date:20130513

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:00 PM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote:

 On Sat, 11 May 2013, Joshua Cude wrote:

 I'm not interested in an inaccessible (non-archived) list like vortex-b,
 so
 I'll just slink away. I may post a few responses to Rothwell's latest
 replies over on wavewatching.net/fringe if they tolerate it.


 [...]
 I push the crackpot-friendly aspect as a long-time experiment in
 Provisional Acceptance of crazy hypotheses.  Currently in science, at
 least where weird topics are concerned, we instead operate with a
 philosophy of Provisional Disbelief, where we allow the evidence convince
 us to change our minds.



But that's not the case for cold fusion, where provisional acceptance was
the order of the day in 1989. Where Pons got a standing ovation, and
scientists everywhere went to their labs to get in on the revolution.


Where even eventual uberskeptic Douglas Morrison wrote: … I feel this
subject will become so important to society that we must consider the
broader implications as well as the scientific ones […]  the present big
power companies will be running down their oil and coal power stations
while they are building deuterium separation plants and new power plants
based on cold fusion.….


That's called provisional acceptance. It didn't stand up though.


(I know I said I'd slink away, but many of the responses here are about
argument style and so on, so I think it's legitimate to reply to some of
them. I still plan debunking replies to some of Rothwell's longer posts,
but I'll put them elsewhere.)

Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: J. Cude, extensive Rule 2 violations

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:


 I would not call Cude articulate.


How could you. You said yourself, you don't read what I write. It would be
presumptuous to give an opinion about something you haven't read.



 As McKubre often says, I could do a better job as a cold fusion skeptic
 than any of the skeptics.


It's a pity he (or you) can't do a better job as a cold fusion advocate.
Because the mainstream does not believe cold fusion is real. So the
skeptics are doing a pretty good job. If McKubre (or you) can do a better
job as skeptics, then that just means the mainstream would be even more
convinced. I'm not sure how this helps your case.

I know of actual weaknesses in the experiments, whereas Cude makes up
 stuff, reiterates assertions that was proved wrong in 1990, and refuses to
 address substantive technical issues such as McKubre's Fig. 1.



I've not made anything up, anything I've reiterated has not been proved
wrong to anyone's satisfaction except a small band of true believers, and I
addressed the loading correlation twice, but how would you know, since you
don't actually read what I write.



 I do not think Cude is a credit to the hardcore skeptics. But then, I do
 not know anyone else who is. This is like expecting someone to be a
 credible spokesperson for the Flat Earth Society.



You've got this backward. The flat earth society rejects the mainstream
view, just like cold fusion true believers.

Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: J. Cude, extensive Rule 2 violations

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:


  If you think there is merit to a skeptical point of view, why don't you
  write about it?

 Which would be in violation of Rule 2, as well.


 Not at all. You can see many harsh critiques of cold fusion theory and
 experiments here in recent weeks, such as the debates between Beene and
 Storms.



Not the same thing at all. Catholics argue about doctrine, but not about
the existence of God. I don't particularly object to a the idea of a
believer site, but Leitl is right here, that points of view critical of the
reality of LENR are not welcome here (independent of the rules).

Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: J. Cude, extensive Rule 2 violations

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote:


 From reading the exchanges here and on other forums, I have the
 impression (my 'verdict') that the evidence for lenr is
 either:

 anecdotal ('all the water boiled out of the bucket!';'there
 was a terrific explosion!' - that sort of report), but that the
 events can not be repeated;


 As McKubre shows, the events have been repeated. See:

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



It shows that many groups claim excess heat, but he admits in the paper
that the experiments are not reproducible, in that some teams see nothing,
different results are seen in different labs, and inconsistent results are
seen in the same lab with similar samples.




 They cannot be scaled up safely because they cannot be controlled.



Implausible excuse. There are ways to protect yourself against hundreds of
times more power or energy than observed in the biggest claims in cold
fusion. The plausible reason they don't scale up, is because when they do,
the effect doesn't get bigger.





 in fact, according to Cude, claims have been scaled down over
 the years.


 That is correct. The cathodes are much smaller, for various reasons. The
 ratio of heat to the mass of the cathode is much higher, however.


The main reason is because it gives confirmation bias a much better chance
when small errors can represent large *relative* effects.





 Despite the cries here that nobody (I assume that means taxpayers)
 will give money to allow lenr enthusiasts . . .


 We are hoping that funding will be made available to professional
 scientists, not enthusiasts. We would like to see a situation in which a
 professional scientist with tenure can apply for a grant and not have
 authorities call him up and threaten to shut down his lab or deport him.



Has this happened to Duncan, Hagelstein, Kim, Dash…? Because, if not, then
we have such a situation.



 In other words, we favor traditional academic freedom, and the freedom to
 do research the other scientists and the public thinks has no merit.




This freedom exists, but if the other scientists you're talking about
includes nearly all other scientists, it would be an insane system that
provides public funding for something that has no merit by nearly unanimous
opinion. There is competition for funding after all, and merit is the main
criterion.


 to do the job they could
 do if they had more money, I find it hard to believe that if there
 was anything to the lenr effect, that some way of exploiting it
 would not have been found since PF in 1989.


 Why do you find it hard to believe this is difficult? Many other subject
 are difficult, after all.



Because it's a small-scale experiment and the claim is a dramatically large
energy density. That's the claim to fame, after all.



 Billions have been spent on plasma fusion with not significant progress
 towards commercialization.



But the proof-of-principle was established at the beginning. And this is a
difficult, large-scale experiment -- its difficulty and scale being
precisely the reason cold fusion is so attractive, if only it worked.



 There has not been much progress in HTSC which was discovered at about the
 same time as cold fusion, even though HTSC got a lot more funding.



From the claim to acceptance of proof-of-principle required a tiny fraction
of what has been spent on cold fusion, which still does not have acceptance
of proof-of-principle.




 In fact, the Japanese gave PF a lab and x million dollars and a
 couple of years to repeat their original supposed lenr effect, and
 they could not do it.


 That is incorrect. The achieved high reproducibility, routinely triggering
 boil offs in 64 cells at at time. The work culminated with cells that ran
 for weeks at boiling temperature, at 40 to 100 W. See:

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



Nothing like routinely triggering boil-offs in 64 cells is reported in
that paper. That paper reports excess heat in 2 or 3 cells out of 7, and
it's a sloppily prepared conference proceeding with sentences that aren't
finished, missing section headings, errors in the correlation between
figures and the experiment number in the table, sketchy and incomplete
information, absence of raw data in favor of processed excess power and so
on.


It's a pathetic example of a scientific report, and it is the *only* thing
that came out of the tens of millions spent by Toyota. It's no wonder
Fleischmann's name is not on it; he was probably ashamed.


There's a reason people put more weight on refereed papers. It saves
duplication of effort in trying to penetrate poorly presented results. In
any case, Pons knew the importance of refereed publication, and so failure
to achieve that is significant.


The paper promises more papers on more careful experiments (taking account
of recombination and so on), but nothing more was ever published, even

Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: J. Cude, extensive Rule 2 violations

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:

 The existing level of good research almost certainly proves than nuclear
 reactions can occur at low temperature.



No. That's manifestly wrong. If it almost certainly proves it, then experts
who examine it would say that. But 17 of 18 of the DOE panel said the
evidence was *not* conclusive, and the mainstream continues to disbelieve
it. Therefore it is *not* proven.



 To be in denial of that evidence by skeptics is no more than intellectual
 dishonesty.



No. You're the one who's dishonest. By saying it's proven, when it's not.
Proof by assertion is not proof at all.



  Look at Blacklight Power after running through maybe $80 million. Are
 they close to market?


They're not even close to proving they have an effect.



 BTW the need for enriched isotopes explains why many visitors - notably
 Krivit, were not shown a working device.


No one was shown a working device, where by working I mean a device that
proved nuclear reactions were producing heat.


 The Rossi reactor may sometimes work with the natural ratio of nickel-62,
 which is under 4% - but it is hit-or-miss.


No. It's a miss or miss more.



 The need for isotopic enrichment explains many things in the Rossi saga.


No it doesn't. It's just a wild ass speculation to rationalize his failures.

Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: J. Cude, extensive Rule 2 violations

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 I wrote an entire book in order to place the evidence in one place and to
 show how it relates to the claims.


In 2007. The world's view was not changed by it, and it's obvious why. The
evidence as reported in your book makes cold fusion less plausible.




 If you do not know enough science to read and understand this collection,
 than you have to accept somebody's word about what it says. You are then in
 the position of believing either Cude or me or Jed,  based on which of us
 sounds more plausible.



He is in the position, as are funding agencies, of accepting the judgement
of the vast majority of experts (like the DOE panel and most Nobel
laureates who have weighed in) or a small ragtag band of true believers.




 Cude will win that argument because he says what you already believe and
 he says it very well.


I think the point is that this would not be possible if there were credible
evidence for cold fusion. No amount of polemic can make high Tc
superconductivity look bogus, for example.

Cude will simply say the work describes error and I will say it does not.
 How will you judge which of us to believe?


It's not that the errors are necessarily obvious, especially from written
reports, and can be exposed one at a time. It's that if the claims were
true, the demonstrations would get better, as they invariably do with real
phenomena. But instead they get worse, and less frequent, as is typical of
pathological science. Some claims that Rothwell likes to repeat are so
outrageously high (100 W with no input), that unequivocal demonstrations
like the Wrights' flight should be easy to do, and yet when 60 minutes did
a piece on cold fusion, they had nothing to show other than Duncan doing a
calculation in a notebook.


