor is it pathological)
Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: ** Given that the topic is phrases that should be abandoned, can we do away with extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence ? Amen. Here is what Melich and I wrote about this: [DoE 2004 review] claim 1.5. “As many have said, extraordinary results require extraordinary proof. Such proof is lacking.” This is not a principle of science. It was coined by Carl Sagan for the 1980 “Cosmos” television series. Conventional scientific standards dictate that extraordinary claims are best supported with ordinary evidence from off-the-shelf instruments and standard techniques. All mainstream cold fusion papers present this kind of evidence. Conventional standards also dictate that all claims and arguments must be held to the same standards of rigor. This includes skeptical assertions that attempt to disprove cold fusion, which have been notably lacking in rigor. Laplace asserted that “The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness.” “Weight of evidence” is a measure of how much evidence you have, not how extraordinary it is. There is more evidence for cold fusion than for previously disputed effects. (For example, although there were a few hundred papers published about polywater, most were speculative, and only two labs reported success. [8]) Finally, the quality of being “extraordinary” is subjective. What seems extraordinary to one person seems ordinary to another. Many scientific phenomena that experts take for granted, such as quantum effects, seemed extraordinary when they were discovered, and still seem extraordinary to non-scientists. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:got something
Frank, Look at the SEM image of a tungsten filament - 2nd image here http://www.google.com/url?sa=irct=jq=esrc=ssource=imagescd=cad=rjadoc id=Ox10wVsW9nbjvMtbnid=9CZnSD4v8IRcxM:ved=url=http%3A%2F%2Fion.asu.edu%2F descript_depth.htmei=awCNUZ7uIKakiQKglIHgBQbvm=bv.46340616,d.cGEpsig=AFQj CNEe3lCkqxcRM3q-LScX1RC9BfDMcwust=1368281566615817 Under high magnification, you can see the notch which is a typical failure site, and since you removed the filament from a working bulb - it would have been easy to create a number of stress spots and notches from the removal process - which would have much higher resistance to current. -Original Message- From: Eugen Leitl I tried all kinds of gasses on all sorts of filaments Got nothing then something happened with ammonia on tungsten filaments. Can you please describe the detail of your experiment, and what exactly happened? http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/1980/F1/f19807600280 I will get to the bottom of what ever melted my wire. Frank Znidarsic attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:News about Rossi from PESN
On 2013-05-10 15:53, Peter Gluck wrote: However enhanced excess energy is the first, sine qua non step. Rumors circulating about the Professors' Hot Cat report pre-publication text on the Web accessible for very selected persons. Not confirmed yet. I'm not asking for nor expecting any further detail here, but are these rumors from private correspondence with people you trust or did you read this up somewhere on the Internet in the LENR blogosphere? Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Going back to my corner of LENR, if it were not credible then the replication of Dr. Arata's work would not have been published in Physics Letters A. You are not credible. On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 4:48 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: Mainstream does not believe the evidence for cold fusion. Therefore, it is not credible. ***What a ridiculous line of reasoning. It's what the words mean. Credible means believable. If something is not believed, then it is not credible. It can be credible to some and not others, but in the main, it is not credible.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:14 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Who can deny that some of those photos are not explained? Therefore they are images of an unknown physical entity. ***You're trying to twist the original dispute, which is that National Instruments could have gone out on a limb and said such a thing about bigfoot, but they didn't. They DID say it about cold fusion. Note that National Instruments DID NOT go out on a limb to say what you just did over bigfoot, Like I said. They didn't have to. It's self-evident. ***Then it is self-evident that National Instruments considers the evidence for Cold Fusion to be more compelling than for bigfoot. I see you've dropped the argument that such people are not intelligent.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:17 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Sue me. I'm an anti-semantic. I'm not saying cold fusion is bad because it's pathological. I call it pathological because it's bad. ***Now you're back to your own Humpty Dumpty definitions. On top of that, you're being semantic. Labels provide a shorthand, ***Humpty Dumpty definition I subscribe to a descriptive grammar, ***Humpty Dumpty definition. Of course it's going to fit your Humpty Dumpty definition.
Re: [Vo]:News about Rossi from PESN
I have not mentioned it till a second friend has not alluded to the fact that there are people who know what I have asked re the Professors in my blog writings . It can be pure fantasy, but not mine. I think you have better connections in this case. It could be triggered by the optimist predictions of the Swedish ecat.com. Peter On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: On 2013-05-10 15:53, Peter Gluck wrote: However enhanced excess energy is the first, sine qua non step. Rumors circulating about the Professors' Hot Cat report pre-publication text on the Web accessible for very selected persons. Not confirmed yet. I'm not asking for nor expecting any further detail here, but are these rumors from private correspondence with people you trust or did you read this up somewhere on the Internet in the LENR blogosphere? Cheers, S.A. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:‘Pathological Science’ is not Scientific Misconduct (nor is it pathological)
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote: ** Given that the topic is phrases that should be abandoned, can we do away with extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence ? That phrase (or some form of it) is usually attributed to Truzzi, but the sentiment, is simple common sense, and has been part of scientific thought for centuries. Laplace said The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness. And Hume said: A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence. So I think your desire to believe cold fusion without good evidence is not going to outweigh the history of the statement. Extraordinary simply means based on the established scientific generalizations already accumulated and verified. In other words, the evidence for an extraordinary claim should be as strong as the evidence that makes it extraordinary. The evidence for cold fusion should be as strong and robust as the evidence over the past 60 years that suggests it should not happen.
