RE: [Vo]:Jet Energy - nanor/phusor question
At 09:24 AM 7/11/2013, Dennis Cravens wrote: One of the more reassuring things when you see heat from current through a loaded powder is the change in thermal output with applied magnetic fields. That is the thing that help convince me. Mitch, would you care to share any experience with mag. fields? ... D2 Thanks, Dennis. That is so true. and would add that that is verified when such similar changes are not seen effecting the ohmic controls at the same location, as you know. Also quite reassured when we see large progressive rises in excess heat (beyond the expected thermal dissipation) with small increases in input power as we ascend the OOP manifold. Published some of the effects of applied H-fields on CF/LANR aqueous systems (impact is, at least in part, on loading) in Swartz, M.R. Impact of an Applied Magnetic Field on the Electrical Impedance of a LANR Device, Volume 4 JCMNS, Proceedings of the March 2010, New Energy Technology Symposium held at the 239th American Chemical Society National Meeting and Exposition in San Francisco (2011) which is at the uncensored, terrific, CMNS site. For me, loading the lattice has been the key to active CF/LANR systems since March 23, '89. Am busy working on a write-up of the effects wrought upon nanostructured CF/LANR systems by applied magnetic field intensities, at this very moment. Best regards, Mitchell -- Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 06:17:33 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Jet Energy - nanor/phusor question From: jcol...@gmail.com To: m...@theworld.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Dr. Swartz, Thank you for responding. I had not realized the lengths to which you went to try to match the impedance, which must be very difficult with the changing impedance of the active material. With the leads being the same, you would have had times where the control impedance was greater than the active material with the work you did on matching (thus reversing a possible effect of power dissipation in the leads). Have you also had times where more power is put through the active vs. control to see how that affects the Delta T/watt comparison? On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Dr. Mitchell Swartz mailto:m...@theworld.comm...@theworld.com wrote: At 04:53 PM 7/4/2013, Jack Cole mailto:jcol...@gmail.comjcol...@gmail.com wrote: In my electrolysis research, I found that the wire leads for my control runs made a significant difference. Obviously, thinner wire connecting to the joule heater resulted in less power being dissipated in the joule heater and more being dissipated in the wire leads. I had initially thought the wire was thick enough, but I wasn't seeing as much heating as I expected. I switched to thicker wire, and then I saw better heating. That brings me to Jet Energy's (Mitchell Swartz) claims. His active material has a much higher resistance than his control resistance. Could the apparent excess heating in this device be related to the same phenomena (i.e., power dissipation in electrical leads vs. where the measurements are taking place)? Thank you for asking, Jack. Good questions. The active materials are not always higher electrical resistance than the control resistance. We try to make them equal, but the CF/LANR component undergoes changes for several reasons, and the controls are often changed to get them as equal as possible, or multiple thermal ohmic controls are included. On the leads. We use 1 mm diameter leads into the CF/LANR components. The PHUSORs have 1 mm Pt lead and 1mm Pd leads which are shown in the papers from ICCF10. That is mentioned in detail, and shown in photographs, in Swartz, M., Can a Pd/D2O/Pt Device be Made Portable to Demonstrate the Optimal Operating Point?, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Proceedings of ICCF-10, eds. Peter L. Hagelstein, Scott, R. Chubb, World Scientific Publishing, NJ, ISBN 981-256-564-6, 29-44; 45-54 (2006). The NANORs have similar size diameter of the leads and are pure copper. They were designed so that input impedance would not be an issue, and their impedances are measured as well. The CF/LANR device's electrical impedance is usually measured by four-terminal measurement. Also the excess heats are verified by several independent systems as discussed in the papers (three usually, for the NANORs). Mitchell Swartz
Re: [Vo]:Jet Energy - nanor/phusor question
At 07:17 AM 7/11/2013, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Dr. Swartz, Thank you for responding. I had not realized the lengths to which you went to try to match the impedance, which must be very difficult with the changing impedance of the active material. With the leads being the same, you would have had times where the control impedance was greater than the active material with the work you did on matching (thus reversing a possible effect of power dissipation in the leads). Have you also had times where more power is put through the active vs. control to see how that affects the Delta T/watt comparison? Jack, Yes. And we put a measured range of input powers through both the ohmic control and device which are adjacent; so all extremes are examined. Achieving this is complicated for both, and very difficult with the nanomaterials. . The PHUSORs (aqueous CF/LANR) are in low paramagnetic heavy water with cell impedances ca. 300 kilohms to 800 kilohms, which are probably an impedance higher than your typical electrolytic systems. This resistance decreases (degrades) over months to ~5 to 20 kilohms, as described in the many papers on this (eg. from ICCF10). The NANORs (dry preloaded CF/LANR components) start at gigohms or higher, and are driven to resistances ca. megohms to tens of kilohms depending upon the type of NANOR. Some change is degradation, some is material change including redistribution associated with dielectric polarization (such conduction is, of course, necessarily connected through Hilbert space and the imaginary part of the complex permittivity), and some catastrophic changes under conditions associated with what appears to be avalanche electron breakdown, as we reported in several papers. If my email works tonight, you should shortly have copies of the papers; two are preprints from the upcoming Proc. ICCF-17. Hope that helps. Good luck. Mitchell Swartz Under the right conditions, even the smallest ripple can create a mighty wave. Zensunni maxim On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Dr. Mitchell Swartz mailto:m...@theworld.comm...@theworld.com wrote: At 04:53 PM 7/4/2013, Jack Cole mailto:jcol...@gmail.comjcol...