Re: [Vo]:The Gupta Patent of early 1989

[Terry Blanton]

It was the rush to publish that likely resulted in so many failed attempts
at replication and the early dismissal of CF.  Had F&P been allowed to
follow the normal process of peer review of a well thought out experimental
paper explaining the importance of proper materials and loading times, we
might be enjoying  a real CF commercial energy source today.

Re: [Vo]:CERN Declares War On The Standard Model

[John Berry]

Oh wow,everyone get excited, there is a tiny deviation in the production of
muons over electrons even though there should be due to their energy but
it's a bit larger than that!
And as Muons die quickly, they aren't even useful.

This piece gives the view that physics is pretty much complete and the most
interesting thing that billions of dollars can do is find bulls#!+ like
that!

The huge gaps in understanding are ignored, but I'm glad they are tracking
down tiny details.

They are blind to so much!  The standard model can eat our dust!

John Berry

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Kevin O'Malley 
wrote:

> CERN Declares War On The Standard Model
> 
>   Article Updated: 20 Apr , 2017by Matt Williams
> 
> https://www.universetoday.com/135091/cern-declares-war-standard-model/
>
> Ever since the discovery of the Higgs Boson in 2012
> ,
> the Large Hadron Collider has been dedicated to searching for the existence
> of physics that go beyond the Standard Model. To this end, the Large
> Hardon Collider beauty experiment
>  (LHCb) was established in
> 1995, specifically for the purpose of exploring what happened after the Big
> Bang that allowed matter to survive and create the Universe as we know it.
>
> Since that time, the LHCb has been doing some rather amazing things. This
> includes discovering five new particles
> ,
> uncovering evidence of a new manifestation of matter-antimatter asymmetry
> ,
> and (most recently) discovering unusual results when monitoring beta decay.
> These findings, which CERN announced in a recent press release
> , could
> be an indication of new physics that are not part of the Standard Model.
>
> In this latest study, the LHCb collaboration team noted how the decay of B
> 0mesons resulted in the production of an excited kaon and a pair of
> electrons or muons. Muons, for the record, are subatomic particles that are
> 200 times more massive than electrons, but whose interactions are believed
> to be the same as those of electrons (as far as the Standard Model is
> concerned).
>
> 
>
> *The LHCb collaboration team. Credit: lhcb-public.web.cern.ch
> *
>
> This is what is known as “lepton universality”, which not only predicts
> that electrons and muons behave the same, but should be produced with the
> same probability – with some constraints arising from their differences in
> mass. However, in testing the decay of B0 mesons, the team found that the
> decay process produced muons with less frequency. These results were
> collected during Run 1 of the LHC, which ran from 2009 to 2013.
>
> The results of these decay tests were presented on Tuesday, April 18th, at
> a CERN seminar
> ,
> where members of the LHCb collaboration team shared their latest findings.
> As they indicated during the course of the seminar, these findings are
> significant in that they appear to confirm results obtained by the LHCb
> team during previous decay studies.
>
> This is certainly exciting news, as it hints at the possibility that new
> physics are being observed. With the confirmation of the Standard Model
> (made possible with the discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012),
> investigating theories that go beyond this (i.e. Supersymmetry
> )
> has been a major goal of the LHC. And with its upgrades completed in 2015,
> it has been one of the chief aims of Run 2 (which will last until 2018).
> 
>
> *A typical LHCb event fully reconstructed. Particles identified as pions,
> kaon, etc. are shown in different colours. Credit: LHCb collaboration*
>
> Naturally, the LHCb team indicated that further studies will be needed
> before any conclusions can be drawn. For one, the discrepancy they noted
> between the creation of muons and electrons carries a low probability value
> (aka. p-value) of between 2.2. to 2.5 sigma. To put that in perspective,
> the first detection of the Higgs Boson occurred at a level of 5 sigma.
>
> In addition, these results are inconsistent with previous measurements
> which indicated that there is indeed symmetry between electrons and muons.
> As a result, more decay tests will have to be conducted and more data
> collected before the LHCb collaboration team c

Re: [Vo]:CERN Declares War On The Standard Model

[Axil Axil]

DN(0) →···→···→ K± → π± → μ± → e±
Nx4x938MeV →···→···→ 493MeV → 139MeV → 105MeV → 0. 511MeV

Holmlid's meson particle decay chain.