So how to judge which to believe? Look at what's come since. Does it make
sense that in a decade or two since whatever evidence you talk about, there
is so little (if any) progress?



 Until you can buy a CF device from Wall Mart, I suspect you will not know
 what to believe.


That's the problem. Is there a single phenomenon that was not believed
until a commercial product was released? This is just the silliest argument
among many very silly arguments from the true believers.

Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: J. Cude, extensive Rule 2 violations

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 I think it is rude for him not to address substantive points raised by
 others, such as McKubre Fig. 1.



I did. Twice. I know it's easier for you to ignore what I write, and then
attribute made-up arguments to me you think you can address, but if you're
looking for an example of rudeness, that's it.



 Also, for example, he asked a legitimate question:

 In any case, my question was really why don't *all* intelligent people
 accept it.

 I made a serious effort to answer that question with an important example
 from history, of intelligent people who rejected what should have an
 irrefutable fact: that the U.S. would win an all-out war.




Come on. You were just showing off. If you read the rest of my post, you'd
realize I was making the point that war-time bravado and sociological
decisions made in the heat of war are not the same as dispassionate
decisions made by scientists over a period of many years. That you dig up
that sort of example shows that there aren't any in the science arena.

Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: J. Cude, extensive Rule 2 violations

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:


 I think many people have expressed highly skeptical view of BLP, Rossi
 and others here. I think most of this skepticism is justified!





And yet you have said:  Rossi has given out *far* more proof than any
previous cold fusion researcher. […] That test is irrefutable by first
principles.


If skepticism of Rossi is justified, then according to your statement,
skepticism of the whole field is justified.

Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: J. Cude, extensive Rule 2 violations

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

   Their method is assertion rather than trying to advance
 mutual understanding of the basic facts to be understood: there are no
 convincing experiments, there is zero credible evidence, every experimental
 result lies beneath the threshold of detection, and, by implication, there
 are no cold fusion researchers who can carry out a credible experiment.
  Here there has been little to no attempt to understand the history or the
 details of actual experiments.  It's all over-broad generalization.




You do seem to like arguing about arguing. But if you read the arguments,
they do go beyond the simple assertion that the experiments are all wrong.


I really think rehashing the details of all the experiments over 20 years
would be a pointless exercise that would serve no purpose. This has been
done -- with DOE panels and reviews of grants and journals etc -- and most
scientists don't buy it.


For casual observers, which I think includes most of the participants, it
is possible to get a sense of the credibility of the evidence by making
some general observations.


So, for example, when Jones Benes argued that the tritium evidence was the
bee's knees, he made no argument about specific results, but rather, based
the argument on LANL's reputation. My reply was not mere assertion but a 5
point argument that dismantled his claim, and used LANL's reputation
against cold fusion. In brief, it was that (1) the papers were all
conference proceedings, (2) the same authors retracted neutron results, (3)
Menlove jumped ship, (4) at the end the claimed levels were low, mostly
near background, and (5) LANL abandoned the experiment in 1998 without a
single respectable publication, and not a hint of the work on their web
site.


Similar arguments can be made about the tritium results in general. In
particular, why is no one doing them anymore, considering nothing
interesting about them has been settled.

Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: J. Cude, extensive Rule 2 violations

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:


 To be concrete, I think the issue is primarily one about attention to
 detail and to questions of burden of evidence.  It's fine to be skeptical
 of the tritium evidence, for example.  But if one is going to argue against
 it, one is going to have a lot of work to do.  One will have to show how
 each tritium result in each experiment was wrong or questionable, in
 specific detail; i.e., the burden of evidence (on this list, at any rate)
 will be on the person arguing against tritium having been found in some
 LENR experiments.


Again, I think that's nonsense. It's not possible to find errors in
experiments, just by reading reports, especially when they are incomplete
conference proceedings, as is the case for most of the tritium results. It
would be a lot of guessing and would not advance the discussion. But the
absence of glaring errors does not make a claim credible. What's needed is
credible replications and some kind of visible progress.


In the case of the tritium results, they vary by *ten* orders of magnitude,
and no two labs get the same results or even consistent results themselves.


I already argued why the LANL results are not persuasive. Likewise, BARC
claimed high tritium results within weeks of the 1989 press conference
using Pd-D, and then 2 years later they were claiming levels 5 orders of
magnitude lower using H-Ni. What happened to Pd?


Then you have Bockris's results were also very high, but were challenged as
fraudulent. He was cleared in a hearing, but there was a *hearing*, rather
than having the question settled in the lab. Can you imagine if someone had
accused Mueller and Bednorz of fraud when they claimed high temperature
superconductivity? They would have simply invited the accuser, or
adjudicator, or his charge, to the lab, and they would have said, OK, Yup,
it works. Or they could have called up *anyone* else in the field on the
planet, and they could have said: Yup, it works, they're OK. Tritium
results are supposed to be so obvious, but they had to have a hearing to
determine if someone contaminated the experiment.


You also have McKubre in 1988 confidently stating that tritium is not
observed in electrolysis experiments.


As with heat (or neutrons), the situation is no clearer with tritium now
than it was 20 years ago. The levels have largely decreased over time, and
in the last decade, there has been very little activity on the tritium
front, which again, fits pathological science, and puts those early results
-- some already under suspicion -- in serious doubt. To my mind, if they
can't resolve the tritium question in some kind of definitive and
quantitative way, there is no hope for heat.



   It's simply that one can't get away with a facile statement to the
 effect that there is no reliable evidence that the tritium findings are
 not contamination, etc. and expect it to advance anyone's understanding.
  It's just a dogmatic assertion, since there are specific reasons to think
 it's wrong.



See above. That's not what I've done. I've said that if there were reliable
evidence, the tritium saga would have played out differently, and not just
slowly disappeared from the scene.

Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: J. Cude, extensive Rule 2 violations

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:


 How many replications does it take to ensure an effect is real?

 Everyone will have a different answer. A knowledgeable person will want to
 look at the papers, and evaluate the skills of the researchers, the choice
 of instruments, the signal to noise ratios and so on. For an experimental
 finding as surprising as cold fusion, I think most people will demand 5 or
 10 quality replications from professional labs. What constitutes
 quality is partly matter of opinion.



Exactly. And the prevailing opinion is that there are *no* quality
replications. When PF claim 140 W output with 40 W input with one type of
calorimetry, and McKubre gets 1 W out with 10 W input, that's not a quality
replication.


 I would say that by 1990 there were so many replications of heat and
 tritium that any continued doubts were irrational.



Right, so Gell-Mann, Lederman, Glashow, Huizenga, Koonin, Lewis, etc etc
can all be dismissed with a simple statement from a computer scientist as
being irrational.




 A Bayesian analysis sheds some light on this.



No. It really doesn't. A big pile of marginal results makes it look more
pathological, not less.

Re: [Vo]:Why you should believe the Toyota Roulette data

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 I have often cited this paper, which describes the final results from
 Toyota's lab in France:



The results were presented in 1996. The lab closed in 1998. How could they
be final, unless they got nothing in the last 2 years.



 FAKE. This was published by Toyota researchers at conference sponsored by
 a Japanese government agency (NEDO). It would be out of character for
 Toyota or NEDO to countenance fake data. They would surely know it is fake.



I don't know if they were fake, but between out-of-character and
revolutionary physics, the former is more likely, especially in view of the
subsequent shut-down of the lab, and absence of any subsequent comparable
results.




 MISTAKE. As you see in the paper, the temperatures were high and easy to
 measure, and the input to output ratio was high. I do not think there is
 any chance this was a mistake.



But it was inferior calorimetry, and it used boiling water. Rossi is a
master at the boiling water fake, getting a factor of 7 out of it. Pons
only managed a factor of 2 or so.

Re: [Vo]:Why you should believe the Toyota Roulette data

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:


 The most important factor in a cold fusion experiment is the choice of
 host metal; the Pd cathode in this case. As Miles showed in Table 10, if
 the person doing the experiment is skilled, the success rate varies from
 zero to 100% depending on the material.



Really? You need skill to get a success rate from 0 to 100%? I should think
it would take skill to get outside that range.





 The Pd at Toyota was supplied by Johnson Matthey (JM). As shown in Miles
 Table 10, JM material in the 1990s was FAR better than anyone else's. It
 worked 100% of the time and it produced 10 to 100 times more power.


Hmm. Not in my version. As I read it, he lists 17/28 as the success ratio
for the JM cells. And the power ratio can be anything from zero to
infinity, depending on which cells you pick. But the power density was as
high as 15 W/cm3, and the highest from other Pd was 2.1, so about 7 times
more comparing peak to peak.


 Martin Fleischmann understood that. He knew that before he began the
 experiments in the 1980s, because -- as he told me -- I told JM what I was
 looking for, and they gave me this Pd. He was a complicated person but
 sometimes he used the direct approach.

 The point is, when it began to smell like a trillion dollar market, both
 sides decided they wanted all the marbles. That often happens in business.

 That's the story I heard anyway. A typical cold fusion tragic fiasco. You
 don't know whether to laugh or cry.