@gmail.com wrote: In my electrolysis research, I found that the wire leads for my control runs made a significant difference. Obviously, thinner wire connecting to the joule heater resulted in less power being dissipated in the joule heater and more being dissipated in the wire leads. I had initially thought the wire was thick enough, but I wasn't seeing as much heating as I expected. I switched to thicker wire, and then I saw better heating. That brings me to Jet Energy's (Mitchell Swartz) claims. His active material has a much higher resistance than his control resistance. Could the apparent excess heating in this device be related to the same phenomena (i.e., power dissipation in electrical leads vs. where the measurements are taking place)? Thank you for asking, Jack. Good questions. The active materials are not always higher electrical resistance than the control resistance. We try to make them equal, but the CF/LANR component undergoes changes for several reasons, and the controls are often changed to get them as equal as possible, or multiple thermal ohmic controls are included. On the leads. We use 1 mm diameter leads into the CF/LANR components. The PHUSORs have 1 mm Pt lead and 1mm Pd leads which are shown in the papers from ICCF10. That is mentioned in detail, and shown in photographs, in Swartz, M., Can a Pd/D2O/Pt Device be Made Portable to Demonstrate the Optimal Operating Point?, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Proceedings of ICCF-10, eds. Peter L. Hagelstein, Scott, R. Chubb, World Scientific Publishing, NJ, ISBN 981-256-564-6, 29-44; 45-54 (2006). The NANORs have similar size diameter of the leads and are pure copper. They were designed so that input impedance would not be an issue, and their impedances are measured as well. The CF/LANR device's electrical impedance is usually measured by four-terminal measurement. Also the excess heats are verified by several independent systems as discussed in the papers (three usually, for the NANORs). Mitchell Swartz
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
At 07:34 PM 7/10/2013, you wrote: DJ Cravens mailto:djcrav...@hotmail.comdjcrav...@hotmail.com wrote: I just did a search on LENR CANR and find 122 hits. I have papers, and people know them and reference them. My guess is you will scrub them now like Mitch S. But you keep saying these things. Rothwell: Mitch S. sent me two letters saying he would sue me if I uploaded his papers or quoted from them. If you send me letters like that, yes, I will scrub your papers. You don't even have to threaten a lawsuit. You tell me to remove them and they will be gone the next day. Several authors asked me to remove papers, usually just one paper, leaving the others. I have not removed any other papers for any other reason. - Jed Jed Rothwell is untruthful, always trying to twist the facts to make himself look innocent. The only threats have been from him and his associates. == The science papers we have written improving calorimetry and describing how to achieve CF/LANR have been censored by Jed Rothwell. I, and we, have always given permission to have these papers listed and shared. They were provided for the ICCF Proceedings on time for the publication. We have always expected the ICCF14 papers to be in the Proceedings. Proof for the non-informed? I am so tired of Rothwell's false statements that it is time to let some light on the matter. Dave Nagel, and I, BOTH told Rothwell NOT to remove our seven (7) papers from the Proc. ICCF14.A partial copy, with the relevant parts, of Dave Nagel's letter to me affirming that he also told Rothwell that, is attached. = beginning of email Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 10:32:33 -0500 To: Mitchell Swartz m...@theworld.com From: David J. Nagelna...@gwu.edu Subject: Re: Mitchell, I can say two things in response to your notes. First, the entire proceedings are on the web at the ISCMNS site, as you already know. Jed sent the intact copy of the proceedings to Bill Collis, and Bill put them on his site. That much was done correctly. Second, I wrote Jed emphatically that I did not want a second and incomplete version of the ICCF-14 proceedings in circulation. But, I do not control what Jed posts on his site. Dave === end of email === This copy of that email demonstrates that Dennis is correct and Rothwell light years south of disingenuous. Further supporting this tendency of Rothwell, despite his disingenuous, mutating comments, attention is directed to the fact that it was HE who removed, [in addition to our three papers from ICCF10 (which showed how to do CF/LANR and reported the open five day demonstration)] papers by others such as Dr. Bass, and --so relevant this month-- the late Ken Shoulder's papers. Point of fact, Jed Rothwell is sometimes so unbalanced and malevolent that he was caught, and stopped by Larry Forsley and Dave Nagel, from impetuously taking down one of my posters at ICCF14 in Washington, DC. As yet a further corollary of his bad behavior, it is a fact that Jed nearly always mischaracterizes our work. For example, I just noticed he misstated again on Vortex about the wires leading into the PHUSORS and NANORS, when in fact they are 1 mm diameter. That is mentioned in detail in the censored papers such as Swartz, M., Can a Pd/D2O/Pt Device be Made Portable to Demonstrate the Optimal Operating Point?, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Proceedings of ICCF-10, eds. Peter L. Hagelstein, Scott, R. Chubb, World Scientific Publishing, NJ, ISBN 981-256-564-6, 29-44; 45-54 (2006). Swartz, M., Excess Power Gain using High Impedance and Codepositional LANR Devices Monitored by Calorimetry, Heat Flow, and Paired Stirling Engines, Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF-14), 10-15 August 2008, Washington, D.C. Ed: D J. Nagel and M Melich, ISBN: 978-0-578-06694-3, 123, (2010)). Swartz, M., G. Verner, Excess Heat from Low Electrical Conductivity Heavy Water Spiral-Wound Pd/D2O/Pt and Pd/D2O-PdCl2/Pt Devices, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Proceedings of ICCF-10, eds. PHagelstein, S Chubb, World Scientific Publishing, NJ, ISBN 981-256-564-6, 29-44; 45-54 (2006). Mitchell Swartz A written fact is considered innately more true than spoken gossip or hearsay, but physical documents have no greater claim to accuracy than an anecdote from an actual eyewitness. Gilbertus Albans, Mentat Discourses on History
Re: [Vo]:Jet Energy - nanor/phusor question