"The origin of the particle signals observed here is clearly laser-induced
nuclear processes in H(0). The first step is the laser-induced transfer of
the H2(0) pairs in the ultra-dense material H(0) from excitation state *s* =
2 (with 2.3 pm H-H distance) to *s* = 1 (at 0.56 pm H-H distance) [2
].
The state *s* = 1 may lead to a fast nuclear reaction. It is suggested that
this involves two nucleons, probably two protons. The first particles
formed and observed [16

,17
]
are kaons, both neutral and charged, and also pions. From the six quarks in
the two protons, three kaons can be formed in the interaction. Two protons
correspond to a mass of 1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV.
Thus, the transition 2 p → 3 K is downhill in internal energy and releases
390 MeV. If pions are formed directly, the energy release may be even
larger. The kaons formed decay normally in various processes to charged
pions and muons. In the present experiments, the decay of kaons and pions
is observed directly normally through their decay to muons, while the muons
leave the chamber before they decay due to their easier penetration and
much longer lifetime."



On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> 2 things stand out about this article:   The unbalanced formation of muons
>  in testing the decay of B0 mesons, the team found that the decay process
> produced muons with less frequency.  Something about this rings a bell with
> some LENR results but I can't find it.
>
> Secondly, the investigation of beauty was in the  Large Hardon Collider
> beauty experiment  (LHCb) .
>   The hardon typo is in the original article, and it's kinda funny.   ;-)
>
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Kevin O'Malley 
> wrote:
>
>> CERN Declares War On The Standard Model
>> 
>>   Article Updated: 20 Apr , 2017by Matt Williams
>> 
>> https://www.universetoday.com/135091/cern-declares-war-standard-model/
>>
>> Ever since the discovery of the Higgs Boson in 2012
>> ,
>> the Large Hadron Collider has been dedicated to searching for the existence
>> of physics that go beyond the Standard Model. To this end, the Large
>> Hardon Collider beauty experiment
>>  (LHCb) was established in
>> 1995, specifically for the purpose of exploring what happened after the Big
>> Bang that allowed matter to survive and create the Universe as we know it.
>>
>> Since that time, the LHCb has been doing some rather amazing things. This
>> includes discovering five new particles
>> ,
>> uncovering evidence of a new manifestation of matter-antimatter asymmetry
>> ,
>> and (most recently) discovering unusual results when monitoring beta decay.
>> These findings, which CERN announced in a recent press release
>> , could
>> be an indication of new physics that are not part of the Standard Model.
>>
>> In this latest study, the LHCb collaboration team noted how the decay of B
>> 0mesons resulted in the production of an excited kaon and a pair of
>> electrons or muons. Muons, for the record, are subatomic particles that are
>> 200 times more massive than electrons, but whose interactions are believed
>> to be the same as those of electrons (as far as the Standard Model is
>> concerned).
>>
>> 
>>
>> *The LHCb collaboration team. Credit: lhcb-public.web.cern.ch
>> *
>>
>> This is what is known as “lepton universality”, which not only predicts
>> that electrons and muons behave the same, but should be produced with the
>> same probability – with some constraints arising from their differences in
>> mass. However, in testing the decay of B0 mesons, the team found that
>> the decay process produced muons with less frequency. These results were
>> collected during Run 1 of the LHC, which ran from 2009 to 2013.
>>
>> The results of these decay tests were presented on Tuesday, April 18th,
>> at a CERN seminar
>> ,
>> where members of th

Re: [Vo]:CERN Declares War On The Standard Model

[Kevin O'Malley]

2 things stand out about this article:   The unbalanced formation of muons  in
testing the decay of B0 mesons, the team found that the decay process
produced muons with less frequency.  Something about this rings a bell with
some LENR results but I can't find it.