I think an incredulous smirk is appropriate.



 So, JM knows. Or knew. The people there who knew are retired or dead.



Very convenient for true believers, but Fleischmann lived for a long time
after. Couldn't he just go and tell someone else what he was looking for?
You know use that direct approach that worked before.




 Clearly, the fix was in. They did not want any excess heat. My gut feeling
 is that they wanted it when the project began but by the time Miles was
 there, they had given up hope and they wanted to close the program down.



Because who wants clean abundant energy? Who wants to save the world? Who
wants honor glory fame. No one wants that!

Re: [Vo]:Palladium vs Ni-62

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


 First, palladium is rare and the price is extremely sensitive to demand. It
 could double overnight and has done so, historically. There is no chance of
 it going down.


On the other hand, half of it is used in catalytic converters, which will
not be needed in the long run, so supplies will be freed up. Still, there
probably is not enough to produce all the energy we need. To make optimum
use of the metal 24 hours a day, most would be in central generators. In
this scenario we would use conventional electric cars, and heat pumps or
resistance heating for space heating.

With Ni or Ti, you can put the metal into the automobile and leave it
unused 23 hours a day. We could not afford to do that with Pd.



 Then there is deuterium, which is also costly.


No, it is cheap per megajoule of energy it produces, assuming it produces
about as much as plasma fusion. It is likely to get much cheaper because
the biggest cost component is energy. You can bootstrap to lower costs.
Also, cheaper methods have been discovered but not implemented, because
there is not much demand.

If high purity (99.999%) is needed it might be expensive. 99.7% pure heavy
water is much cheaper.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: J. Cude, extensive Rule 2 violations

I wrote:

A brand new type of measurement, or one made with an experimental new type
 of instrument, may be open to question.


That was the situation with polywater. That is why it took a couple of
years to determine it was caused by contamination. The results were very
close the limits of sensitivity, unlike cold fusion.

- Jed

[Vo]:Some harsh rejection may be caused by fear of failure

William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote:

. . . since disbelief is itself a strong bias, what happens if we test the
 opposite technique, and provisionally accept weird topics in order to study
 them?Just try it, and everyone attacks you: You actually BELIEVE in
 that crap?!!  ANYONE WHO TAKES THAT STUFF SERIOUSLY IS A CRACKPOT.


Yes, there does seem to be a strong reaction to provisional acceptance of
strange ideas, or what you might call accepting an idea for the sake of
argument.

I suppose this is because of social pressure to conform. I feel it is also
caused by fear of failure.

Here is something that has been widely observed in investments, business
decisions, safety and so on. When people are presented with an opportunity
on one hand or a threat of equal magnitude on the other, they do more to
avoid the threat than they would to take advantage of the opportunity.
Along the same lines, they are often irrationally unwilling to forgo sunk
costs in an investment. Suppose you invest in the stock and lose $1000.
Your stock is beginning to recover and increase in value. You might feel
unwilling to sell and shift the money out into a better opportunity that is
likely to earn $1000 more quickly than the stock you now own.

In research, suppose a fairy godmother gives you two choices:

1. You can investigate 10 conventional ideas. None will embarrass you but
only one or two are likely to pay off, and not by much.

2. You can investigate 10 strange ideas. Nine of them will turn out to be
completely wrong, to the extent that you will be hugely embarrassed in the
eyes of your colleagues. One, however, is likely to be correct and will
have a large payoff. There is no guarantee, but this is likely.

I think most people will play it safe and go with option one. They are more
concerned with the downside of wasting time and looking foolish than they
are with the potential upside of making a major discovery.

Martin Fleischmann and Stan Pons were the kind of people who would go with
option 2. They told me so, and you can see that is what they did. They were
fully aware of the trouble they were getting themselves into.

People seem afraid of failure these days perhaps more than they did decades
ago. Young people put off getting married and having children and making
other commitments. I think some of them seek perfection and they want to be
sure things will work out. When I was young I did not think twice about
getting married or having children. It never crossed my mind to worry about
the consequences. I'm not a fool. I knew that these things sometimes end
badly, but that life is full of peril. Nothing ventured nothing gained.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: J. Cude, extensive Rule 2 violations

I would say a proper debunking of polywater requires more than detecting
the presence of contaminants.
The concentrations of the contaminants has to be large enough to bring
about the property changes.
Were the concentrations measured?
If the concentrations are too small then polywater could still be real from
the standpoint of homeopathy.

Harry


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 I wrote:

 A brand new type of measurement, or one made with an experimental new type
 of instrument, may be open to question.


 That was the situation with polywater. That is why it took a couple of
 years to determine it was caused by contamination. The results were very
 close the limits of sensitivity, unlike cold fusion.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why you should believe the Toyota Roulette data

2013-05-13 Thread Rich Murray

Zounds!  So, at first scan, the Toyota results are never presented in
precise details of procedures, materials, people, runs, results, control
runs, micro and nano level studies of changes in the Pd, throrough
measurements of impurity and isotopic shifts, radioactives, radiations, no
archived samples of the magical
Johnson Matthey Pd for future study -- just rambling, poorly referenced
fantastic yarns -- impossible to replicate -- in all these hundreds of
successful runs have not one scientist saved pristine and used samples of
JM Pd?  I visited Storm's house on a hilltop in Santa Fe in maybe 1996, and
saw dozens of pieces of shiny Pd fragments in his lab -- aren't the chaotic
conditions at Toyota fairly ideal for producing inadvetent or deliberately
faked false positives, a la Rossi and BlackLight Power?

Very reasonable, cautious, open-minded agnostics can not be expected to
accept this story as convincing.

The Pd at Toyota was supplied by Johnson Matthey (JM). As shown in Miles
Table 10, JM material in the 1990s was FAR better than anyone else's. It
worked 100% of the time and it produced 10 to 100 times more power.
Nowadays the ENEA might have caught up. I wouldn't know about that. Anyway,
back then JM knew how to make this material and everyone else was guessing
and shooting in the dark. Tanaka Precious Metals was trying to figure it
out. If they had listened to Storms they might have done better. JM learned
how to make this material in 1930s, for their palladium filters. It happens
the two applications have similar requirements.

The JM Pd has existed for over 70 years?  Wouldn't someone in the world
have some?  Why not do a global search for it?

How about giving us the full text for the report with Miles Table 10 ,
along with Joshua Cude's comments about it...  It worked 100% of the time
and it produced 10 to 100 times more power.   Huh?

Is this the paper -- doesn't have a Table 10

A search on Table found:

My previous research on anomalous effects in deuterated materials (cold
fusion) at China Lake, California and sponsored by the Office of Naval
Research, produced excess power levels of 100300 mW with a high of 520 mW.
The excess power density was typically 15 W/cm3 of palladium. Only 28 out
of 94 different experiments produced excess power (30% success), but the
success ratio was high for PdB alloys (88%) and Johnson-Matthey palladium
samples (61%) as shown in Table 10 of Ref. 1 (p. 42). The success ratio
however, was very low for many other palladium materials.

1. M.H. Miles, B.F. Bush and K.B. Johnson, Anomalous Effects In
Deuterated Systems, NAWCWPNS TP 8302, 98 pp., Naval Air Warfare Center
Weapons Division, China Lake, CA. U.S.A., September 1996.
pp. 1-98 (September 1996).
See also Infinite Energy, Vol. 315  No. 16 pp. 35-59 (1997).

http://coldfusion-miles.com/presentations.html  ?

Can someone give a link to this 98 page report?


http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMnedofinalr.pdf  42 pages no photos

NEDO FINAL REPORT
ELECTROCHEMICAL CALORIMETRIC STUDIES
OF PALLADIUM AND PALLADIUM ALLOYS
IN HEAVY WATER
Dr. Melvin H. Miles
NEDO Guest Researcher
NHE Laboratory
3-5 Techno-Park 2-Chome Shimonopporo
Atsubetsu-ku, Sapporo-004, Japan
DATES:
October 23, 1997 to March 31, 1998
PRESENT ADDRESS:
Dr. Melvin H. Miles
Department of Chemistry
University of La Verne
1950 3rd Street
La Verne, California 91750
909-593-3511 Ext. 4646
mmi...@ulv.edu - work
Work Fax: 909-392-27

Bewildered by the beach, in Imperial Beach, 10 miles south of San Diego,

within the fellowship of service,  Rich Murray








On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:41 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:


 The most important factor in a cold fusion experiment is the choice of
 host metal; the Pd cathode in this case. As Miles showed in Table 10, if
 the person doing the experiment is skilled, the success rate varies from
 zero to 100% depending on the material.



 Really? You need skill to get a success rate from 0 to 100%? I should
 think it would take skill to get outside that range.





 The Pd at Toyota was supplied by Johnson Matthey (JM). As shown in Miles
 Table 10, JM material in the 1990s was FAR better than anyone else's. It
 worked 100% of the time and it produced 10 to 100 times more power.


 Hmm. Not in my version. As I read it, he lists 17/28 as the success ratio
 for the JM cells. And the power ratio can be anything from zero to
 infinity, depending on which cells you pick. But the power density was as
 high as 15 W/cm3, and the highest from other Pd was 2.1, so about 7 times
 more comparing peak to peak.


 Martin Fleischmann understood that. He knew that before he began the
 experiments in the 1980s, because -- as he told me -- I told JM what I was
 looking for, and they gave me this Pd. He was a complicated person but
 sometimes he used the direct approach.