At 04:53 PM 7/4/2013, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: In my electrolysis research, I found that the wire leads for my control runs made a significant difference. Obviously, thinner wire connecting to the joule heater resulted in less power being dissipated in the joule heater and more being dissipated in the wire leads. I had initially thought the wire was thick enough, but I wasn't seeing as much heating as I expected. I switched to thicker wire, and then I saw better heating. That brings me to Jet Energy's (Mitchell Swartz) claims. His active material has a much higher resistance than his control resistance. Could the apparent excess heating in this device be related to the same phenomena (i.e., power dissipation in electrical leads vs. where the measurements are taking place)? Thank you for asking, Jack. Good questions. The active materials are not always higher electrical resistance than the control resistance. We try to make them equal, but the CF/LANR component undergoes changes for several reasons, and the controls are often changed to get them as equal as possible, or multiple thermal ohmic controls are included. On the leads. We use 1 mm diameter leads into the CF/LANR components. The PHUSORs have 1 mm Pt lead and 1mm Pd leads which are shown in the papers from ICCF10. That is mentioned in detail, and shown in photographs, in Swartz, M., Can a Pd/D2O/Pt Device be Made Portable to Demonstrate the Optimal Operating Point?, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Proceedings of ICCF-10, eds. Peter L. Hagelstein, Scott, R. Chubb, World Scientific Publishing, NJ, ISBN 981-256-564-6, 29-44; 45-54 (2006). The NANORs have similar size diameter of the leads and are pure copper. They were designed so that input impedance would not be an issue, and their impedances are measured as well. The CF/LANR device's electrical impedance is usually measured by four-terminal measurement. Also the excess heats are verified by several independent systems as discussed in the papers (three usually, for the NANORs). Mitchell Swartz
Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
At 09:34 PM 7/10/2013, you wrote: Dr. Mitchell Swartz mailto:m...@theworld.comm...@theworld.com wrote: == The science papers we have written improving calorimetry and describing how to achieve CF/LANR have been censored by Jed Rothwell. I, and we, have always given permission to have these papers listed and shared. No, you have not. You are only trying to set me up so you can sue me the way you sued others. I know your tricks. You have tried to play them on other people as well, and they have contacted me. If you want to give me permission you have to send signed, notarized letter to me at the address shown at LENR-CANR, and you have to list every individual title you want me to upload. I have given you a draft of the letter you must send. Sign it, notarize it and mail it, or shut up. Those are my terms. No negotiations. I will NOT -- repeat not -- spend money fighting a nuisance lawsuit from you. You should be thankful I would even consider uploading your papers. - Jed Again, Jed Rothwell is not truthful. Since I have not sued anyone in cold fusion, his wild fabrication shows elements of paranoia and disingenuity. As the previously posted Nagel letter shows, Jed has not been honest. The letter proves the seven ICCF14 papers were always censored ... by Jed. They were never missing as he previously claimed before his last allegation re-mutated. I, and we, have always given permission to have these seven papers papers to be listed and shared. The seven papers were provided for the ICCF14 Proceedings on time for the publication. We have always expected the ICCF4 papers to be in the Proceedings. There only conclusion is that Jed has been dishonest about this both at the CANR-LENR site and on Vortex. Some of the reasons are now clearer. Mitchell Swartz
[Vo]:Chad Schaffer pleads guilty in Mallove murder trial
*THE GOOD, THE BAD, and THE UGLY * April 20, 2012 At last, Chad Schaffer has pled guilty today to the brutal execution murder of our friend and colleague, Dr. Eugene Mallove. I spoke with Gene by telephone on his last day. We were in the middle of a cold fusion experiment which produced excess energy. The data is up at the Cold Fusion Times Website. http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html If Gene had lived, the development and integration of cold fusion would be far ahead of where it is today. America and the rest of the world have suffered, and will continue to, because of the coverup called Heavywatergate -- and the murder of Eugene Mallove.. Gene often reminded me, Ad astra per aspera. May some peace finally begin to come to Gene and his family. Mitchell Swartz * === Chad Schaffer pleads guilty in Mallove murder trial* Greg Smith http://www.norwichbulletin.com/news/x1364620539/Schaffer-accepts-plea-deal-in-Mallove-murder-trial#axzz1scKOQ8CV NorwichBulletin.com - April 20, 2012 - A murder trial in Norwich was abruptly halted today when Chad Schaffer of Norwich entered a guilty plea to the charges of first-degree manslaughter and accessory to robbery in connection with the 2004 beating death of 56-year-old Eugene Mallove. As part of a plea agreement reached with the prosecution, Schaffer is to serve a total of 16 years in prison --- a disheartening number for members of the Mallove family who have been attending the trial. ... Schaffer had faced a possible 60 years in prison if convicted by the jury. This is not justice, said a tearful Rebecca Woodard, sister to Ethan Mallove's sister's husband. This sentence doesn't come close to righting this wrong. *Witness: Boyfriend forced me to help kill Mallove* Apr 18, 2012 - A key witness for the prosecution, Foster took the stand Wednesday in the ongoing murder trial of her former boyfriend, Chad Schaffer, 34, of Norwich. Both are charged with murder in Mallove's May 14, 2004, death, but she is hoping for leniency in exchange for her testimony. She maintains Schaffer and his cousin, Mozzelle Brown, beat Mallove and returned with her to the scene so she could drive Mallove's van and help make the incident look like a robbery. Foster said she arrived to find Mallove facedown on the ground. There was blood coming out of his mouth, she said. Did he say anything? asked prosecutor Paul Narducci. 'Help me,' Foster said. Did you? Narducci asked. No, she said While Schaffer and Brown continued to beat Mallove, Foster said, Schaffer smacked her in the face to get her to participate. Foster, 32, and Schaffer are Mallove's former tenants. = More, and more links, at the *Cold Fusion Times Website*. http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
Re: [Vo]:Patterson and Letts experiment
At 08:20 AM 10/3/2009, you wrote: I wrote: It strikes me as fairy easy to control for gravitational thermal instabilities in flow calorimeters.. That should be: It strikes me as fairly easy to control for gravitational thermal instabilities in flow calorimeters.. Fairies, sprites, elves, pixies, leprechauns, or other magical beings are hopefully not essential factors in cold fusion experiments. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ You cannot control these instabilities in your cup of coffee.