Secondly, the investigation of beauty was in the  Large Hardon Collider
beauty experiment  (LHCb) .
The hardon typo is in the original article, and it's kinda funny.   ;-)

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> CERN Declares War On The Standard Model
> 
>   Article Updated: 20 Apr , 2017by Matt Williams
> 
> https://www.universetoday.com/135091/cern-declares-war-standard-model/
>
> Ever since the discovery of the Higgs Boson in 2012
> ,
> the Large Hadron Collider has been dedicated to searching for the existence
> of physics that go beyond the Standard Model. To this end, the Large
> Hardon Collider beauty experiment
>  (LHCb) was established in
> 1995, specifically for the purpose of exploring what happened after the Big
> Bang that allowed matter to survive and create the Universe as we know it.
>
> Since that time, the LHCb has been doing some rather amazing things. This
> includes discovering five new particles
> ,
> uncovering evidence of a new manifestation of matter-antimatter asymmetry
> ,
> and (most recently) discovering unusual results when monitoring beta decay.
> These findings, which CERN announced in a recent press release
> , could
> be an indication of new physics that are not part of the Standard Model.
>
> In this latest study, the LHCb collaboration team noted how the decay of B
> 0mesons resulted in the production of an excited kaon and a pair of
> electrons or muons. Muons, for the record, are subatomic particles that are
> 200 times more massive than electrons, but whose interactions are believed
> to be the same as those of electrons (as far as the Standard Model is
> concerned).
>
> 
>
> *The LHCb collaboration team. Credit: lhcb-public.web.cern.ch
> *
>
> This is what is known as “lepton universality”, which not only predicts
> that electrons and muons behave the same, but should be produced with the
> same probability – with some constraints arising from their differences in
> mass. However, in testing the decay of B0 mesons, the team found that the
> decay process produced muons with less frequency. These results were
> collected during Run 1 of the LHC, which ran from 2009 to 2013.
>
> The results of these decay tests were presented on Tuesday, April 18th, at
> a CERN seminar
> ,
> where members of the LHCb collaboration team shared their latest findings.
> As they indicated during the course of the seminar, these findings are
> significant in that they appear to confirm results obtained by the LHCb
> team during previous decay studies.
>
> This is certainly exciting news, as it hints at the possibility that new
> physics are being observed. With the confirmation of the Standard Model
> (made possible with the discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012),
> investigating theories that go beyond this (i.e. Supersymmetry
> )
> has been a major goal of the LHC. And with its upgrades completed in 2015,
> it has been one of the chief aims of Run 2 (which will last until 2018).
> 
>
> *A typical LHCb event fully reconstructed. Particles identified as pions,
> kaon, etc. are shown in different colours. Credit: LHCb collaboration*
>
> Naturally, the LHCb team indicated that further studies will be needed
> before any conclusions can be drawn. For one, the discrepancy they noted
> between the creation of muons and electrons carries a low probability value
> (aka. p-value) of between 2.2. to 2.5 sigma. To put that in perspective,
> the first detection of the Higgs Boson occurred at a level of 5 sigma.
>
> In addition, these results are inconsistent with previous measurements
> which indicated that there is indeed symmetry between electrons and muons.
> As a result, more decay tests will have to be conducted and more data
> collected before the LHCb collaboration team can say definitively whether
> this was a sign of new particles, or merely a 

[Vo]:CERN Declares War On The Standard Model

[Kevin O'Malley]

CERN Declares War On The Standard Model

  Article Updated: 20 Apr , 2017by Matt Williams

https://www.universetoday.com/135091/cern-declares-war-standard-model/

Ever since the discovery of the Higgs Boson in 2012
,
the Large Hadron Collider has been dedicated to searching for the existence
of physics that go beyond the Standard Model. To this end, the Large Hardon
Collider beauty experiment  (LHCb)
was established in 1995, specifically for the purpose of exploring what
happened after the Big Bang that allowed matter to survive and create the
Universe as we know it.