 The point is, when it began to smell like a trillion dollar market,

RE: [Vo]:Palladium vs Ni-62

2013-05-13 Thread Jones Beene

From: Jed Rothwell 
 
Then there is deuterium, which is also costly.

No, it is cheap per megajoule of energy it produces,
assuming it produces about as much as plasma fusion. It is likely to get
much cheaper because the biggest cost component is energy. 

This reminds me of a 15 year old invention - which seemed doable at the time
- as a way to convert a version of the heavy-water electrolysis reaction
into electricity. Had anyone been able to move Pd-D to the hundred watt
level, an associate was going to try to patent it. That never happened for
two reasons.

In 2011 - Robert Lynn, who apparently is somewhat of an expert on the
subject gave a summation of the options of LENR conversion. In general:

1)  Micro-turbines (Capstone et al) have low efficiency compressor and
turbines and under 100kW probably won't work at all until the temperatures
are 600°C, and then only with very low efficiency (15%).  MW scale might
get up to  20%.

2)  Micro steam turbines are very inefficient, (steam's high specific
heat requires multi-stage due to blade speed limits) and with small sizes
are far more prone to water erosion damage.  They also require huge
condensers (radiators) unless running total loss with water.

3)  Reciprocating steam engines are at best 20% efficient, and then only
for very intricate and large triple expansion engines, same large condenser
problem.

4)  Organic Rankine is also very inefficient, but by picking a fluid
with lower heat of vaporization and greater molecular mass (lower specific
heat) can get away with single stage.  May be best of a bad lot, but again
need large condensers.

5)  Stirling cycle is incredibly expensive ($3000/kW @1kW, $500/kW
@30kW) and heavy (10-20kg/kW) due to high precision + no lubrication.  Low
piston speeds mean big expensive generators.  Also big radiators required.

At the time he posted this, I had forgotten about the hybrid cycle
invention. It would be nice to vet it, since it could have a fatal flaw as
well - but essentially, it used the waste heat from micro steam with steam
electrolysis for synergy. 

With LENR, since the heat is essentially free - one is less concerned with
efficiency, so long as there is some gain - and so long as it scales up. The
problem has been scale-up.

I will post the hybrid cycle concept separately in another posting.

Jones


attachment: winmail.dat

[Vo]:Song: Keep An Open Mind

Keep An Open Mind

by Hampus Ericsson.

https://soundcloud.com/hampus-ericsson/keep-an-open-mind#play

The song is about what it is like to follow Rossi's work.
Good music and lyrics!

Harry

RE: [Vo]:Some harsh rejection may be caused by fear of failure

2013-05-13 Thread Chris Zell

For some years, before the crash in '08, I practised this sort of idea in stock 
market investing - picking nothing but poorly known, speculative stocks. I did 
very well even though 4 out 5 stocks usually failed, as the 5th more than made 
up for the small losses incurred selling out of the failures.

It's an interesting approach to life.  But not to everyone's taste.

Re: [Vo]:Why you should believe the Toyota Roulette data

2013-05-13 Thread Alain Sepeda

note that the role of impurities seems well known, and probably linked
to crystallography
http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?706-DARPA-Navy-Research-Labs-PdD-impurities-amp-LENR
Dominguez:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/papers/Dominguez-Anomalous-Results-Slides-ICCF17.pdf

and that article from ENEA may explain why:
http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?616-ENEA-paper-ICCF15-(2009)-Cristallography-conditionshighlight=cristallography
Violante: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ViolanteVevolutiona.pdf

This is in my opinion one of the best evidence that this is real. Anayway
that is a personal opinion, given the hundred of best evidence that are
published already...

Anyway I like it because fraud follow easy path.

Note to some people more realist than me:
of course all is faked, because it was done by people who believed in LENR,
of believe afterward.
No people believing in LENR may be trusted.
thus no trusted researched accept LENR.
QOD.
more simple to decide. Especially if you have no money to win/lose if LENR
is real.

2013/5/13 Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com

Zounds! So, at first scan, the Toyota results are never presented in
precise details of procedures, materials, people, runs, results, control
runs, micro and nano level studies of changes in the Pd, throrough
measurements of impurity and isotopic shifts, radioactives, radiations, no
archived samples of the magical
Johnson Matthey Pd for future study -- just rambling, poorly referenced
fantastic yarns -- impossible to replicate -- in all these hundreds of
successful runs have not one scientist saved pristine and used samples of
JM Pd? I visited Storm's house on a hilltop in Santa Fe in maybe 1996, and
saw dozens of pieces of shiny Pd fragments in his lab -- aren't the chaotic
conditions at Toyota fairly ideal for producing inadvetent or deliberately
faked false positives, a la Rossi and BlackLight Power?

Very reasonable, cautious, open-minded agnostics can not be expected to
accept this story as convincing.

The Pd at Toyota was supplied by Johnson Matthey (JM). As shown in Miles
Table 10, JM material in the 1990s was FAR better than anyone else's. It
worked 100% of the time and it produced 10 to 100 times more power.
Nowadays the ENEA might have caught up. I wouldn't know about that. Anyway,
back then JM knew how to make this material and everyone else was guessing
and shooting in the dark. Tanaka Precious Metals was trying to figure it
out. If they had listened to Storms they might have done better. JM learned
how to make this material in 1930s, for their palladium filters. It happens
the two applications have similar requirements.

The JM Pd has existed for over 70 years? Wouldn't someone in the world
have some? Why not do a global search for it?

How about giving us the full text for the report with Miles Table 10 ,
along with Joshua Cude's comments about it... It worked 100% of the
time and it produced 10 to 100 times more power. Huh?

Is this the paper -- doesn't have a Table 10

A search on Table found:

My previous research on anomalous effects in deuterated materials (cold
fusion) at China Lake, California and sponsored by the Office of Naval
Research, produced excess power levels of 100–300 mW with a high of 520 mW.
The excess power density was typically 1–5 W/cm3 of palladium. Only 28 out
of 94 different experiments produced excess power (30% success), but the
success ratio was high for Pd–B alloys (88%) and Johnson-Matthey palladium
samples (61%) as shown in Table 10 of Ref. 1 (p. 42). The success ratio
however, was very low for many other palladium materials.

1. M.H. Miles, B.F. Bush and K.B. Johnson, “Anomalous Effects In
Deuterated Systems”, NAWCWPNS TP 8302, 98 pp., Naval Air Warfare Center
Weapons Division, China Lake, CA. U.S.A., September 1996.
pp. 1-98 (September 1996).
See also Infinite Energy, Vol. 315 No. 16 pp. 35-59 (1997).

http://coldfusion-miles.com/presentations.html ?

Can someone give a link to this 98 page report?

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMnedofinalr.pdf 42 pages no photos

NEDO FINAL REPORT
ELECTROCHEMICAL CALORIMETRIC STUDIES
OF PALLADIUM AND PALLADIUM ALLOYS
IN HEAVY WATER
Dr. Melvin H. Miles
NEDO Guest Researcher
NHE Laboratory
3-5 Techno-Park 2-Chome Shimonopporo
Atsubetsu-ku, Sapporo-004, Japan
DATES:
October 23, 1997 to March 31, 1998
PRESENT ADDRESS:
Dr. Melvin H. Miles
Department of Chemistry
University of La Verne
1950 3rd Street
La Verne, California 91750
909-593-3511 Ext. 4646
mmi...@ulv.edu - work
Work Fax: 909-392-27

Bewildered by the beach, in Imperial Beach, 10 miles south of San Diego,

within the fellowship of service, Rich Murray

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:41 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

The most important factor in a cold fusion experiment is the choice of
host metal; the

Re: [Vo]:Hagelstein's editorial

On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

 or rather, why do nearly all intelligent people reject it.


 I know a lot about this, because I have access to the traffic data at
 LENR-CANR.org. The answer is:



reply on wavewathing.net/fringe by popeye

Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: J. Cude, extensive Rule 2 violations

2013-05-13 Thread Kevin O'Malley

It is a judgement call.
***Then, since this is Bill Beaty's forum, it is up to him to come up with
the set of facts that we consider to be the watershed between debunkers and
small-s skeptics.  I have posted what I consider to be the base set and
will proceed from it until Bill weighs in.  Others can characterize my
approach as churlish all they want, but I don't see them putting in a base
set of facts.  Sneering against vorts IS against the rules, but being
'churlish' when someone blithely walks over a base set of facts is not
against the rules.

How many replications does it take to ensure an effect is real? 
Somewhere between 10 replications and 180, it becomes irrational to deny
the effect is real. Is that number 15? 20? 50?
***We can proceed with the same probability math I used upthread.  If one
considers it to be 1/3 chance of generating a false-positive excess heat
event, then you take that 1/3 to the power of how many replications are on
record. That's the probability of it being an artifact, and it will be far
less than the mathematically designed probability of 10^-50 regardless of
what number of replications are settled upon.Let's say it's 30 labs and
they've replicated it 10 times per lab (It's highly doubtful that 30 labs
would replicate it only once each lab).  Then it's (1/3)^300.  Joshua Cude
thought it was better than 5/6 chance of false-positive, which has never
happened in the history of science and would be a great phenomenon to
investigate in and of itself.  Also,  he never gives a figure of how many
replications have made it under the wire, because then he would have to
admit that this is not really a pathological science.  So all we really
need is for Bill to weigh in on how many replications are considered
obvious.   And what the chances of generating false-positives are.  From
my readings, the number of true false positives appears to be far less than
1/100.  Perhaps Ed can shed some light on this.