Re: [Vo]:Rothwell and Bad Science
At 08:51 PM 9/30/2009, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: Perhaps because he doesn't have written permission to upload it? Why not grant him permission, in a post to Vortex, and see what he does? Wouldn't that be an interesting experiment? For those interested, I have been working with Dr. Brian Josephson many months, as an experiment, sending some of the papers by email to Jed, cc to Brian. The fact is: Brian and the others received them. Brian encouraged Jed to put them up on his site, but Jed insisted he edit them. Thereafter, Jed always found a problem. I have posted my papers repeated to vortex and CMNS and anyone who has requested them. Many times. The disingenuity of Rothwell that they have been withheld for any of Rothwell's fabricated convoluted reasons is brazen, and obviously laughable. Dr. Mitchell Swartz
RE: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket
At 12:47 AM 10/1/2009, you wrote: Dr. Swartz: You should read carefully Stephen Lawrence's post today, 9/30/2009, at 6:16PM. You might want to recind your comment since Stephen included quotes from as far back as 5 Dec 2004 which CLEARLY show that Jed has ALWAYS admitted that he got the CD from you, but that he couldn't read it. Thus, your comment about his lying about getting the CD, and finally admitting he got it are obviously an exaggeration at the very least, if not a conscious attempt to deceive. All I want to know now is when are you going to post a reply to Vortex that specifically gives Jed permission to download and post your papers on lenr-canr's website Shouldn't take you more than 2 or 3 minutes to compose that and post it here... I'll be looking for it in the morning! Cheers, -Mark Mark, Jed and others on vortex have had permission for quite a long time. I have posted my papers repeatedly to vortex, and CMNS, and anyone who has requested them. Many times. The lies of Rothwell that they have been withheld for any of Rothwell's fabricated convoluted reasons is brazen, and obviously laughable. We do not want the work edited by Jed. For those interested, I have been working with Dr. Brian Josephson many months, as an experiment, sending the papers by email to Jed and Brian. The fact is: Brian and the others received them. Brian encouraged Jed to put them up on his site, but Jed insisted e edit them. Thereafter, Jed always found a problem. We don't believe the contrived CD rants by Jed, because there were more than one set of CD. One was given in hand and the other was mailed. I still have the postal receipt included from paper copies sent. Thereafter, multiple pdf copies were sent. One doubts that all of the copies were all 'bad', given that every other recipient had no problem with CDs, with the paper receipts, with emails, with second pdfs ... etc. etc. Permission was not only given, but several times, including implicitly by the very effort made to send the documents. Have good day. Mitchell Swartz
Re: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket
At 03:35 PM 9/30/2009, Rothwell wrote: Steven V Johnson have expressed confusion, such as: I'm left with two conflicting perspectives. I don't understand why Mr. Rothwell wasn't able to read/scan what I presume were hardcopy documents allegedly given to him by Dr. Swartz at a prior encounter. Presumably such hardcopy could have been scanned. . . . Rothwell: Actually, he sent a CD-ROM which I could not read. Later I got electronic copies of all ICCF-10 papers from Peter Hagelstein. I have printed copies of Swartz's papers in books, and I could always scan them. Well at last, Rothwell finally admits he did receive those copies from me. Seems his previous story, based on falsehoods, is eroding little by little. = Rothwell: However, this has nothing to do with our dispute. Ah yes. The indelible dispute. The real dispute is that a number of years ago I exposed Rothwell's scientific error on flow measurements, along with several others on spf. He was running an experiment claiming kilowatts. Some noted that kilowatts of power dissipation produce a lot of damage to the materials. Others noted he was measuring without a pressure head, and I noted that he failed to account for Bernard instability. Basically, by failing to calibrate, and by using a bad paradigm involving flow in a vertical path, Rothwell got a phoney 1 kilowatt, a false positive, henceforth kilowatt. Now, when Dr. Patterson's cell was used in a correct configuration it appears to have gotten a very respectable 0.8 watts excess heat, which is impressive if done for a long amount of time, and with calibrations. Note that the reason Jed does not like my papers is that we demonstrated that Bernard instability was giving over-estimations of excess heat in vertically positioned flow calorimeters. I published a series of papers on how flow calorimetry was susceptible to vertical flow in the flow calorimetry system, and all hell broke loose by Jed. Rothwell has periodically decompensated (like now). But phoney calibrations like Rothwell's need to be examined, studied, and revealed. The sooner the better. Furthermore, this is important because it is a large error, and the error could be correctable. Experimentally, the kilowatts would always disappear when horizontal flow was used (which avoids the Bernard instability). Analyzing the data, the false positive effect is correctable, by simple consideration of the continuum electromechanics. I wrote a paper on it (1), and without the correction, fractions of a watt of excess power were shown where they could appear as a kilowatt [which is what made Jed infamous on spf at the time.