Since that time, the LHCb has been doing some rather amazing things. This
includes discovering five new particles
,
uncovering evidence of a new manifestation of matter-antimatter asymmetry
,
and (most recently) discovering unusual results when monitoring beta decay.
These findings, which CERN announced in a recent press release
, could be
an indication of new physics that are not part of the Standard Model.

In this latest study, the LHCb collaboration team noted how the decay
of B0mesons
resulted in the production of an excited kaon and a pair of electrons or
muons. Muons, for the record, are subatomic particles that are 200 times
more massive than electrons, but whose interactions are believed to be the
same as those of electrons (as far as the Standard Model is concerned).


*The LHCb collaboration team. Credit: lhcb-public.web.cern.ch
*

This is what is known as “lepton universality”, which not only predicts
that electrons and muons behave the same, but should be produced with the
same probability – with some constraints arising from their differences in
mass. However, in testing the decay of B0 mesons, the team found that the
decay process produced muons with less frequency. These results were
collected during Run 1 of the LHC, which ran from 2009 to 2013.

The results of these decay tests were presented on Tuesday, April 18th, at
a CERN seminar
,
where members of the LHCb collaboration team shared their latest findings.
As they indicated during the course of the seminar, these findings are
significant in that they appear to confirm results obtained by the LHCb
team during previous decay studies.

This is certainly exciting news, as it hints at the possibility that new
physics are being observed. With the confirmation of the Standard Model
(made possible with the discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012),
investigating theories that go beyond this (i.e. Supersymmetry
)
has been a major goal of the LHC. And with its upgrades completed in 2015,
it has been one of the chief aims of Run 2 (which will last until 2018).


*A typical LHCb event fully reconstructed. Particles identified as pions,
kaon, etc. are shown in different colours. Credit: LHCb collaboration*

Naturally, the LHCb team indicated that further studies will be needed
before any conclusions can be drawn. For one, the discrepancy they noted
between the creation of muons and electrons carries a low probability value
(aka. p-value) of between 2.2. to 2.5 sigma. To put that in perspective,
the first detection of the Higgs Boson occurred at a level of 5 sigma.

In addition, these results are inconsistent with previous measurements
which indicated that there is indeed symmetry between electrons and muons.
As a result, more decay tests will have to be conducted and more data
collected before the LHCb collaboration team can say definitively whether
this was a sign of new particles, or merely a statistical fluctuation in
their data.

The results of this study will be soon released in a LHCb research paper.
And for more information, check out the PDF version of the seminar

.

[Vo]:LENR- the flowmeter's J'accuse!

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/04/apr-21-2017-lenr-
flowmeters-jaccuse.html


peter

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

Re: [Vo]:The Gupta Patent of early 1989

[Jones Beene]

The ironic thing, given the broad and specific coverage of Gupta's 
claims - is that he could have demanded royalties from anyone who used 
palladium based electrolysis with a lithium electrolyte for financial 
gain. That would possibly include P&F if they had made anything on it - 
but in the end, no one gained and the IP is now free for the taking.



Jed Rothwell wrote:

   That would be  consistent with actions to poo-poo the Pd D ideas by
   the military- industrial complex.


Which never happens.

The military has been the best and most generous supporter of cold 
fusion from day one.

Re: [Vo]:Google translation of an electrochemistry paper

[Daniel Rocha]

Translations from and to English are good. Not so much to other
languages.In any case, I also cheat :-)

One thing I miss it is that they should provide an OCR, so that I could
read letters in photographs, graphs and comics (korean, japanese, chinese,
french or whatever). It would also boost people skills in any language,
since you'd have the object in context.