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:

 We need to know where to draw the line. Which facts do we consider so
 obvious that when someone denies them, they're a debunker rather than small
 's' skeptic.


 It is a judgement call.

 Science is objective, yet at the finest level of detail, it is a judgement
 call. It has a strange duality. The key question has always been:

 How many replications does it take to ensure an effect is real?

 Everyone will have a different answer. A knowledgeable person will want to
 look at the papers, and evaluate the skills of the researchers, the choice
 of instruments, the signal to noise ratios and so on. For an experimental
 finding as surprising as cold fusion, I think most people will demand 5 or
 10 quality replications from professional labs. What constitutes
 quality is partly matter of opinion.

 Somewhere between 10 replications and 180, it becomes irrational to deny
 the effect is real. Is that number 15? 20? 50? Only you can decide, but I
 would say that by 1990 there were so many replications of heat and tritium
 that any continued doubts were irrational.

 A Bayesian analysis sheds some light on this. (See Johnson and Melich).
 Still, deciding exactly where you draw the line becomes a little like
 Mandelbrot's question: how long is the coast of England? The closer you
 look, the fuzzier it becomes.

 - Jed

[Vo]:Crystals of Time

Viewpoint: Crystals of Time

Researchers propose how to realize time crystals, structures whose
lowest-energy states are periodic both in time and space.

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/116

quote Time crystals may sound dangerously close to a perpetual motion
machine, but it is worth emphasizing one key difference: while time
crystals would indeed move periodically in an eternal loop, rotation occurs
in the ground state, with no work being carried out nor any usable energy
being extracted from the system. Finding time crystals would not amount to
a violation of well-established principles of thermodynamics. If they can
be created, time crystals may have intriguing applications, from precise
timekeeping to the simulation of ground states in quantum computing
schemes. But they may be much more than advanced devices. Could the
postulated cyclic evolution of the Universe be seen as a manifestation of
spontaneous symmetry breaking akin to that of a time crystal? If so, who is
the observer inducing—by a measurement—the breaking of the symmetry of
time? end quote


Comment: If the time crystal continues to beat at the same rate despite
being measured then it  violates the second law of thermodynamics.


Harry

Re: [Vo]:Crystals of Time

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:

 Viewpoint: Crystals of Time

 Researchers propose how to realize time crystals, structures whose
 lowest-energy states are periodic both in time and space.

 http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/116

 quote Time crystals may sound dangerously close to a perpetual motion
 machine, but it is worth emphasizing one key difference: while time
 crystals would indeed move periodically in an eternal loop, rotation occurs
 in the ground state, with no work being carried out nor any usable energy
 being extracted from the system. Finding time crystals would not amount to
 a violation of well-established principles of thermodynamics. If they can
 be created, time crystals may have intriguing applications, from precise
 timekeeping to the simulation of ground states in quantum computing
 schemes. But they may be much more than advanced devices. Could the
 postulated cyclic evolution of the Universe be seen as a manifestation of
 spontaneous symmetry breaking akin to that of a time crystal? If so, who is
 the observer inducing—by a measurement—the breaking of the symmetry of
 time? end quote


 Comment: If the time crystal continues to beat at the same rate despite
 being measured then it  violates the second law of thermodynamics.


 Harry


Also, if a system can produce endless amounts of information but no useful
energy, that should be enough to call it a perpetual motion machine!
THE MEANING OF MOTION IS NOT REDUCEABLE TO ENERGY.
harry

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Says ecat mouse COP is 100-200

2013-05-13 Thread Alan Fletcher

I can't figure out how Rossi claims a COP of 100-200

May 12th, 2013 at 9:59 PM
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=802cpage=9#comment-694786

Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
Please don’t go too far: just, for now, let’s limit to what I wrote about the 
Activator/E-Cat cycle. Please read carefully what I wrote. More than that is 
not possible to get, so far. Our basic module is made by an apparatus in which 
we have 2 components: an activator, which consumes abour 900 Wh/h and produces 
about 910 Wh/h of heat. This heat activates the E-Cat and then goes to the 
utilization by the Customer, so that its cost is paid back by itself. This 
activator stays in function for the 35% of the operational time of the syspem 
of the apparatus. The E-Cat, activated by the heat of the Activator, works for 
about the 65% of the operational time, producing about 1 kWh/h without 
consuming any Wh/h from the grid. Combining these modules we can make E-Cats of 
1 kW , 10 kW, 100 kW, 1 MW , respectively, of power.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

- - - 

   kWh/h
mouse output0.91
ecat output 1.00

total output1.91
total input 0.90

Total COP = total output/input  2.12

Re: [Vo]:Crystals of Time

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote:

 Viewpoint: Crystals of Time

 Researchers propose how to realize time crystals, structures whose
 lowest-energy states are periodic both in time and space.

 http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/116

 quote Time crystals may sound dangerously close to a perpetual motion
 machine, but it is worth emphasizing one key difference: while time
 crystals would indeed move periodically in an eternal loop, rotation occurs
 in the ground state, with no work being carried out nor any usable energy
 being extracted from the system. Finding time crystals would not amount to
 a violation of well-established ruprinciples of thermodynamics. If they can
 be created, time crystals may have intriguing applications, from precise
 timekeeping to the simulation of ground states in quantum computing
 schemes. But they may be much more than advanced devices. Could the
 postulated cyclic evolution of the Universe be seen as a manifestation of
 spontaneous symmetry breaking akin to that of a time crystal? If so, who is
 the observer inducing—by a measurement—the breaking of the symmetry of
 time? end quote


 Comment: If the time crystal continues to beat at the same rate despite
 being measured then it  violates the second law of thermodynamics.


 Harry


 Also, if a system can produce endless amounts of information but no useful
 energy, that should be enough to call it a perpetual motion machine!
 THE MEANING OF MOTION IS NOT REDUCEABLE TO ENERGY.
 harry



reducible
It seems google spell check does not underline spelling mistakes if you
type in caps.

harry

[Vo]:A Terawatt is a large power factor

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.0331

Spontaneous and Stimulated Raman Scattering near Metal Nanostructures in
the Ultrafast, High-Intensity regime



This paper explains how nanoantennas amplify electric fields through Stokes
and anti-Stokes field conversion.



Stokes and anti-Stokes scattering is the way materials convert photons to
less and more energy states.

* the material absorbs energy and the emitted photon has a lower energy
than the absorbed photon. This outcome is labeled Stokes Raman scattering.

* the material loses energy and the emitted photon has a higher energy than
the absorbed photon. This outcome is labeled anti-Stokes Raman scattering.

The energy difference between the absorbed and emitted photon corresponds
to the energy difference between two resonant states of the material and is
independent of the absolute energy of the photon.

The spectrum of the scattered photons is termed the Raman spectrum. It
shows the intensity of the scattered light as a function of its frequency
difference Δν to the incident photons.

The locations of corresponding Stokes and anti-Stokes peaks form a
symmetric pattern around Δν=0. The frequency shifts are symmetric because
they correspond to the energy difference between the same upper and lower
resonant states.

The intensities of the pairs of features will typically differ, though. It
depends on the population of the initial state of the material, which in
turn depends on the temperature.

In thermodynamic equilibrium, the upper state will be less populated than
the lower state. Therefore, the rate of transitions from the lower to the
upper state (Stokes transitions) will be higher than in the opposite
direction (anti-Stokes transitions). Correspondingly, Stokes scattering
peaks are stronger than anti-Stokes scattering peaks. Their ratio depends
on the temperature (which can practically be exploited for the measurement
of temperature).

This paper explains how electric fields are amplified by Stokes and
anti-Stokes gains saturate.


In this paper we show that by using sub-picosecond pulses and by allowing
the system to depart from the ground state, a number of effects never
discussed before in this context are triggered: (i) population inversion
may occur within the hot spots; (ii) Stokes and anti-Stokes gains saturate;
(iii) the transition to what we refer to as the fully nonlinear or
stimulated regime occurs in a switch-like fashion reminiscent of a bistable
state, as predicted conversion efficiencies jump by an additional twelve
orders of magnitude beyond the enhancement achievable in the spontaneous
emission regime.


Then, within each hot spot the local field intensity can reach values of
several tens of TW/cm2, which may suffice to trigger ionization effects and
plasma formation that we have not considered here, but that we realize
could introduce additional, unforeseen effects


Take note:

When the radiation of photons is suppressed in a dark mode, the energy is
stored in a photon population inversion to a higher energy state and


conversion efficiencies jump by an additional twelve orders of magnitude


Then, within each hot spot the local field intensity can reach values of
several tens of TW/cm2



It seems to me that a Terawatt is a large power factor to start off with
for a non-optimized system.

Re: [Vo]:Why you should believe the Toyota Roulette data

Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote:

. . . in all these hundreds of successful runs have not one scientist saved
 pristine and used samples of JM Pd?


I am sure they did save them. The people at JM told me they did.



 Very reasonable, cautious, open-minded agnostics can not be expected to
 accept this story as convincing.