(2) NOTA BENE: The problem is that false positive amplification hurt cold fusion for more than decade because the kilowatts were not kilowatts, and therefore excuses were made. 1. Swartz, M, Improved Calculations Involving Energy Release Using a Buoyancy Transport Correction, Journal of New Energy, 1, 3, 219-221 (1996) 2. Swartz, M, Potential for Positional Variation in Flow Calorimetric Systems, Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130 (1996) To this day, Rothwell gets an immunologic anaphylactic reaction to these papers which is characterized by his conveniently forgetting about this. = Rothwell: You have to understand that Swartz uses this and other forums to ran an extortion and intimidation racket. He has been doing this for years. He tried to nail me twice, and he nailed some other people who contacted me. I don't know if this is a hobby or a business. You can see half of his scheme in the messages he posted here. It works like this: I never did this. Rothwell is frothing at the mouth again. I have contributed to cold fusion education through the COLD FUSION TIMES and have lost money doing it for two decades. We even hosted a free seminar, the LANR Colloquium at MIT this year. Where was the extortion? What the hell is Rothwell talking about? Rothwell is challenged to prove it, or admit he is a screwball, afflicted with paranoia. = Rothwell: 1. He goads the mark, as he has done here with me. Or he makes nice. When I gave Rothwell a ride from Gene Mallove's funeral in NH to Boston Newbury Street (and handed him a CD which he never admitted until the above) he exited the car and did not even say thank you. Being nice to him has always been a waste of time, generated out of goodness of heart, not because anything was wanted. = Rothwell: Several researchers have denied permission to upload papers. Of course that is their right and I have no objection. Some are hostile toward LENR-CANR and have taken steps to stop others from contributing to it, or spread false rumors about it. Of course many skeptics despise it. The ones at Wikipedia made it impossible to add a link to LENR-CANR anywhere in
Re: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket
At 06:58 PM 9/30/2009, Met Rothwell wrote: Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote: Extort money? It iit a lie. I never did this. Nor would I ever. So, this time I will not be hearing from you or your attorney? That's a relief. Maybe you should give back the money you extorted from others. If you do send any more extortion letters by registered mail or other means, I will publish them here this time, instead of ignoring them as Gene convinced me to do years ago. As I said, I don't respond well to intimidation, especially not the third time around. Seems you were just exposed as a liar, Jed. What you edited out was: Where was the extortion? What the hell is Rothwell talking about? Rothwell is challenged to prove it, or admit he is a screwball, afflicted with paranoia. Rothwell was silent, and could not stop editing what someone wrote. Edit. Censor. Rothwell. Seems that there were not extortion attempts as Rothwell lied when he posted this thread, to poison vortex. Being that Rothwell has now been shown to be a proven liar, once again, and that by he silence he has admitted he made the whole thing up, there is nothing further to say.
[Vo]:Rothwell and Bad Science
At 06:58 PM 9/30/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: Rothwell; Anyway, say what you like, but don't try your little tricks on me, in public or in private. And if you sincerely want your papers uploaded at LENR-CANR (as if!), you know the drill and you know why I insist on it. Everyone else now knows. You have to: 1. Upload your papers to your own damn web site. 2. Give me explicit, public permission to copy them. If I see you have erased them from your site I will erase them from LENR-CANR faster than you can say knife, so don't try that cute little trick either. Anyway, it'll never happen. You will never publish anything on line, and now everyone knows why. Game over for you. You'll have to find some other way to intimidate people. - Jed Clever rouse. Complicated. But already exposed as hype. Beside, I only care about the science and engineering. Actually, probably the two most important papers which show Rothwell's errors (which result from his disdain for calibration) are 1. Swartz, M, Potential for Positional Variation in Flow Calorimetric Systems, Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130 (1996) and 2. Swartz, M, Improved Calculations Involving Energy Release Using a Buoyancy Transport Correction, Journal of New Energy, 1, 3, 219-221 (1996) But, despite Jed's twisting of this (and I did not think it was possible to twist anything such as he has here) POTENTIAL FOR POSITIONAL VARIATION IN FLOW CALORIMETRIC SYSTEMS has been at the web site since 1996. The url is http://world.std.com/~mica/posvar.html Is paper 1 on the LENR-CANR web site? Not there. Why? Because the paper discusses scientific error on flow measurements, made in the past along with several other very insightful criticisms of Jed made on spf. Jed was running an experiment claiming kilowatts. Some noted that kilowatts of power dissipation produce a lot of damage to the materials --- but not in Jed's system. Others noted he was measuring without a pressure head. I noted that he failed to account for Bernard instability. Basically, by failing to calibrate, and by using a bad paradigm involving flow in a vertical path, Rothwell got a phoney 1 kilowatt, a false positive, henceforth kilowatt. Now, when Dr. Patterson's cell was used in a correct configuration it appears to have gotten a very respectable 0.8 watts excess heat, which is impressive if done for a long amount of time, and with calibrations. The potential errors from flow calorimetry arranged vertical in Earth g-field are flow related. They can potentially cause a large error, a false positive amplification. The error can be correctable, so why not just fix it? Dr. Mitchell Swartz
Re: [Vo]:Swartz is running a extortion racket
At 09:26 PM 9/30/2009, Rothwell, proven disingenuous, wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Update: Dr. Swartz has posted the URL of one of his papers on
Vortex,
as of about an hour ago. I don't know if it's one of the papers
Jed was
considering uploading or not.