Re: [Vo]:got something
No, an increase in resistance effects the damping in the tuned circuit not the frequency. I adjust the frequency with a high voltage tuning capacitor. I got it from a from a very old transmitter years ago. I shock excite the tuned circuit with a spark to get it oscillating. Yes, I can measure the frequency with my oscilloscope. The scope is 40 Mhz but is can see frequencies (with a blurry trace) up to about 100 megahertz . Frank Do you see a charge in conductivity in the wire just beforeit overheats? Increase conductivity could also cause your tank circuit toincrease in frequency. Can you measure for this? -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, May 9, 2013 11:36 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:got something Do you see a charge in conductivity in the wire just beforeit overheats? Increase conductivity could also cause your tank circuit toincrease in frequency. Can you measure for this? On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:52 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: I was applying RF energy 60 to 500 mega hertz to a thin tungsten wire in ammonia at one atmosphere. The ammonia container was very small plastic container to limit any explosion hazard. It was a plastic candy tube from Starbucks. I have done this with many wires, palladium, nickel, copper, nichrome etc. The tungsten wire got hot and blew apart at one point. I don't believe that is was a cold fusion reaction. I believe that the ammonia disassociated near the warm wire and caused some local heating. After doing the experiment many times with hydrogen, natural gas, propane, helium, chlorine, the ammonia tungsten experiment reacted differently. The tungsten wire was extracted from a retro light bulb. I did not like the tungsten because of its high resistance. It did not resonate in my RF tank circuit very well, it tended to damp the RF oscillations. I wish there was more to offer. I am beginning to doubt the results of others as I observed nothing but this. Not much. I could make a battery out of any two metals and a potato for demo purposes. I could not, however, build a high performance high tech battery. I could not demonstrate a low performance cold fusion reaction no matter what I tried. I am beginning to become suspect of the whole field. Frank Z -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, May 9, 2013 6:19 pm Subject: re: [Vo]:got something Frank, A little more information please.. the citation is for reaction rate over a thermal range and for different pressure values. Are you doing an exact replication of same experiment or did you current thru your filament? Tungsten can be melted if you created a Langmuir torch… I do keep an eye on tungsten as a good candidate for LENR because it’s high melting temp could allow smaller more active final geometry if matched with an appropriate alloy.. perhaps you found it if your melting occurred without the electrical arcing normally required for welding :_) Fran http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/AtomicH/atomicH.htmlInvented by Langmuir in 1926 , this device produces a temperature of 3700 degrees centigrade. Tungsten can be melted, diamond vapourised. A jet of hydrogen gas is dissociated as it passes through an electric arc. H2 H + H - 422 kJ. An endothermic reaction, with the intensely hot plasma core of the arc providing the dissociation energy. The atomic hydrogen produced soon recombines; and this recombination is the source of such high temperatures (easily outperforming oxy-hydrogen: 2800oC and oxy-acetylene: 3315oC). The hydrogen can be thought of as simply a transport mechanism to extract energy from the arc plasma and transfer it to a work surface. It produces a true flame, as the heat is liberated by a chemical reaction. H + H H2 + 422kJ. The molecular hydrogen burns off in the atmosphere, contributing little to the heat output. From the May 1, 1926 issue of The Science News-Letter - ...developed by Dr. Irving Langmuir, assistant director of the Schenectady laboratory, and makes use of what he calls flames of atomic hydrogen Electric currents of 20 amperes and at voltages ranging from 300 to 800 From A Text Book of Inorganic Chemistry, Partington 1946 - Atomic hydrogen. - Langmuir (1912) has shown that hydrogen in contact with a tungsten wire heated by an electric current at low pressure, is dissociated into atoms: H2 = 2H. This splitting of the hydrogen molecule is attended by the absorption of a large amount of energy, about 100kcal per gram molecule. The atomic hydrogen so formed is chemically very active. Langmuir also showed that atomic hydrogen is formed when an electric arc between tungsten electrodes is allowed to burn in hydrogen at atmospheric pressure. The atomic hydrogen was blown out of the arc by a jet of molecular hydrogen
Re: [Vo]:got something
Lots of methods work, not well, not every time, and to such a small degree that the calamity is always in doubt. Supplying atomic hydrogen from the dissociation of ammonia is just another approach. It was worth trying and I got local hot spots. I, like noone else, have been doing experiments with metals and helium at non-thermal frequencies. Nothing anomalous has appeared, yet. The weather is nice and I have got some other things to do now. I am putting my equipment away for the summer. Frank If you want to cause CF, you need to try a method that is known to work, not something you think might work. Lots of methods do not work. This does not mean the phenomenon is not real. After all, many materials are not superconductors yet superconductivity exists. -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, May 10, 2013 9:11 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:got something Frank, tungsten has a very high melting point that is lowered by addition of any element to its structure. Tungsten forms a nitride that melts at a much lower temperature than the metal. Why not consider that you simply changed the melting point of the wire, which cause a break in the circuit and a sudden relesse of electrical energy at that location? You really need to consider the chemical reactions that can occur with the gas. If you want to cause CF, you need to try a method that is known to work, not something you think might work. Lots of methods do not work. This does not mean the phenomenon is not real. After all, many materials are not superconductors yet superconductivity exists. Ed Storms On May 9, 2013, at 9:18 PM, Axil Axil wrote: Do you see a charge in conductivity in the wire just before it overheats? Increase conductivity could also cause your tank circuit to increase in frequency. Can you measure for this? On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:52 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: I was applying RF energy 60 to 500 mega hertz to a thin tungsten wire in ammonia at one atmosphere. The ammonia container was very small plastic container to limit any explosion hazard. It was a plastic candy tube from