Then don't believe it. It is no concern of mine whether you believe it or
not. I would point out though, that the version of this story you do not
believe is embellished by you with many improbable imaginary details, such
as JM not saving the cathodes, or the notion that no one can buy the
material now. I wouldn't believe that version either!


The JM Pd has existed for over 70 years?  Wouldn't someone in the world
 have some?  Why not do a global search for it?


No need. As I said, it is the kind they use for palladium hydrogen filters.
People at NASA and BARC used those filters directly inside Milton Roy
hydrogen purifiers. They reported it worked very well.

In the 1990s, JM changed the formula for the filters. The newer material
probably works just as well as the older one did, but no one I know has
tested it. After Martin retired, he and I asked JM to make some of the old
formula Pd. They said they would be happy to, but the minimum order was 1
kg for $50,000 and we did not have that kind of money. We could not find
anyone else interested in pitching in. By that time the ENEA was making
pretty good material.



 How about giving us the full text for the report with Miles Table 10 ,
 along with Joshua Cude's comments about it...  It worked 100% of the
 time and it produced 10 to 100 times more power.   Huh?


Table 10 is right here, big as life, bold as brass:

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

You can see for yourself that the samples marked JM work best. The ones
marked (F/P) were supplied to China Lake by Fleischmann. The others came
from JM directly. The JM Pd one was definitely the same stock, used for
hydrogen filters. As you see they worked about 10 times better than
palladium from other sources. In subsequent tests they worked about 100
times better.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why you should believe the Toyota Roulette data

Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:


 But it was inferior calorimetry, and it used boiling water. Rossi is a
 master at the boiling water fake, getting a factor of 7 out of it. Pons
 only managed a factor of 2 or so.


As anyone can see from the paper, the method is completely different from
Rossi's. It is not inferior.

The factor of 2 is incorrect. They sometimes ran it in heat after death,
meaning the factor was infinite.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why you should believe the Toyota Roulette data

Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

As Miles showed in Table 10, if the person doing the experiment is skilled,
 the success rate varies from zero to 100% depending on the material.



 Really? You need skill to get a success rate from 0 to 100%?


You need skill to get any excess heat at all. You also need good material
to make it work at all, even at low power, with some samples. You need
superb material to make it work every time at high power.



 I think an incredulous smirk is appropriate.


That's against the rules here.



 Because who wants clean abundant energy? Who wants to save the world? Who
 wants honor glory fame. No one wants that!


That is not the reward for doing cold fusion, or anything else that upsets
mainstream institutions. As I mentioned, what happens is a funding agency
in Washington calls you and threatens to close your lab; if you have a
green card they threaten to deport your; a Congressman demands your tax
returns and personal correspondence; and the Washington Post, Time Magazine
and the New Scientist accuse you of being a lunatic and a criminal,
destroying your career and your personal life.

Martin Fleischmann predicted this would happen on the day of the press
conference. He was not surprised by the reaction. Anyone who has studied
history will not be surprised. This is real life, not a Hallmark Hall of
Fame movie.

Charles Beaudette quoted Fleischmann and summarized the situation at the
end of his book, QUOTE:


Fleischmann was fulsome in his summary view:

If it had been anything else, we would have said, Oh . . . People don’t
want us to do it; forget it; just leave it alone. But this is not in that
category. This is interesting science. New science, with a hint of a
possibility of a very useful technology. Therefore, if you’ve got any
integrity, you don’t give it up. You give it up if you find you are wrong.
But as long as you believe that you are right, you have to continue with
it. And you have to take the consequences.

Is this not similar to the response of the Swedish chemist Svente Arrhenius
with his discovery of the mechanism of electrolytic conduction more than
one hundred years ago? He believed he was right and he persevered for
twenty years before receiving the recognition that was his due. One can
only wonder why discovery seems to be so punished. Why, so often, must the
next Columbus be brought home in chains?


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why you should believe the Toyota Roulette data

Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote:

Zounds!  So, at first scan, the Toyota results are never presented in
 precise details of procedures, materials, people, runs, results, control
 runs, micro and nano level studies . . .


First, those studies were mainly done by JM, not Toyota. Second, these are
corporations, not universities or national labs. They never release that
 kind of information. It is a trade secret.

- Jed

[Vo]:LENR research

National Ignition Facility made history with record 500 terawatt shot, but
the pulse duration is just a few picoseconds.


The power produced by a nanoantenna is almost as powerful as that generated
by the National Ignition Facility, but that power level is maintained for
an extended period of time and might even be constant.


The ability of a nanoantenna to concentrate power in the terawatt range
should be used to explore the effects of intense power concentration on
nuclear matter.


Even Joshua Cude should back this LENR effort.

Re: [Vo]:LENR research

2013-05-13 Thread Daniel Rocha

5*10^14 * 10^-12 = 500W, heh.

-- Forwarded message --
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
Date: 2013/5/13
Subject: [Vo]:LENR research
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com

National Ignition Facility made history with record 500 terawatt shot, but
the pulse duration is just a few picoseconds.

The power produced by a nanoantenna is almost as powerful as that generated
by the National Ignition Facility, but that power level is maintained for
an extended period of time and might even be constant.

The ability of a nanoantenna to concentrate power in the terawatt range
should be used to explore the effects of intense power concentration on
nuclear matter.

Even Joshua Cude should back this LENR effort.

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

[Vo]:Amini paper on cavitation

Farzan Amini asks that you have a look at his paper and send him any
reaction you might have. I entered the publisher as LENR-CANR.org for now.
I think it will be published elsewhere soon.

Amini, F., *The Study of Cavitation Bubble-Surface Plasmon Resonance
Interaction For LENR and Biochemical processes*. 2013, LENR-CANR.org.

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

- Jed

[Vo]:Martin Fleischmann is the founder of the Surface-enhanced Raman scattering

Martin Fleischmann of cold fusion fame is the founder of the
Surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) reaction.



The enhanced Raman signal of pyridine adsorbed on roughened electrochemical
silver electrode, observed by Fleischmann et. al in 1974.  This research is
considered to be the first observation of the SERS effect.



The effect was observed as the researchers were trying to implement Raman
spectroscopy as a possible means to observe molecules on surfaces at a
monolayer coverage. Fleischmann et al., in their original paper,
interpreted the amplified Raman signal of pyridine as an outcome of
increased surface area caused by the roughening of silver electrodes.



However, there were many unanswered questions regarding this simple
hypothesis.



Later on in 1977, two independent research groups, Jeanmarie and Van Duyne  and
Albrecht and Creighton  documented that the observed Raman enhancement
could not be accounted for by increased surface area, instead other
mechanisms exist. Since

then several enhancement mechanisms were proposed in the early days of
SERS, however only two mechanisms are now broadly accepted, i.e,
Electromagnetic (EM) theory and Chemical Enhancement (CE) theory.

Re: [Vo]:LENR research

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 National Ignition Facility made history with record 500 terawatt shot, but
 the pulse duration is just a few picoseconds.


 No it's about 4 ns. That corresponds to about 1.8 MJ of energy. It's not
that hard to look these things up.



 The power produced by a nanoantenna is almost as powerful as that
 generated by the National Ignition Facility, but that power level is
 maintained for an extended period of time and might even be constant.


 That's a complicated paper, but you could at least get the dimensions and
the units right. What they claim is TW/cm^2. The NIF laser produces 500 TW.
Apples and oranges. Or apples and apples per acre.


As for the time and dimensions of that energy density, it would take some
time to digest the paper, and some of the citations, but it seems to me
that the time scale is sub-picosecond which gives energy in the eV range on
the atomic dimension scale. That's consistent with the statement that
TW/cm^2 may be enough to trigger ionization effects (eV range), and that
is far too low to trigger nuclear effects.



 The ability of a nanoantenna to concentrate power in the terawatt range
 should be used to explore the effects of intense power concentration on
 nuclear matter.


 Even Joshua Cude should back this LENR effort.

I'd need to understand what they're claiming first, but if my superficial
reading is right, then no.

Re: [Vo]:LENR research

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:

 5*10^14 * 10^-12 = 500W, heh.





Wrong time, wrong units. But good try.


The duration is 4 ns, and the total energy is about 1.8 MJ. There's no need
to do any calculations. Just google it. NIF is proud enough to plaster the
web with the claim of both 500 TW and 1.8 MJ.

Re: [Vo]:Why you should believe the Toyota Roulette data

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

  As Miles showed in Table 10, if the person doing the experiment is
 skilled, the success rate varies from zero to 100% depending on the
 material.



 Really? You need skill to get a success rate from 0 to 100%?


 You need skill to get any excess heat at all.


So you mean  0%, not 0 to 100%.



Because who wants clean abundant energy? Who wants to save the world? Who
 wants honor glory fame. No one wants that!


 That is not the reward for doing cold fusion,


That's because so far those doing it haven't convinced the mainstream that
it works. But you were talking about commercial levels of power, remember.
That would make it unambiguous and completely convincing. If *that* were
true, then those would be the rewards. No one would shut down the research
if they believed those levels were achievable.



 or anything else that upsets mainstream institutions.



Maybe, but why would mainstream institutions be upset by working on cold
fusion if they thought it worked? Do they hate clean abundant energy? Do
they hate honor glory and fame?