Rothwell: I have not considered uploading any paper by Swartz for
the last 10 years.
There are three issues here:
First, the truth continues to slowly leak
out of disingenuous Jed, little by little, as his stories
change.
--
Rothwell: Not since he
first threatened me.
Second, what utter nonsense. This totally new
fabrication
and story du jour by Rothwell is laughable.
Rothwell was asked for the proof of his libelous allegation
of 'extortion'.
He has been silent except to attempt to change the subject over and
over.
Therefore, Rothwell is not a man of honor.
He is shown to have been dishonest, and has failed to apologize.
-
Third, flashback:
NOTA BENE: Rothwell's latest decompensation and picking of
a fight followed a simple question:
Rothwell had posted:
{referring to the docs given to
the DOE panel]
Rothwell: The documents they were given are listed here:
http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm#Submissions
- Jed
I thanked Jed, pointed out that I had not seen the table,
and that one observation was that when the papers which were
distributed to the DOE in 2004 (as they assembled to consider
CF/LANR) were examined, the table indicates that all of the papers
of Prof. Dash and I, although possibly referenced, were apparently
absent from the printed papers handed out to the DOE
--- even though ***ironically*** Dr.Dash and I were (and remain, I think)
the only ones who have actually conducted open cold fusion
demonstrations
in the USA at a national meeting.
Methinks Rothwell protests too much -- for reasons
unclear.
Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion
At 11:03 AM 9/29/2009, you wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: For their part, the cold fusion believers did a lousy job of selling it. I agree their public relations efforts have not been good. I think it is a bad idea to make conference proceedings only available as copyright books. Biberian recently told me that they have sold only 85 copies of the ICCF-10 and ICCF-11 proceedings. However, I think many researchers have a good job presenting their results in well-written, convincing papers. There is enough good material out there to make a solid case. Goodness knows, there is also enough bad material to make cold fusion look crazy. But all endeavors involving large numbers of people are a mixture of competent and incompetent, brilliant and stupid. You have to judge by what is best. The earliest effect that was actually conclusive was heat/helium correlation, which cut through the replication problem and turned it into classic proof through correlation (and this makes failures into controls). Somehow the presentation at the 2004 DoE review managed to sufficiently confuse the reviewers and the DoE so that the correlation was missed, and totally misrepresented in the summary report. This is true, but I doubt it was the fault of the presenters. The paper given to the panel explains the helium results clearly in section 3: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinnewphysica.pdf Some people feel this paper should have said more about Miles or Iwamura. I asked the authors, Hagelstein and McKubre, about that. They said they emphasized their own work because they understood their own work best, and they could discuss it in depth with the panel without fear of making a mistake or misrepresenting the work. That seems sensible to me. By the way, all those papers listed in the references were given to the panel members. I gather they were given big goodie boxes crammed with papers as take-home prizes (homework). So if they didn't get it, it was because they didn't do their homework. It isn't all that hard to understand, after all! The documents they were given are listed here: http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm#Submissions - Jed Jed, thank you for that list. Had not seen it before. How ironic (or not) that the two LANR/CF researchers who actually had perfomed open demonstrations at ICCF10, Dr. Dash and myself, did not have a single paper on that highly selected, therefore censored, list. BTW, the DOE made quite reasonable requests/complaints which Dr. Dash and I had actually done. Dr. Mitchell Swartz
Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion
The documents they were given are listed here: http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm#Submissions - Jed Jed, thank you for that list. Had not seen it before. How ironic (or not) that the two LANR/CF researchers who actually had perfomed open demonstrations at ICCF10, The URL for the open demo is here: http://theworld.com/~mica/jeticcf10demo.html More uncensored information on cold fusion here: http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html Dr. Dash and myself, did not have a single paper on that highly selected, therefore censored, list. BTW, the DOE made quite reasonable requests/complaints which Dr. Dash and I had actually done. Dr. Mitchell Swartz
Re: [Vo]:The source of the disagreement over cold fusion