Starbucks. I have done this with many wires, palladium, nickel, copper, nichrome etc. The tungsten wire got hot and blew apart at one point. I don't believe that is was a cold fusion reaction. I believe that the ammonia disassociated near the warm wire and caused some local heating. After doing the experiment many times with hydrogen, natural gas, propane, helium, chlorine, the ammonia tungsten experiment reacted differently. The tungsten wire was extracted from a retro light bulb. I did not like the tungsten because of its high resistance. It did not resonate in my RF tank circuit very well, it tended to damp the RF oscillations. I wish there was more to offer. I am beginning to doubt the results of others as I observed nothing but this. Not much. I could make a battery out of any two metals and a potato for demo purposes. I could not, however, build a high performance high tech battery. I could not demonstrate a low performance cold fusion reaction no matter what I tried. I am beginning to become suspect of the whole field. Frank Z -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, May 9, 2013 6:19 pm Subject: re: [Vo]:got something Frank, A little more information please.. the citation is for reaction rate over a thermal range and for different pressure values. Are you doing an exact replication of same experiment or did you current thru your filament? Tungsten can be melted if you created a Langmuir torch… I do keep an eye on tungsten as a good candidate for LENR because it’s high melting temp could allow smaller more active final geometry if matched with an appropriate alloy.. perhaps you found it if your melting occurred without the electrical arcing normally required for welding :_) Fran http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/AtomicH/atomicH.html Invented by Langmuir in 1926 , this device produces a temperature of 3700 degrees centigrade. Tungsten can be melted, diamond vapourised. A jet of hydrogen gas is dissociated as it passes through an electric arc. H2 H + H - 422 kJ. An endothermic reaction, with the intensely hot plasma core of the arc providing the dissociation energy. The atomic hydrogen produced soon recombines; and this recombination is the source of such high temperatures (easily outperforming oxy-hydrogen: 2800oC and oxy-acetylene: 3315oC). The hydrogen can be thought of as simply a transport mechanism to extract energy from the arc plasma and transfer it to a work surface. It produces a true flame, as the
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:42 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: That's a reflection of what mainstream science thinks of cold fusion. It doesn't answer the question of why, if the proof is so obvious, ***Interesting little conditional you've inserted here. The proof is not obvious but the evidence is. With so much evidence, with 14000 replications, the evidence is compelling. This is far from a pathological science. There are a lot of claimed examples of excess heat. They are not replications, because many of the experiments are different, and the levels of claimed heat are all over the map. The question stands. If the evidence is so compelling, why don't intelligent people accept it? Why are some intelligent people racist?
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial 2
Sidenote: I'm reminded of one of the great one-liners (and I believe it was uttered by someone on this list if I;m not mistaken: The difference between connecting the dots and conflation is spin On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Rothwell wrote: Cude and others conflate many different assertions and issues. They stir everything into one pot. You have to learn to compartmentalize with cold fusion, or with any new phenomenon or poorly understood subject. That's nonsense. It's the believers who are forever using tritium and neutrons at ridiculously low levels to prove PF were right. The skeptics are skeptical of both, but are fully aware that even if low level neutrons a la SE Jones were valid, it wouldn't prove PF right. That's why Jones got into nature and PF didn't. Turned out, Jones retracted, until he made claims again. But they're marginal too. In this case, the tritium findings by Storms and soon after at TAMU and NCFI proved beyond doubt that cold fusion is a real, nuclear phenomenon. After they published that 1990 it was case closed. Every scientist on earth should have believed it. Unfortunately computer programmers don't get to tell every scientist on earth how to make scientific judgements. Morrison followed the field in detail until 2001, and he had the background and experience to make credible judgements and he was skeptical. So did Huizenga. And I'd put more credence in the Gell-Manns who considerd it briefly than the Rothwells or Storms who devoted their lives to it, but can't tell a likely charlatan (Rossi) from a scientist or inventor. And if the tritium was so conclusive, why were the results so variable, and given the variability, why has tritium research stopped before anyone settled anything about it? That's not the behavior of scientists. It's the behavior of pathological scientists. The excess heat results proved that it is not a chemical effect, in the normal sense. Perhaps it is a Mills effect. Again, there is so much evidence for this, at such high s/n ratios, it is irrefutable. The helium results support the hypothesis that this is some sort of deuterium fusion, at least with Pd-D. There is no doubt about the helium, but no one has searched for helium or deuterium from Ni-H cells. All the other claims are fuzzy, in my opinion. There is not as much evidence for them. All the results are fuzzy, and the levels are determined by the quality of the experiment. Heat levels comparable to inputs, or chemical background, or typical artifacts. Helium levels comparable to atmospheric background. Neutrons and tritium, for which instruments are far more sensitive, appear at guess what, far lower levels. The point is, DO NOT CONFUSE THESE QUESTIONS. Do not conflate them! Gee. Someone learned a new word, and is gonna get all the mileage he can from it.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: The question stands. If the evidence is so compelling, why don't intelligent people accept it? Why are some intelligent people racist? Has to do with self-interest, I think. But it is in nearly everyone's self-interest for cold fuison to be real. And in any case, my question was really why don't *all* intelligent people accept it.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
or rather, why do nearly all intelligent people reject it. On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote: The question stands. If the evidence is so compelling, why don't intelligent people accept it? Why are some intelligent people racist? Has to do with self-interest, I think. But it is in nearly everyone's self-interest for cold fuison to be real. And in any case, my question was really why don't *all* intelligent people accept it.