2017-04-21 13:04 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell :

> A researcher asked me to translate two papers from Japanese into English:
>
> https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jsms1963/49/11/49_11_1242/_article
> https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jsms1963/50/9/50_9_999/_article
>
>
> The first one is:
>
> (J. Soc. Mat. Sci., Japan), Vol.49, No. 11, pp. 1242-1248, Nov. 2000
> Deformation and Aging of Pd by Hydrogen Absorption-Desorption Cycles
> — Deformation of Pd at a Hydrogen Absorption-Desorption Cycle —
>
> Young-guan JUNG, Hideki SUEHIRO and Yuzuru SAKAI
>
>
> I use Google translate to do this. (https://translate.google.com/) It
> feels like cheating, but is sure makes things easier. However, you cannot
> simply dump an Acrobat document into Google translate. That does not work
> well. I thought I would list some of the steps you should to take to make
> Google translate work, and show an example of how the text comes out.
>
> Google translate makes mistakes, as shown below, but in the last few
> months it has improved a great deal thanks to the newest neural network AI
> techniques. See:
>
> https://blog.google/products/translate/found-translation-
> more-accurate-fluent-sentences-google-translate/
>
>
> Here is the worst mistake in the first paragraph:
>
> . . . the occurrence of microcracks and its progress process, many
> problems, durability of the hydrogen storage material It is an obstacle to
> improve sex."
>
> The last part should be:
>
> . . . These problems are obstacles to improving the durability of the
> hydrogen storage material."
>
> Nothing to do with sex! Perhaps people often ask Google translate to
> translate documents about sex, so the AI thinks everything is about sex.
>
> (Oddly enough, that mistake goes away when you submit the sentence
> fragment on its own, outside of the paragraph.)
>
>
> Anyway, to translate an Acrobat document from Japanese into English, take
> the following steps:
>
> 1. Convert the text to Microsoft Word, using a program such as Power PDF.
> This is essential, mainly because it preserves most paragraphs. Submitting
> the Acrobat document as is, or copying the text will produce many errors.
> Every line in a paragraph will break, which will produce nonsensical
> translations.
>
> 2. Fix paragraphs broken by figures and the pages.
>
> 3. Eliminate multiple columns, figures, and all of the formatting you can.
>
> 4. Submit the text to Google translate.
>
> 5. Compare the resulting text to the Japanese original. It is very handy
> to use a voice reading program such as TextAloud (http://nextup.com/) to
> read the text in Japanese as you look through the English text, and vice
> versa.
>
> 6. Correct and adjust the text.
>
> Google translate will often select words that are correct and
> understandable, but they may not be what is normally used in this context.
> For example, it translated Japanese term "suiso kyuuzou" as "hydrogen
> occlusion." I think electrochemists usually say "absorption." Both terms
> are listed in a dictionary:
>
> 水素吸蔵
> [image: 拡張検索] 
>
>- hydrogen absorption
>- hydrogen input
>- hydrogen occlusion
>
>
>
> Okay. Here is the Google version of the entire first paragraph with no
> changes:
>
> Regarding the behavior of hydrogen in the metallic structure, many studies
> 1) - 3) have been done mainly concerning the hydrogen embrittlement
> problem. Solid dissolved hydrogen is trapped in dislocations, voids and the
> like in a steel material structure such as carbon steel and stainless
> steel, and is thought to be a factor that promotes destruction, and
> researches on elucidation of the material embrittlement mechanism by
> hydrogen are being conducted. On the other hand, recently, from the
> viewpoint of global environmental problems, development of a hydrogen
> storage material as a clean hydrogen energy carrier is actively underway,
> that is, some metals including rare earth metals easily form hydride It has
> the ability to absorb and release about 1000 times as much hydrogen as its
> own volume. As already seen in nickel-metal hydride batteries 5), etc.,
> this product has been commercialized and the demand is rapidly increasing
> year by year. Furthermore, as hybrid cars that are collecting the topic of
> the future as a future model car also hydrogen batteries using misch metal
> are mounted, enabling environmentally friendly and fuel-efficient systems
> where metal materials occlude hydrogen, metal crystals As hydrogen enters
> the lattice, lattice expansion occurs, resulting in bulk expansion near 10
> to 25% 7) There is

Re: [Vo]:The Gupta Patent of early 1989

[Jed Rothwell]

Terry Blanton  wrote:

I thought F&P testified before Congress that it was Jones' work which
> caused the University to press F&P to go to press with their findings early.
>

Yup. That's what they told me & Gene Mallove. Martin said they wanted to
keep it secret another 5 years, as I recall. I am sorry for them and the
travails they went through, but glad the lid came off. They might have
pottered around for 15 or 20 years.