At 01:09 PM 9/29/2009, you wrote: Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote: How ironic (or not) that the two LANR/CF researchers who actually had perfomed open demonstrations at ICCF10, Dr. Dash and myself, did not have a single paper on that highly selected, therefore censored, list. Yes, it is censored, but you yourself are the censor! Hagelstein included one of your ICCF-10 papers, #19 on the list of References: M. Swartz and G. Verner, Excess heat from low-electrical conductivity heavy water spiral-wound Pd/D2O/Pt and Pd/D2O-PdCl2/Pt Devices, Proc. ICCF10, (2004). It is not shown on my list because I do not have a copy in the library. Many papers are missing from the list, as shown by the gaps in the numbers. I do not have a copy of any of your papers in the Library, or on my hard disk, because you have not given me any copies of your work. And you have steadfastly denied me permission to upload any of your papers, even threatening a lawsuit when I posted an abstract from one of your papers. Jed, Sorry that you took this personally, but ... Wrong. You were given copies. Multiple copies. By disk. On paper. By mail with green card. In fact, what is most boggling, is that you were given a CD with the papers when I gave you a ride back from Gene Mallove's funeral to Newbury St. You left the car, with it in hand. So the confabulations by you are nonsense. Corroborating your fabrications, Jed, you have told others and us that you demand to EDIT the papers. [ Now, to think about it, that is more censorship, isn't it? ] = So the only person censoring anything here is you. Don't blame Hagelstein, McKubre or me because you censor your own work, for crying out loud. BTW, when the late Dr. Mallove was murdered, you were still even censoring the titles of the three papers at ICCF-10. Since then you have the titles listed, and added others whom were not listed, like those by Dr. Bass. Thank you for all that. No one blames/d Prof. Hagelstein or Mike McKubre for the censorship by you at the LENR/CANR website. It wouldn't be logical. In fact, corroborating that, when you one wrote Gene and I about why you censor papers at your website, you named someone in the field, and it was neither of them. [ Also, FYI, Gene Mallove posted on vortex quite a bit about the censorship at your website. Some of them are quite interesting, although never understood what he meant about 'political censorship'. ] == Dash is #52, ICCF6. Dash never censors anything and never denies permission, but I don't happen to have that paper in electronic format. - Jed Gosh. I don't see Prof. Dash at #52 in that table, so I must not understand what you meant. Have a good day. Mitchell
RE: [Vo]:Why No Repulsion?
This is not a static process, but the success of thunderstorm electricity results from the kinetic ratio of two ongoing process. One suspects that the rate of formation of free charge in the cloud, caused by friction between water crystals pulling protons off of one, exceeds the rate of free charge loss (that is, there is a relatively long dielectric relaxation time (1))). Hence, a net build up. 1. MELCHER, J.R., Continuum Electromechanics, MIT Press, Cambridge, (1981). t 02:28 AM 9/26/2009, you wrote: There is, it's just overcome by the forces causing the separation of charge... Understand that just as in a chemical battery, there is an active process keeping the charges separated, and it has to do with the turbulent columns of air moving vertically inside the cloud. It's been about 19 yrs since my involvement with this topic as a grad student, but back then there were at least two competing hypotheses as to the microphysics of cloud electrification. Not sure if that has been resolved or not... but convective cumulus clouds are not the nice calm gentle-looking puffs of cotton that they appear to be!! They are quite turbulent inside with significant regions of vertical shear... If I remember correctly, the vertical structure of a cumulus cloud has a positive region at the bottom, a pancake region of mostly negative charges near to the freezing level (~mid-cloud), and a positive region near the top... -Mark?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office / From: Chris Zell [ mailto:chrisrz...@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 8:28 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Why No Repulsion? I was wondering if anyone knew a thorough answer to the question: How can a charged thunderstorm exist? I've asked meterologists this question but no one has any answer. How can a cloud carry any charge at all? Why doesn't the charge cause the cloud to instantly dissipate? If we can demonstrate electrostatic precipitation with a small cloud chamber, how can any thunderstorm exist at all? Another mystery: How can an electron cloud exist in a vacuum tube? How can it hold itself together? It just seems to me that there are exceptions to the idea that like charges always repel - a notion that might guide us to free energy. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.112/2394 - Release Date: 09/25/09 05:51:00
[Vo]:Schedule: 2009 Adv.Colloquium on LANR/CF at MIT
ANNOUNCEMENT: Updated schedule for CF/LANR/LENR colleagues who have registered to participate in the 2009 Advanced Colloquium on Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA on June 20, 2009, Saturday - June 21, 2009, Sunday. == The 2009 Adv. Colloquium on LANR at MIT has been expanded with possible optional field trips for Sunday 6/21/9 (weather and experimental conditions, permitting) === 2009 Advanced Colloquium on Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA Title: The Science and Technology of Deuterated Metals, Engineering and Devices in LANR Schedule: Saturday, June 20, 2009 8:00 AM - 5 PM Colloquium at MIT - Space is limited - 40 seats total (**) Prior registration is required, through Dr. Swartz (m...