Re: [Vo]:News about Rossi from PESN -- Rossi Says ecat mouse COP is 100-200
Andrea Rossi May 9th, 2013 at 8:18 PM Dear Tom Conover: We are testing low temperature tigers, for now, of 100 kW. All our reactors now have activator and E-Cat, allowing us an activator with a COP more than 1 and E-Cat with COP in the hundreds. Warm Regards, A.R. - - - Andrea Rossi May 10th, 2013 at 8:36 AM Dear Andrea: The average COP of the activator is 1.02 – 1.1; the average COP of the E-Cat is from 100 to 200. Margin of error about 10%. The activator is turned on for about the 35% of the operation time. This is what we are getting from prototypes working in these days in the USA. Warm Regards, A.R. - - - - Steven N. Karels May 10th, 2013 at 6:01 AM Dear Andrea Rossi, Interesting information on the “Tiger”. You discussed an Activator and an eCat, with COPs of greater than one and greater than 100, respectively. Can you please clarify the following: a. Does the Activator, as its name implies, primarily function during cold start-up? b. After stable operation is achieved, is the Activator primarily inactive? c. As suggested, it appears this eCat has its own control system, with an observed COP of 100 or greater. Please confirm. d. The 200 kilogram “Tiger” is a single reactor outputting thermal power around 100 kW? e. What are the rough dimensions of the “Tiger”? - - - Andrea Rossi May 10th, 2013 at 8:42 AM Dear Steven N. Karels: a- yes, but it drives the cycle of the E-Cat too b- the activator works for about the 65% of the operational time of the system c- yes, 100-200 d- still a prototype, and yes e- the volume is about 0.2 m^3 Warm Regards, A.R. - - - Steven N. Karels May 10th, 2013 at 9:41 AM Dear Andrea Rossi, Please, a little clarification on the Activator. a. If the Tiger eCat has a nominal output of 100kW, does the Activator have a lower output when it is running (e.g., 10kW)? b. After turn-on, is the Activator active 35% or 65% of the operating time? c. Would the average COP of the entire Tiger eCat be equal to the average total power output (eCat plus Activator) divided by the total input power going to the Tiger eCat plus the Activator? - - Andrea Rossi May 10th, 2013 at 10:08 AM Dear Steven N. Karels: First of all, we must make a distinction between the fact that we are working to make bigger modules ( “tigers”) from the fact that we have mofified the configuration of all our E-Cats, putting in a apparatus two components, one of which is the activator and the other the E-Cat. One thing is indipendent from the other. The power of the activator depends on the situations, but being its COP more than 1 the energy of the activator is paid by itself, indipendently from the E-Cat. The activator works for the 35% of the operational time of the system, while the E-Cat works for the 65% of the time. Warm Regards, A.R.
RE: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
I believe there are documented, well attested cases in which some opponents of cold fusion actually refused to read or consider the evidence - or said that they would disbelieve anything reported in its support. This is not unusual. Sheldrake politely reports the same sort of behavior in regard to his treatment by Dawkins on the subject of telepathy. Much the same with O'Bockris.. and Halston Arp and others. I observed the same behavior in regard to Steins' movie Expelled. I accept evolution as fact. However, observing long diatribes against such a work that admit that they had never seen the movie is beneath contempt. I believe that this lack of civility and fair play makes the 'extraordinary evidence' concept into nonsense. Keep in mind that the above doesn't even begin to account for the distortion caused by entrenched moneyed interests. Dr. Greer (of recent UFO exposure notoriety) referred to them as Petro-Fascists - which nicely sums them up. Anyone care to explain how an entire war costing hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives took place when it was entirely triggered by fraud? And hardly anyone seems to care? As scientific thought moves along, the body of work that supports its conservative nature expands in volume. Any exception to generalizations - might always be inferior as to weightor strange, given lack of funding, attention or the outright prejudice that many encounter - in this circumstance of bias. The extraordinary goalposts might always be a distant illusion, especially if the desired effect is subtle or difficult to enlarge. Whatever his flaws ( and they are many) Rossi displays wisdom by attempting an end run around the biased. Godspeed to him in that.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: . But it's difficult to come up with a phenomenon on the scale of cold fusion that was rejected for decades and was later vindicated. There is, as described in Hagelstein's essay, Semmelweis, and to a lesser degree there is Ohm, but both of those go back 150 years, when progress was slower, and scientific thought was different. In any case, I'd be interested in a more recent example. When blood transfusions were first tried (in 17th century?) some were a success and some ended in deaths and nobody knew why. It wasn't explained until the discovery of blood typing in the early 20th century. Until then blood transfusions were prohibited, for good ethical reasons. But surely it doesn't say that mainstream thought *must* be wrong whenever a new idea is introduced, because that rapidly leads to a catch-22. So, can we predict whether mainstream thought is right based on previous phenomena? Well, scientists should obviously make their judgements based on the evidence. As for observers trying to decide what to bet on, the consensus of experts is surely the most likely approximation to the truth. What else is there? The consensus of plumbers? The consensus of your friends? The consensus of true believers of the fringe view? Your own preference? Should we accept creationism, homeopathy, dowsing, telekinesis? Why must a community comprised of intelligent people demonise certain research interests? Harry
[Vo]:Pravda publishes an article on LENR in it's science section.
http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=frsl=autotl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pravda.ru%2Fscience%2Ftechnolgies%2F26-04-2013%2F1153327-termo_cold-0%2F%3Fmode%3Dprint Nice find by Alain Coetmeur, lenr-forum
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
In order to see things the way you do, you ask that 2 of the most careful electrochemists made fundamentally careless measurements. That the physicists who tried the experiments and had no colorimetry experience were able to be more careful than these 2 careful dudes. And that the effect has not been replicated 14,700 times as reported by another careful scientist. You're deluded. On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: So, Pons Fleischmann were careless researchers, eh? Yes, sadly. Then how is it that their findings have been replicated 14,700 times? They weren't How did they become 2 of the most preeminent electrochemists of their day before they took on this anomaly? Pons wan't, but Fleischmann was. Smart people can be careless, especially when they are also clueless about nuclear physics, and the potential prize is huge.