Not that going public has done much good . . .

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Gupta Patent of early 1989

[Terry Blanton]

I thought F&P testified before Congress that it was Jones' work which
caused the University to press F&P to go to press with their findings early.

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:11 AM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Jones-
>
>
>
> The Gupta and Jacobs patent was not missed by R. Mills.  Look at the
> references cited at the end of the 1991 patent document.  Randy was quick
> to pick up on the technology shortly after the patent lapsed in 1999.  It
> may be that Gupta and Jacobs were bought out by somebody or the technology
> was declared dark at the time the patent lapsed.  That would be  consistent
> with actions to poo-poo the Pd D ideas by the military- industrial complex.
>
>
>
>
> Note the related GE and M-D patents (reference by the Gupta-Jacobs patent)
> granted in the early 1960’s.
>
>
>
> Interestingly, I remember a flare of activity reported by a physics friend
> in the 1964-65 timeframe concerning a newly found heavy water—not deuterium
> oxide—with unusual properties.  However, the flickering flame of activity
> was extinguished in less than a week as I recall.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail  for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Jones Beene 
> *Sent: *Thursday, April 20, 2017 10:45 AM
> *To: *Vortex List 
> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:The Gupta Patent of early 1989
>
>
>
> One reason for the post below concerns the apparent evolution of Gupta's
> research, in which a superior lithium ion battery is the result.
>
> http://electrovaya.com/
>
> The company is Ectrovaya - which is Canadian... and their battery
> recently won a competition with other advanced batteries... yup, they
> are apparently superior to the new battery offering of Tesla.
>
> Not sure if there is a contribution from LENR or not. But batteries
> could be the backdoor for commercialization ... All those lithium
> battery meltdowns were indeed- a message.
>
>
>
> > Here is a strange bit of history which seems to have been somehow
> > overlooked and misplaced. It almost reads like "alternate facts"
> >
> > The Fleischmann/ Pons announcement of cold fusion happened on March
> > 23, 1989. Ostensibly this date was forced on them by concerns about
> > the competing work from Steven Jones at BYU, but there was another
> > more specific threat. Perhaps their rush was not BYU but concern over
> > a competing line of research which Fleischmann had participated in,
> > going all the way back to the 1970s. These were palladium metal
> > lattice experiments described by B. Dandapani (and Fleischmann as
> > coauthor) in the Journal of Electronal. Chemistry, 39, in 1972 and later.
> >
> > On March 31, 1989 - 8 days after the hurried Utah announcement the
> > following patent was actually filed by Gupta and Jacobs in the USA,
> > and it was soon GRANTED !  And then it was almost completely ignored
> > today, even though it undercuts the IP claims of others and actually
> > mentions "dense hydrogen" as the operative mechanism. Yet, the IP was
> > not commercially useful,  probably due to the high cost of palladium.
> > It is now in the public domain.
> >
> > "Process and apparatus for generating high density hydrogen in a
> > matrix" US 4986887
> >
> > https://www.google.com/patents/US4986887
> >
> > That's right - the first LENR filing was actually granted by the
> > Patent Office - so there is no wonder why later filings did not succeed.
> >
> > There was and still is - a lot of whining going on - but no evidence
> > of a "grand conspiracy" by insiders in Hot Fusion, although they did
> > not agree there was a breakthrough. Plus, there is no way Gupta could
> > have based his IP on "stealing the P&F work" since it normally takes
> > months to draft a decent patent filing and several days to get it to
> > USPTO by mail, and Gupta had published on the subject before 1989.
> >
> > We now understand why almost everyone else's patent application was
> > denied or languished, and it has nothing to do with violating the Laws
> > of Physics or Thermodynamics, nor to a hostile hot fusion establishment.
> >
> > There was, in fact, a valid patent granted for LENR.
> >
> >
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:The Gupta Patent of early 1989

[Jed Rothwell]

bobcook39...@hotmail.com  wrote:

That would be  consistent with actions to poo-poo the Pd D ideas by the
> military- industrial complex.
>

Which never happens.