 As I mentioned, what happens is a funding agency in Washington calls you
 and threatens to close your lab;


Again, what do they hate about cold fusion. Washington especially stands to
benefit enormously from cold fusion; strategically, economically, and
environmentally. There is simply no downside from Washington's point of
view. So if they want to shut it down, it's because they don't believe the
results.




 the Washington Post, Time Magazine and the New Scientist accuse you of
 being a lunatic and a criminal, destroying your career and your personal
 life.


Same question for them. Do they hate clean and abundant energy? In 1989,
for a brief time all the journals were singing about the benefits of cold
fusion. Clearly they would love it to be true. It means that the results
are not convincing anyone that matters.



 Martin Fleischmann predicted this would happen on the day of the press
 conference.



Do you have some evidence for this, because that certainly didn't seem to
be his attitude in the various interviews, where he was beaming with pride.




 He was not surprised by the reaction.


So he said later. Do you have any evidence he said it at the time?



 Anyone who has studied history will not be surprised. This is real life,
 not a Hallmark Hall of Fame movie.

 Charles Beaudette quoted Fleischmann and summarized the situation at the
 end of his book,



This was retrospective rationalization. Where is the evidence he predicted
this reaction on the day of?



 Is this not similar to the response of the Swedish chemist Svente
 Arrhenius with his discovery of the mechanism of electrolytic conduction
 more than one hundred years ago? He believed he was right and he persevered
 for twenty years before receiving the recognition that was his due.


Total, unadulterated nonsense. Talk about making stuff up. I don't know if
you're quoting here or if this is your comment, but it's wrong.


I admit, my source does not go beyond wikipedia, but according to it,
Arrhenius's controversial ideas were presented in his doctoral thesis.
While there were local skeptics, his degree was granted, and when the
dissertation was sent to other European scholars, they came to Sweden
trying to recruit him. Doesn't really sound much like cold fusion, does it?


The Swedish Academy then awarded him a grant to study with the likes of
Boltzmann and van 't Hoff. That doesn't sound like persevering to get
recognition. A few years after his graduation, he was *given* an
appointment at the Stockholm university, and was a full professor/chair
(rector) about a decade after his PhD. That doesn't sound much like
rejection to me.


It did take almost 20 years to recognize his work with a Nobel prize, but
maybe the fact that the prize was not initiated until about 17 years after
had something to do with that. He got the 3rd one in chemistry. He was on
the Nobel committee from the beginning until his death.

Re: [Vo]:Why you should believe the Toyota Roulette data

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:


 But it was inferior calorimetry, and it used boiling water. Rossi is a
 master at the boiling water fake, getting a factor of 7 out of it. Pons
 only managed a factor of 2 or so.


 As anyone can see from the paper, the method is completely different from
 Rossi's. It is not inferior.



Yes, it's different from Rossi's. I was just saying that whenever boiling
water is used, there are opportunities for error. Quoting from Morrison
(1997): With the IMRA(Japan) calorimeter, the water jacket surrounding the
cell is kept at constant temperature so that any heat exchange with the
outside is constant. With the IMRA(Europe) calorimeter, as the temperature
changes up to boiling point, the heat flow to the outside must vary
substantially and the calibration becomes critical. Instead of employing
calculations and some doubtful controls, it is good standard experimental
technique to use an external water bath at constant temperature, as
IMRA(Japan) has done, but IMRA(France) has not. Japan got no excess heat
in 26 cells; France got excess heat in 3 out of 7 cells.


 The factor of 2 is incorrect. They sometimes ran it in heat after death,
 meaning the factor was infinite.





I did not see any reference to heat after death in the paper. The summary
table showed COPs of 2.5, 1.5, and variable.

Re: [Vo]:Why you should believe the Toyota Roulette data

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote:

 Zounds!  So, at first scan, the Toyota results are never presented in
 precise details of procedures, materials, people, runs, results, control
 runs, micro and nano level studies . . .


 First, those studies were mainly done by JM, not Toyota. Second, these are
 corporations, not universities or national labs. They never release that
  kind of information. It is a trade secret.


Another convenient excuse for why nothing ever came of it. It gets hauled
out to explain the failure of Patterson's power cell, and it will get used
again when Rossi and Mills fade from the scene.

Re: [Vo]:LENR research

As for the time and dimensions of that energy density, it would take some
time to digest the paper, and some of the citations, but it seems to me
that the time scale is sub-picosecond which gives energy in the eV range on
the atomic dimension scale. That's consistent with the statement that
TW/cm^2 may be enough to trigger ionization effects (eV range), and that
is far too low to trigger nuclear effects.



Take the time to understand this paper even if the processes involved are
not optimal.







Coherent anti-stokes Raman shattering is a far more powerful power
concentration mechanism. The observation of Bose-Einstein condensation in
these nano-mirrors points to this coherent energy concentration mechanism.



And the great part of this mechanism is that the stigma of cold fusion will
not stop the fascination of science about what is happing in these hot
spots. It’s only a matter of time before orthodox science will uncover LENR
in these hot spots.










On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 National Ignition Facility made history with record 500 terawatt shot,
 but the pulse duration is just a few picoseconds.


 No it's about 4 ns. That corresponds to about 1.8 MJ of energy. It's not
 that hard to look these things up.



 The power produced by a nanoantenna is almost as powerful as that
 generated by the National Ignition Facility, but that power level is
 maintained for an extended period of time and might even be constant.


 That's a complicated paper, but you could at least get the dimensions and
 the units right. What they claim is TW/cm^2. The NIF laser produces 500 TW.
 Apples and oranges. Or apples and apples per acre.


 As for the time and dimensions of that energy density, it would take some
 time to digest the paper, and some of the citations, but it seems to me
 that the time scale is sub-picosecond which gives energy in the eV range on
 the atomic dimension scale. That's consistent with the statement that
 TW/cm^2 may be enough to trigger ionization effects (eV range), and that
 is far too low to trigger nuclear effects.



 The ability of a nanoantenna to concentrate power in the terawatt range
 should be used to explore the effects of intense power concentration on
 nuclear matter.


 Even Joshua Cude should back this LENR effort.

 I'd need to understand what they're claiming first, but if my superficial
 reading is right, then no.

Re: [Vo]:LENR research

 To illustrate this concept of power concentration, take the example of the
big laser based inertial confinement fusion effort at the National Ignition
Facility. On the one hand, by marshaling huge amounts of electrical
energy… an amount of power that can easily light all the worlds electrical
equipment many times over all be it in an incredibly brief timeframe and
concentrating it to a focus onto a minuscule volume, inertial confinement
fusion (ICF) is a process where nuclear fusion reactions are initiated by
heating and compressing a fuel target, typically in the form of a pellet
that most often contains a mixture of deuterium and tritium hydrogen
isotopes. To compress and heat this stellar fuel, energy is delivered
to the outer most layer of the target using high-energy beams of focused
laser light, electrons or ions, although for a variety of reasons, almost
all ICF devices to date have used lasers. The heated outer layer of gas
explodes in a shower of x-rays outward, producing a reaction force against
the remainder of the target, accelerating the ionized gas and radiation
inwards, compressing the target. This process may also create shock waves
that travel inward through the target. A sufficiently powerful set of shock
waves can compress and heat the fuel at the center so much that fusion
reactions occur. On the other hand in counterpoint, the release of
violent energy is not the proper way of LENR. The hot spot might well
produce energy in another and more elegant utilitarian way, well controlled
and subtle, and ironically in a way that is in opposition to the
brutishness of the internal fusion confinement process (ICF). Confusion
in equating these two diametrically opposed methods toward the activation
of fusion is where experts in one approach unjustly malign the reputation
and good name of the other. Hot spots genially cool the atoms in a sub
nano-sized region whose dimensional scale is so small it makes the gas
pellets used in ICF look like the Hindenburg dirigible by comparison. This
cooling involves the removal of the coulomb barrier that protects the
nucleus from penetration of and escape from this atomic core from and by
other subatomic particles in graduated levels from slight to total. In
this comparison lies the difference between the methods of power
concentration, where one method tries to blindly batter down the walls of
the nucleus with extreme and frenzied levels of power, and the other method
succeeds in removing these protective walls through the elimination of its
repulsive potential so that subatomic particles can come and go with ease
and comfort. One of the big conceptual hang-ups about fusion is how
most people confuse the principles in which the coulomb barrier is
penetrated. To achieve fusion, one method uses brute and unconstrained
power, the other with cunning stealth, like the harmonies and resonances of
a great cosmic symphony one instrument building on the themes and rhythms
of others to lull the nucleus into slumber where it relaxes its eternal
guard allowing humankind to gently work our will on the most basic and
protected forms of nature itself.


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 As for the time and dimensions of that energy density, it would take some
 time to digest the paper, and some of the citations, but it seems to me
 that the time scale is sub-picosecond which gives energy in the eV range on
 the atomic dimension scale. That's consistent with the statement that
 TW/cm^2 may be enough to trigger ionization effects (eV range), and that
 is far too low to trigger nuclear effects.



 Take the time to understand this paper even if the processes involved are
 not optimal.







 Coherent anti-stokes Raman shattering is a far more powerful power
 concentration mechanism. The observation of Bose-Einstein condensation in
 these nano-mirrors points to this coherent energy concentration mechanism.