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: Mainstream does not believe the evidence for cold fusion. Therefore, it is not credible. ***What a ridiculous line of reasoning. It's what the words mean. Credible means believable. If something is not believed, then it is not credible. It can be credible to some and not others, but in the main, it is not credible. And there you have itscience by consensus. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial 2
Cude wrote: That's nonsense. It's the believers who are forever using tritium and neutrons at ridiculously low levels to prove PF were right. You just conflated two unrelated things! No one says that tritium proves that PF's claims of excess heat is correct. Tritium cannot prove that calorimety works. That's absurd. It does prove there is a nuclear effect, which is indirect supporting evidence for heat beyond the limits of chemistry. That's not the same as proof. Also the tritium is not at ridiculously low levels. It is at very high levels, easily measured, typically 10 to 50 times background, sometimes millions of times background. It is lower than plasma fusion theory predicts, but no one claims this is plasma fusion. Once again you have conflated unrelated subjects, or redefined things in a way that makes no sense. Easily measured, high sigma levels of tritium are not low because they are lower than an irrelevant inapplicable theory predicts. They would only be low if they are hard to measure. The skeptics are skeptical of both, but are fully aware that even if low level neutrons a la SE Jones were valid, it wouldn't prove PF right. And no one, anywhere, ever said that. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:‘Pathological Science’ is not Scientific Misconduct (nor is it pathological)
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Hume said: A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence. ***Hume also wrote the following, which applies to Joshua Cude, who absurdly claims that Pons Fleischmann were not careful electrochemical experimenters and that the P-F effect has not been replicated 14,700 times as reported by the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Where men are the most sure and arrogant, they are commonly the most mistaken, and have there given reins to passion, without that proper deliberation and suspense, which can alone secure them from the grossest absurdities.
RE: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
It is well that you bring up the subject of medical procedure (transfusions) because this area is loaded with egregious examples of verifiable facts that are ignored - often due to prejudice and moneyed interests. My doctor marvels at my dramatic improvement in blood chemistry but denies that is has to do with a low carb diet. They don't work Do a Google on Vermox and observe how a potentially dramatic treatment against cancer was dropped without explanation. You can read the background on Pub Med, if you have access. They halted production before large scale human tests were done and it was already on the shelf, used to combat intestinal parasites especially in 3rd world countries. It was cheap.. I can remember how the Japanese proved that simple extracts of seaweed can have powerful effects against tumor growth - 30 years ago. From time to time, you'll see the subject pop up in the news - but nothing will ever be done with it. Got Mononucleosis? Clinical studies show that huge doses of vitamin c can stop it in 2-3 days. I know because I've done this twice (swollen glands, low fever, etc) Give it time, we've only known this for a couple of decades! Shall I go on? (sounds like a rant, sorry)
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote: The question stands. If the evidence is so compelling, why don't intelligent people accept it? Why are some intelligent people racist? Has to do with self-interest, I think. But it is in nearly everyone's self-interest for cold fuison to be real. And in any case, my question was really why don't *all* intelligent people accept it. All intelligent people do not have to accept it. However, if a minority of the intelligentsia judge the evidence is compelling it does not give the majority the right to portray the minority as stupid or delusional or as practicing pathological science. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: The question stands. If the evidence is so compelling, why don't intelligent people accept it? Why are some intelligent people racist? Indeed. Willful ignorant often plays a role, as it does in cold fusion. Many of the people most stridently opposed to it take pride in the fact that they have read nothing and they know nothing. This is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation. - Herbert Spencer History is full of large groups of intelligent people who made ignorant errors leading to disasters. Especially military history. Examples include: The U.S. Civil War, World War I, the Battle of the Somme, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and the U.S. invasion of Iraq. See also the excellent document someone posted yesterday, covering the 2008 crash and other recent history: http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Patterns%20of%20Denial%204l%20fin.pdf This has many telling quotes, such as Joseph Cassano, head of A.I.G. Financial Services: “It is hard for us, without being flippant, to even see a scenario within any kind of realm of reason that would see us losing one dollar in any of those transactions...” Looking back, you get the impression that hundreds of thousands of people simultaneously lost their minds on many occasions. I think that is a valid description of what happens. See: Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds http://www.cmi-gold-silver.com/pdf/mackaych2451824518-8.pdf Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one. See also: Barbara Tuchman, The March of Folly - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Then there's Dr. Simoncini ( cancerfungus.com ) that cures cancer with baking soda, but that's too cheap to be credible :-) . From: Chris Zell [mailto:chrisz...@wetmtv.com] Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 11:27 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial It is well that you bring up the subject of medical procedure (transfusions) because this area is loaded with egregious examples of verifiable facts that are ignored - often due to prejudice and moneyed interests. My doctor marvels at my dramatic improvement in blood chemistry but denies that is has to do with a low carb diet. They don't work Do a Google on Vermox and observe how a potentially dramatic treatment against cancer was dropped without explanation. You can read the background on Pub Med, if you have access. They halted production before large scale human tests were done and it was already on the shelf, used to combat intestinal parasites especially in 3rd world countries. It was cheap.. I can remember how the Japanese proved that simple extracts of seaweed can have powerful effects against tumor growth - 30 years ago. From time to time, you'll see the subject pop up in the news - but nothing will ever be done with it. Got Mononucleosis? Clinical studies show that huge doses of vitamin c can stop it in 2-3 days. I know because I've done this twice (swollen glands, low fever, etc) Give it time, we've only known this for a couple of decades! Shall I go on? (sounds like a rant, sorry)