The military has been the best and most generous supporter of cold fusion
from day one.

- Jed

[Vo]:oral blanko

[Frank Znidarsic]

https://moneymorning.com/acq/lithium/how-this-new-fuel-source-is-set-to-create-billions-in-new-wealth-for-investors?iris=659880&popup=no&advText=yes&ad=ron-aol-aol

[Vo]:Google translation of an electrochemistry paper

[Jed Rothwell]

A researcher asked me to translate two papers from Japanese into English:

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jsms1963/49/11/49_11_1242/_article
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jsms1963/50/9/50_9_999/_article


The first one is:

(J. Soc. Mat. Sci., Japan), Vol.49, No. 11, pp. 1242-1248, Nov. 2000
Deformation and Aging of Pd by Hydrogen Absorption-Desorption Cycles
— Deformation of Pd at a Hydrogen Absorption-Desorption Cycle —

Young-guan JUNG, Hideki SUEHIRO and Yuzuru SAKAI


I use Google translate to do this. (https://translate.google.com/) It feels
like cheating, but is sure makes things easier. However, you cannot simply
dump an Acrobat document into Google translate. That does not work well. I
thought I would list some of the steps you should to take to make Google
translate work, and show an example of how the text comes out.

Google translate makes mistakes, as shown below, but in the last few months
it has improved a great deal thanks to the newest neural network AI
techniques. See:

https://blog.google/products/translate/found-translation-more-accurate-fluent-sentences-google-translate/


Here is the worst mistake in the first paragraph:

. . . the occurrence of microcracks and its progress process, many
problems, durability of the hydrogen storage material It is an obstacle to
improve sex."

The last part should be:

. . . These problems are obstacles to improving the durability of the
hydrogen storage material."

Nothing to do with sex! Perhaps people often ask Google translate to
translate documents about sex, so the AI thinks everything is about sex.

(Oddly enough, that mistake goes away when you submit the sentence fragment
on its own, outside of the paragraph.)


Anyway, to translate an Acrobat document from Japanese into English, take
the following steps:

1. Convert the text to Microsoft Word, using a program such as Power PDF.
This is essential, mainly because it preserves most paragraphs. Submitting
the Acrobat document as is, or copying the text will produce many errors.
Every line in a paragraph will break, which will produce nonsensical
translations.

2. Fix paragraphs broken by figures and the pages.

3. Eliminate multiple columns, figures, and all of the formatting you can.

4. Submit the text to Google translate.

5. Compare the resulting text to the Japanese original. It is very handy to
use a voice reading program such as TextAloud (http://nextup.com/) to read
the text in Japanese as you look through the English text, and vice versa.

6. Correct and adjust the text.

Google translate will often select words that are correct and
understandable, but they may not be what is normally used in this context.
For example, it translated Japanese term "suiso kyuuzou" as "hydrogen
occlusion." I think electrochemists usually say "absorption." Both terms
are listed in a dictionary:

水素吸蔵
[image: 拡張検索] 

   - hydrogen absorption
   - hydrogen input
   - hydrogen occlusion



Okay. Here is the Google version of the entire first paragraph with no
changes:

Regarding the behavior of hydrogen in the metallic structure, many studies
1) - 3) have been done mainly concerning the hydrogen embrittlement
problem. Solid dissolved hydrogen is trapped in dislocations, voids and the
like in a steel material structure such as carbon steel and stainless
steel, and is thought to be a factor that promotes destruction, and
researches on elucidation of the material embrittlement mechanism by
hydrogen are being conducted. On the other hand, recently, from the
viewpoint of global environmental problems, development of a hydrogen
storage material as a clean hydrogen energy carrier is actively underway,
that is, some metals including rare earth metals easily form hydride It has
the ability to absorb and release about 1000 times as much hydrogen as its
own volume. As already seen in nickel-metal hydride batteries 5), etc.,
this product has been commercialized and the demand is rapidly increasing
year by year. Furthermore, as hybrid cars that are collecting the topic of
the future as a future model car also hydrogen batteries using misch metal
are mounted, enabling environmentally friendly and fuel-efficient systems
where metal materials occlude hydrogen, metal crystals As hydrogen enters
the lattice, lattice expansion occurs, resulting in bulk expansion near 10
to 25% 7) There is further hydrogen release, bulk material shrinks in a
relatively short time, When this expansion / contraction is repeated, the
hydrogen occlusion metal generates a mylocrack and is pulverized. This
micronization leads to deterioration of the hydrogen occluding metal and
becomes a problem from the viewpoint of durability. Several studies on this
micronization mechanism have been conducted at the practical material
level, and internal strain accompanying volume expansion generates micro
cracks, which promotes micronization, has been proposed)) · 9 However There
are many unsolved probl