 And the great part of this mechanism is that the stigma of cold fusion
 will not stop the fascination of science about what is happing in these hot
 spots. It’s only a matter of time before orthodox science will uncover LENR
 in these hot spots.










 On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 National Ignition Facility made history with record 500 terawatt shot,
 but the pulse duration is just a few picoseconds.


 No it's about 4 ns. That corresponds to about 1.8 MJ of energy. It's not
 that hard to look these things up.



 The power produced by a nanoantenna is almost as powerful as that
 generated by the National Ignition Facility, but that power level is
 maintained for an extended period of time and might even be constant.


 That's a complicated paper, but you could at least get the dimensions
 and the units right. What they claim is TW/cm^2. The NIF laser produces 500
 TW. Apples and

Re: [Vo]:Amini paper on cavitation

Farzan's e-mail address is on p. 1, top.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: J. Cude, extensive Rule 2 violations

Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:


 ***We can proceed with the same probability math I used upthread.  If one
 considers it to be 1/3 chance of generating a false-positive excess heat
 event, then you take that 1/3 to the power of how many replications are on
 record.


That is a form of Bayesian analysis, I think.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Says ecat mouse COP is 100-200

2013-05-13 Thread Patrick Ellul

If you split the time between activator and ecat as he suggests you get
slightly different numbers:

0.91 * 35% of the time = 0.3185 kWh/h
1 * 65% of the time = 0.65 kWh/h

total output = 0.9685 kWh/h
input = 0.9 * 35% of the time = 0.315 kWh/h

COP = 3.07

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 4:48 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

 I can't figure out how Rossi claims a COP of 100-200

 May 12th, 2013 at 9:59 PM
 http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=802cpage=9#comment-694786

 Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
 Please don’t go too far: just, for now, let’s limit to what I wrote about
 the Activator/E-Cat cycle. Please read carefully what I wrote. More than
 that is not possible to get, so far. Our basic module is made by an
 apparatus in which we have 2 components: an activator, which consumes abour
 900 Wh/h and produces about 910 Wh/h of heat. This heat activates the E-Cat
 and then goes to the utilization by the Customer, so that its cost is paid
 back by itself. This activator stays in function for the 35% of the
 operational time of the syspem of the apparatus. The E-Cat, activated by
 the heat of the Activator, works for about the 65% of the operational time,
 producing about 1 kWh/h without consuming any Wh/h from the grid. Combining
 these modules we can make E-Cats of 1 kW , 10 kW, 100 kW, 1 MW ,
 respectively, of power.
 Warm Regards,
 A.R.

 - - -

kWh/h
 mouse output0.91
 ecat output 1.00

 total output1.91
 total input 0.90

 Total COP = total output/input  2.12






-- 
Patrick

www.tRacePerfect.com
The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect!
The quickest puzzle ever!

[Vo]:Tesla Motors

2013-05-13 Thread Terry Blanton

With volumes exceeding 20M shares in the past two days of trading, TSLA is
flirting with ta $90 share price.  Had you bought 1000 shares at the IPO
price, you could now buy a low end Tesla S for your $16,000 investment
(excluding taxes).

Kewl!

Re: [Vo]:Tesla Motors

See also:

Tesla sales beating Mercedes, BMW and Audi

http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/13/autos/tesla-sales-bmw-mercedes-audi/

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Says ecat mouse COP is 100-200

2013-05-13 Thread Terry Blanton

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.comwrote:


 COP = 3.07


The magic ratio that FE people have sought!

Re: [Vo]:Tesla Motors

2013-05-13 Thread Terry Blanton

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 See also:

 Tesla sales beating Mercedes, BMW and Audi

 http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/13/autos/tesla-sales-bmw-mercedes-audi/


So, will the next James Bond movie include a Tesla?  After all, it was born
of a British Lotus.

If not, how about Transporter 4 ? :-)

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Says ecat mouse COP is 100-200

2013-05-13 Thread Alan Fletcher

 If you split the time between activator and ecat as he suggests you
 get slightly different numbers:
 
 0.91 * 35% of the time = 0.3185 kWh/h
 1 * 65% of the time = 0.65 kWh/h
 
 
 total output = 0.9685 kWh/h
 input = 0.9 * 35% of the time = 0.315 kWh/h
 
 
 COP = 3.07

That's how I did it at first ... then I reread his statement and thought he was 
talking about the total. 

Either way, MUCH less than 100-200 -- and less than his usual guaranteed COP of 
6.

(And I have no idea of the implication of Terry's The magic ratio that FE 
people have sought! )

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Says ecat mouse COP is 100-200

2013-05-13 Thread Patrick Ellul

I thought he might have done a typo, and mean 10 kWh/h so I emailed him to
ask.

He confirmed that it was a typo, and he meant 10kWh/h for the ecat, just
like it has always been.

If that is the case:

0.91 * 35% of the time = 0.3185 kWh/h
*10* * 65% of the time = 6.5 kWh/h

total output = 6.8185 kWh/h
input = 0.9 * 35% of the time = 0.315 kWh/h

COP = 21.65


On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:

  If you split the time between activator and ecat as he suggests you
  get slightly different numbers:
 
  0.91 * 35% of the time = 0.3185 kWh/h
  1 * 65% of the time = 0.65 kWh/h
 
 
  total output = 0.9685 kWh/h
  input = 0.9 * 35% of the time = 0.315 kWh/h
 
 
  COP = 3.07

 That's how I did it at first ... then I reread his statement and thought
 he was talking about the total.

 Either way, MUCH less than 100-200 -- and less than his usual guaranteed
 COP of 6.

 (And I have no idea of the implication of Terry's The magic ratio that FE
 people have sought! )




-- 
Patrick

www.tRacePerfect.com
The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect!
The quickest puzzle ever!

[Vo]:A cascade dipole amplifier

This post describes the mechanism that produces large power concentrations
in a multi-nanoparticle system where the particles vary widely in particle
sizes.

First, let’s set the table.

A cascade amplifier is any diode constructed from a series of amplifiers,
where each amplifier sends its output to the input of the next amplifier in
a daisy chain.

Coherent anti-Stokes Raman scattering acts like such a cascade amplifier,
except that dipoles tuned to various resonant frequencies drive thermal
power to higher power concentration levels zero loss factors.

In detail, coherent anti-Stokes Raman scattering, also called Coherent
anti-Stokes Raman scattering spectroscopy (CARS), is a form of spectroscopy
used primarily in chemistry, physics and related fields.

It is sensitive to the same vibrational signatures of dipoles as seen in
Raman spectroscopy. Unlike Raman spectroscopy, CARS employs multiple photo
harmonics.

It produces a signal in which the emitted waves are coherent with one
another. As a result, CARS is orders of magnitude stronger than spontaneous
Raman emission.

CARS is a N-order nonlinear optical process involving multiple coupled
dipole sources.

These dipoles interact and generate a coherent optical signal at the
anti-Stokes frequency. The high order harmonic is resonantly enhanced when
the frequency difference between the low order pumps and the dipoles
coincides with the frequency of a Raman resonance, which is the basis of
the technique's intrinsic vibrational contrast mechanism.

Multiple nanoparticles of various sizes interact each with their respective
dipole resonant frequencies.

The CARS process can be physically explained by using either a classical
oscillator model or by using a quantum mechanical model.

Classically, the Raman active vibrator is modeled as a (damped) harmonic
oscillator with a characteristic frequency. In CARS, these oscillators are
not driven by a single optical wave, but by the different resonant
frequencies between the dipole pumps and the high order harmonic.

This driving mechanism is similar to hearing the low combination beat tone
when striking two different high tone piano keys: your ear is sensitive to
the difference frequency of the high tones. Similarly, the Raman oscillator
is susceptible to the difference frequency of multiple optical waves. When
the difference frequency approaches beat resonance, the system of dipole
oscillators are driven very efficiently.

 While intuitive, this classical picture does not take into account the
quantum mechanical energy levels of the dipole. Quantum mechanically, the
CARS process can be understood as follows. Our dipole is initially in the
ground state, the lowest thermal energy state of the system. The pump
dipole excites the dipole chain to a virtual vibrational state.

A virtual state is not an eigenstate of the dipole and it cannot be
occupied but it does allow for transitions between otherwise uncoupled real
states. If a dipole is simultaneously present along with the pumps, the
virtual state can be used as an instantaneous gateway to address a
vibrational eigenstate of the dipole.

The joint action of the pumps and the Stokes has effectively established a
coupling between the ground state and the vibrationally excited state of
the system.

The system is now in multiple states at the same time: it resides in a
coherent superposition of states.

This promotes the system to a virtual state. Again, the molecule cannot
stay in the virtual state and will fall back instantaneously to the ground
state under the emission of a photon at the anti-Stokes frequency. The pump
dipoles are no longer in a superposition, as it resides again in the lowest
thermal state, the ground state.

In the quantum mechanical model, energy is deposited in the dark mode
highest resonant system during the CARS process. The molecule acts like a
medium for converting the frequencies of the multiple resonant waves into a
CARS signal (a parametric process). There are, however, related coherent
Raman processes that occur simultaneously which do deposit energy into the
high order resonant cavity at high efficiency.

The maximum sustained energy level achieved in this smallest resonant
cavity in the cavity chain is determined when losses from the cavity equals
input energy levels.

Re: [Vo]:MODERATOR: J. Cude, extensive Rule 2 violations