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Cude wrote: Has to do with self-interest, I think. But it is in nearly everyone's self-interest for cold fuison to be real. And in any case, my question was really why don't *all* intelligent people accept it. In 1941, U.S. Adm. Stark said to the Japanese envoy Nomura: If you attack us we will break your empire before we are through with you. While you may have initial success due to timing and surprise, the time will come when you too will have your losses, but there will be this great difference. You not only will be unable to make up your losses but will grow weaker as time goes on; while on the other hand we not only will make up our losses but will grow stronger as time goes on. It is inevitable that we shall crush you before we are through with you. This fact should have been self-evident to every intelligent, educated person in Japan. Why didn't *all* intelligent Japanese people believe this?!? The newspapers in Japan reported how many aircraft carriers and battleships the U.S. was building. This was no secret. The very first knowledge that modern Japanese people had of the U.S., as the country opened up in the 1860s was that the U.S. had just fought a Civil War with 640,000 people killed. It was clear that the U.S. is a militaristic society willing to take enormous casualties in a protracted war. In 1941 it was common knowledge that the U.S. industrial economy was 17 times larger than Japan's, and automobile production 80 times larger. Even if ordinary people did not realize this, why did nearly all Japanese admirals other than Yamamoto fail to see that their cause was hopeless? The answer is that people often make drastic mistakes. Even intelligent people do. It is human nature. They often do things against their own interests. In this case, their actions resulted in the destruction of every major Japanese city and the death of 1.7 million people. The fact that the war could only end with that kind of disaster (or earlier with an unconditional surrender) should have been obvious to every Japanese leader from the Emperor down to every town mayor. It was not obvious because these people were blinded by emotion. So are the people opposed to cold fusion, such as Robert Park and Cude. Facts, logic, analysis, common sense, education, the lessons of experience . . . all are sacrificed when emotions and the primate instinct for power politics take over the mind. This is what history teaches us. Learn from it, or you too will make dreadful mistakes, as George Santayana said. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
It usually transpires that, if some treatment is natural ( unpatentable) or inexpensive, it will never be investigated or established as factual within the medical community. I first caught on to this while reading thru Pub Med and Index Medica documents. It was suggested that polyunsaturated oils (linoleic) could reduce MS attacks. The idea was given one small, deeply flawed ( later admitted) test. Meanwhile, interferon therapies were repeatedly tested and managed to produce mere marginal results - leading to drug approval. It appeared that they were testing til they got an answer they liked. Observing this changed me because I began to understand how profit driven interest can distort science. Money often determines what is 'true' and by contrast, what is 'false' or at least non-credible to supposed experts. By the way, there may be evidence that large doses of vitamin D might be as effective as any of the highly expensive ABC drugs used in MS. MS patients can now take Tysabri but at least the drug company admits that the drug kills some patients ! Oops. Sometimes life reminds me of a Woody Allen sketch in which a man is caught in bed with another woman and persists in denial even as she puts her clothes back on in front of his protesting wife. After the woman leaves in haste, he starts saying, what woman?. The wife gives up.
Re: [Vo]:Pravda publishes an article on LENR in it's science section.
finding of david to be honest, I relayed. 2013/5/10 Teslaalset robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=frsl=autotl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pravda.ru%2Fscience%2Ftechnolgies%2F26-04-2013%2F1153327-termo_cold-0%2F%3Fmode%3Dprint Nice find by Alain Coetmeur, lenr-forum
Re: [Vo]:Dark Lightning
And now some dark Lovecraftian creature from lightning: http://whofortedblog.com/2013/05/04/hell-it-bizarre-organism-appears-lightning-strike/
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
I wrote: The fact that the war could only end with that kind of disaster (or earlier with an unconditional surrender) should have been obvious to every Japanese leader from the Emperor down to every town mayor. I would like to explore this dreadful history a little more, because I know a lot about it. I have read books by people on both sides, and spoken with many Japanese people who lived through the war as adults. That is a vanishing generation so I'd like to record a few more thoughts about them. This is relevant to the history of cold fusion. First, there is no doubt that in 1941 intelligent people at all levels of society enthusiastically supported the war. Why? Because they were sure they would win. It never crossed their minds they might lose. (I am talking about 1941. By 1943, people began to wonder if they might lose.) Yes, some people later wrote in magazines, I was one of the few who knew we would lose right from the start. Most were liars, or kidding themselves. Honest, intelligent people who in later years become professors or captains of industry told me: I was sure we would win. I knew it would be tough, but I was sure we would win. They believed the propaganda. Even the people who wrote the propaganda believed it! Cude and others have often said: If there was any chance cold fusion is real, of course smart people would support it. Everyone wants to see zero-cost energy. Then they say, since smart people do not support this research, that proves there is nothing to it, and no chance it will result in new technology. This is scrambled logic. There was a similar group dynamic in Japan. People said, in effect: Look, top admirals such as Yamamoto and our invincible soldiers have never lost a war in 6,000 years. We crushed the Russians