RE: [Vo]:The Gupta Patent of early 1989

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Jones-

The Gupta and Jacobs patent was not missed by R. Mills.  Look at the references 
cited at the end of the 1991 patent document.  Randy was quick to pick up on 
the technology shortly after the patent lapsed in 1999.  It may be that Gupta 
and Jacobs were bought out by somebody or the technology was declared dark at 
the time the patent lapsed.  That would be  consistent with actions to poo-poo 
the Pd D ideas by the military- industrial complex.

Note the related GE and M-D patents (reference by the Gupta-Jacobs patent) 
granted in the early 1960’s.

Interestingly, I remember a flare of activity reported by a physics friend in 
the 1964-65 timeframe concerning a newly found heavy water—not deuterium 
oxide—with unusual properties.  However, the flickering flame of activity was 
extinguished in less than a week as I recall.

Bob Cook


Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Jones Beene
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 10:45 AM
To: Vortex List
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Gupta Patent of early 1989

One reason for the post below concerns the apparent evolution of Gupta's
research, in which a superior lithium ion battery is the result.

http://electrovaya.com/

The company is Ectrovaya - which is Canadian... and their battery
recently won a competition with other advanced batteries... yup, they
are apparently superior to the new battery offering of Tesla.

Not sure if there is a contribution from LENR or not. But batteries
could be the backdoor for commercialization ... All those lithium
battery meltdowns were indeed- a message.



> Here is a strange bit of history which seems to have been somehow
> overlooked and misplaced. It almost reads like "alternate facts"
>
> The Fleischmann/ Pons announcement of cold fusion happened on March
> 23, 1989. Ostensibly this date was forced on them by concerns about
> the competing work from Steven Jones at BYU, but there was another
> more specific threat. Perhaps their rush was not BYU but concern over
> a competing line of research which Fleischmann had participated in,
> going all the way back to the 1970s. These were palladium metal
> lattice experiments described by B. Dandapani (and Fleischmann as
> coauthor) in the Journal of Electronal. Chemistry, 39, in 1972 and later.
>
> On March 31, 1989 - 8 days after the hurried Utah announcement the
> following patent was actually filed by Gupta and Jacobs in the USA,
> and it was soon GRANTED !  And then it was almost completely ignored
> today, even though it undercuts the IP claims of others and actually
> mentions "dense hydrogen" as the operative mechanism. Yet, the IP was
> not commercially useful,  probably due to the high cost of palladium.
> It is now in the public domain.
>
> "Process and apparatus for generating high density hydrogen in a
> matrix" US 4986887
>
> https://www.google.com/patents/US4986887
>
> That's right - the first LENR filing was actually granted by the
> Patent Office - so there is no wonder why later filings did not succeed.
>
> There was and still is - a lot of whining going on - but no evidence
> of a "grand conspiracy" by insiders in Hot Fusion, although they did
> not agree there was a breakthrough. Plus, there is no way Gupta could
> have based his IP on "stealing the P&F work" since it normally takes
> months to draft a decent patent filing and several days to get it to
> USPTO by mail, and Gupta had published on the subject before 1989.
>
> We now understand why almost everyone else's patent application was
> denied or languished, and it has nothing to do with violating the Laws
> of Physics or Thermodynamics, nor to a hostile hot fusion establishment.
>
> There was, in fact, a valid patent granted for LENR.
>
>