in 1905. If there were any chance of defeat, our Emperor would not lead us into war. Trust the experts! Defeat was unthinkable. Cude, Frank Close, the editors at Scientific American and others are not worried that they might be holding back a valuable technology. They are not afraid they will become a laughingstock, or portrayed as evil people in history. I cannot read minds, but I can read what people write. I am confident that thought has *never crossed their minds*, any more than most Japanese people stopped to wonder if they might lose the war. Not once, since 1989, have the hard core skeptics stopped to wonder whether they might be wrong. If they had, they would hedge their bets, as some skeptics have done, saying: Well, I don't think it will work, but if others want to research it, let them have some funding. If they had any doubts, they would not risk the damage to their reputation or the damage to society that derailing cold fusion has caused. They are as certain it is wrong as I am certain that creationism is wrong. They are sure it is fraud and error, and that allowing any research, at any level, is wicked. It would be a disgrace to science. (I don't go quite that far in my opposition to creationism!). They are serene in their assurance, the way Sam Harris is in this video, Not Being Indoctrinated Into Christianity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxTc_bpW0FA In 1941, most people in Japan felt that questioning the government or even feeling in your heart of hearts any doubt about victory was wicked. Disgraceful! The public supported the Military Police, which rounded up dissidents, imprisoned, tortured and killed them. There were not many dissidents. People thought those damned dissidents got what was coming to them. Many Americans felt that way about anti-war protesters during the Vietnam war and in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. Along the same lines, when Zimmerman and Park announced at the APS that they would root out and fire any federal researcher who tried to do cold fusion research, or even talk about it, they were met with a standing applause by a large crowd of PdD physicists. Those people were convinced this research is pathological, morally wrong, a waste of money, and a disgrace to science. It MUST NOT be allowed. They feel as strongly about this as I feel that it should be allowed. Not one of member of this audience raised a dissenting voice or asked a question such as Wait a minute . . . what about academic freedom? What if these people are on to something? It never crossed their minds they might be wrong. It probably still has not crossed their minds. They fully agree with the APS guy who wrote: While every result and conclusion [cold fusion researchers] publish meets with overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, they resolutely pursue their illusion of fusing hydrogen in a mason jar. . . . That is not hyperbole. They mean it. This is the mindset of the skeptical opposition. This is what they write, and say, at every opportunity. They are not pretending this is their point of view. Cude is not being disingenuous or intellectually dishonest in anything he has written here. He means every word, and he is
RE: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
Apparently, you have presented a true example (Park et al) of pathological science !
Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
In reply to Eric Walker's message of Thu, 9 May 2013 20:49:04 -0700: Hi, [snip] On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:47 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Eric Walker's message of Mon, 6 May 2013 18:21:16 -0700: Hi, [snip] If that fails, because, for example, Robin shows overwhelming evidence that the experimenter would be harmed by secondary EMF if there were watts of 4He's being generated (setting neutrons aside), I will feel compelled to consider one of these alternatives: Where did I do this? I was hoping you try to model this scenario -- it was a request! ;) If you can show that a flux of alphas produced by several watts of d+d reactions (dumping the energy to kinetic energy of the alphas) will be sure to cause EMF that will escape from a reactor housing, that will allay concerns on my part that this idea has been too hastily adopted as an assumption. By contrast, if you were to model the situation and determine that any secondary radiation (apart from neutrons) is unlikely to escape, or that the question is difficult to determine, that will egg me on in thinking that a basic assumption in some of the cold fusion reasoning has been flawed. I am thinking of trying to model the system myself, but it looks complex. Eric If you are thinking about Ron's model, then the alphas will have at least 22.9 MeV. The alpha itself can only travel a distance of microns through a solid or liquid, but with an alpha that is that energetic, there are going to be secondary reactions. i.e. a few direct fusion reactions of the alpha with other nuclei, and also production of spallation neutrons, some of which will escape, and some of which will fuse with other nuclei to create excited states that decay via gamma radiation. Suppose that about 1/1 alphas creates a spallation neutron (there is some experimental evidence to suggest that this figure is in the ballpark). A power output of 1 W would require 2.6E11 reactions / sec, which at a rate of 1 in 1, implies about 2.6E7 spallation neutrons / sec. That in turn implies a gamma source of about 7E-4 Ci, if all of the neutrons are absorbed, and each reaction only creates a single gamma. However most neutrons will escape, and more than one gamma / reaction is likely, which tend to compensate one another, so 1E-4 Ci of gamma radiation should be (very) roughly in the ballpark. Note that a smoke detector carries a radiation warning, and it's only 1 micro-Curie of alpha radiation at about 5.5 MeV which isn't enough to liberate neutrons from most isotopes. In short a 1 W reactor would produce about a 100 times more dangerous gamma radiation than a smoke detector produces (almost) harmless alpha radiation (as long as the 241Am not ingested or inhaled). My radiation dosage calculator says:- Activity: 1E-4 Ci Distance: 2 m Lead shielding: 2 cm Received dose rate: 0.01 mr/hr Unshielded dose rate: 0.025 mr/hr Where I live, the background rate is about 0.018 mr/hr. In short, very roughly, a 1 W unshielded power source would double the background rate. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Dark Lightning
DARPA first attempt at quantum teleportation via dark energy of a human volunteer... On Friday, May 10, 2013, Terry Blanton wrote: And now some dark Lovecraftian creature from lightning: http://whofortedblog.com/2013/05/04/hell-it-bizarre-organism-appears-lightning-strike/
[Vo]:nano crystals slip thru nanotubes with constrictions smaller than the crystal itself!
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/may/01/how-nanocrystals-squeeze-through-nanotubes [snip] Researchers in the US have made a remarkable discovery about how an iron nanocrystal moves through a carbon nanotube that does not have a uniform diameter. They found that if the crystal meets a constriction in the tube, the crystal reforms, atom by atom, to fit through the constriction, without undergoing any melting or compression. According to the researchers, this behaviour could have many applications in nanomechanics and could possibly be used to synthesize small nanoparticles. Scientists already knew that metallic nanocrystals can be made to travel through carbon nanotubes (CNTs) if a current is applied to the tube. The crystal moves in the direction of the electron flow and can easily be made to move back and forth by switching the polarity of the current, while the speed of the movement depends on the current magnitude. Indeed, this has been tested with numerous metallic nanocrystals including copper, tungsten and gallium. This is of particular interest to those developing nanoscale actuators or memory devices, and for the removal of minute impurities from within the metal crystal. Previously, most of the CNTs used to study this electromigration were smooth and had a constant inner-diameter hollow core. But if for some reason the CNT narrowed down at some point, such that the nanocrystal was now bigger than the tube itself, it was assumed that the crystal would block the tube until it melts and flows through as a liquid. Slipping through Surprisingly, what Sinisa Coh and colleagues from the University of California, Berkeley, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found was very different. The metallic nanocrystals, while remaining solid and crystalline, somehow managed to slip through the narrow passage while not being deformed. Rather, the researchers found the crystal deconstructing and reforming within the narrow passage, at the atomic scale. The team watched the movement of iron nanocrystals with a high-resolution electron microscope. Electron diffraction measurements verified that the crystals did not melt or experience compression. ...[/snip] I propose the crystal is contracting in a Lorentzian like manner.. the nanotubes 20nm nominal inner diameter is already in the active region for Casimir effects.. we already know catalytic action occurs at opening and defects in nano tubes from a paper by Peng Chen at Cornell. We also know that catalytic action [think skeletal catalysts like Rayney nickel] is the result of changes in Casimir geometry. What these gentleman are doing with their nano crystals is equivalent to backfilling a cavity with another conductor.. if the constriction is smaller than the crystal itself, then my posit is that the inverse cube of the distance between the surfaces causes a huge but balanced suppression of longer vacuum wavelengths...so much so that the difference in wavelength populations relative to us outside the tube is on the same scale as an observer on a near luminal space ship would perceive relative to us sitting nearly stationary on earth. This article further convinces me that SR can also be achieved through vacuum suppression with little cost for construction and no need for exponential amounts of energy to spatially accelerate an object. Fran
Re: [Vo]:Pravda publishes an article on LENR in it's science section.
Interview with Yuri Bazhutov -- ICCF-13 chairman
Re: [Vo]:RE: From Russia, with love
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:21 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In short, very roughly, a 1 W unshielded power source would double the background rate. Thank you for the numbers. Twice background doesn't sound like all that much; presumably this is near the threshold of detection, and a signal would be easy to swamp out with noise? The alphas would be Ron's alphas, at 22.9 MeV. I'm trying a thought experiment where the secondary spallation neutrons are somehow minimized -- I don't have an explanation for why this would be the case at this point, but I'm curious anyway. The setup I'm thinking of is something like this: | air | glass | heavy water | cathode surface | active region | cathode interior | Here the cathode surface is assumed to be very thin. In the scenario I'm trying to better understand, where the spallation neutrons are somehow avoided, I'm wondering what the activity would like like from the vantage point at the far left, at air. The alphas could potentially travel for quite a while through the cathode before encountering a lattice site, I think I remember reading, during which time they will dissipate energy by way of low-level EMF. I assume that EMF will be stopped by the cathode surface, the heavy water and the glass, before reaching the air -- is this a mistaken assumption? Like you say, there will no doubt be inelastic collisions, metastable nuclei and gammas. But assuming little neutron activation, do you have a sense of what the activity would be like outside of this kind of shielding? The question I'm trying to get at is whether we can say for sure that the number of energetic particles (in this case alphas) in the cold fusion experiments is not commensurate with heat. It seems like this might be a hasty conclusion, but this is just a hunch at this point. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial 2
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: There are differences of course. Identical analogies serve no purpose. I think they're the most powerful. :) I assume we all agree that homeopathy and polywater and perpetual motion are bogus. And so when someone makes an argument that applies equally to all of them, then the comparison shows why it is not persuasive to someone who also thinks cold fusion is bogus. That makes sense. If you want to convince skeptics that cold fusion is real, arguments that apply to perpetual motion won't work. Again, this makes sense. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: To the Japanese in 1941, Americans seemed outlandish. To the skeptics who agree with Cude or Close, we are the ones disconnected from reality. We are illogical and even mentally ill thinking that we can fuse hydrogen in a mason jar. I do not think it does any good getting angry at such people. It is important that you understand their mindset. ***Okay, Jed. What we need as a group is a minimum set of facts that we agree are incontrovertible. I would think it is that Pons Fleischmann were careful electrochemists, the preeminent of their day. That the physicists who chose to debunk their findings were far from careful due to inexperience in electrochemistry and this led to their negative findings. That there have been 14,700 replications of the P-F anomolous heat effect. If not, then how many? 180, as per Storms and National Instruments? What are the base minimum set of facts that we all agree on?