@theworld.com) Sunday, June 21, 2009 = Optional Field Trip(s) Equipment, LANR, or Culture (Used equipment haul, look in developing Arata-type expt, or cultural visit to Red Sox, Museums, etc. Make your own below ) == Saturday Tentative Schedule: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA Saturday, June 20, 2009 8:00 AM Colloquium: Material Science, Engineering, and Energy Transfer in LANR Survey of Experimental Studies of Lattice-assisted Nuclear reactions Highly deuterated and codeposited Group VIII Metals - Structure of Water, and Deuteron Transfer Dr. Mitchell Swartz, JET Energy, Incorporated Deuteron and Palladium Flow in Loading and Codeposition - Solid State Physics of Loaded Palladium - Dr. Scott Chubb, Infinite Energy Coherent Scattering and D-Flow in Pd1-xDx Roles of symmetry and finite size in Quantum Electrodynamics - Modeling Energy Transfer to Excess Heat Prof. Peter L. Hagelstein, MIT Nuclear Lattice Coupling, Phonons, Models Involving Deuterated Metals - Introduction to Buildup in Photon Energy Transfer Dr. Alex Frank, JET Energy, Incorporated Electronic Equilibrium and Build up in CR-39 and other Materials - Experimental ( I ) - Survey of LANR Experiments - TBA - Survey of LANR Experiments - Prof. Peter Hagelstein, MIT - Continuum Electromechanics Discerns Multiple Types of LANR Dr. Mitchell Swartz, JET Energy, Inc. Continuum Electromechanical Approach to Flux - Investigations of Pd/D Codeposition LANR Pamela Mosier-Boss, Ph.D., Adv.Systems and Applied Sciences Div. SSC-Pacific Codeposition experiments, and Additional Applied Fields, CR-39 Pit Resolution Eq. - Lunch 1:00 PM Investigations of Pd/D Codeposition/Witness Materials Lawrence Forsley, President, JWK International Corporation Codeposition experiments, and Advantages of Witness Materials - Investigations of Pd/D LANR Excess Heat Dr. Mitchell Swartz, JET Energy, Inc. Excess Heat, Non-Thermal near-IR emission in LANR, Metamaterials, Optimal Operating Point and Tardive Thermal Power - Investigations of ZrO2/Pd LANR - Brian Ahern, Ph.D. - Investigation of Radioactive Material Inactivation - John Thompson - Panel on Transmutation Efforts, Issues and Mechanisms - Experimental ( II ) - Nanostructure Size Issues - Brian Ahern, Ph.D - Input Power Issues - Dr. Mitchell Swartz - CR39 Issues - Pamela Mosier-Boss, Ph.D., Lawrence Forsley Current Issues/problems in CR39, and other types of, recording devices - Round Tables/Open Discussion - Scientific Challenges of Experimental LANR - TBA - Economic Challenges of LANR - IP and Ongoing Patent and Business Issues - Wrap-up and Future Plans 5:00 PM End of Saturday 2009 LANR Colloquium at MIT We are sorry that space is limited to 40 seats total (**) Therefore prior registration has been required. Contact Dr. Swartz (m...@theworld.com) === - Educational Warning Label --- So much LANR science will be presented, that confirmed skeptics should consider upgrading their medical insurance, in case of headaches. === Sunday Tentative Schedule Sunday, June 21, 2009 9:AM 6:00 AM for LANR JET Energy R/D group) Technical Pre-Owned Buying Mart (Hamfest @MIT, Cambridge) *** You might pick up that magnetic flux-meter, vacuum deposition chamber, spectrophotometer, antique projecting teaching voltmeter, or ultra-cheap DIY cloning or digital system. Ham radios, too. Hamfest opens at 9 AM to public one block from where Colloquium is day before. If interested, we are going at 6 AM, and that requires prior reservation. Weather permitting (is rescheduled ahead one week if it rains). Sunday, June 21, 2009 12:00 noon Ongoing Arata Experiment (Field Trip, 30 miles @495) Space is limited - Requires prior reservation Experimental conditions permitting == (***) Possible Extra-Colloquium Activities for Visitors to Boston/Cambridge Red Sox Games
[Vo]:2009 LANR (CF) Colloquium at MIT (Topic Update)
Update on the 2009 LANR/Cold Fusion Advanced Colloquium at MIT on June 20, 2009 Saturday Website: http://world.std.com/~mica/colloq09.html 2009 Colloquium on Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions ** (LANR; Cold Fusion) will be held at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Cambridge, MA) on Saturday, June 20, 2009. Engineering in LANR (Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions; Cold Fusion) Nuclear Lattice Coupling (Phonons, Quantum Electrodynamics) Deuteron and Palladium Flow in Loading and Codeposition Coherent Scattering and D-Flow in Pd1-xDx Metamaterial-Altered Electric fields and Impact on D-Flow Active Applied Voltage in Tardive Thermal Power (TTP) Optimal Operating Point and TTP Operation Electrode Irradiation, Emissions Non-Thermal IR emission and Bremsstrahlung shift Roles of Additional Applied Fields, Materials Transmutation Efforts, Issues and Mechanisms CR-39 Pit Resolution Equation and Ongoing Forensic Methods Electronic Equilibrium and Build up in CR-39 and other Materials Experimental issues (limitations, def. input power, excess heat) Uncertainty Principle in Data Acquisition Energy Production and Energy Conversion Limitations IP and Ongoing Issues == (**)This Colloquium is part of the continuing Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) Colloquia series, conducted to increase scientific/engineering education in this field since '91. Space is limited. Advanced registration is required. Further details will be forthcoming. If interested in contributing, please contact: Dr. Mitchell Swartzm...@theworld.com orcolloqu...@cherrytechnology.com
[Vo]:LANR (CF) Colloquium
ANNOUNCEMENT: Cold Fusion Colloquium == The 2009 Advanced Colloquium on Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR) (=CF,LENR) (**) will be held at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Cambridge, MA) on Saturday, June 20, 2009. Topics: The Science and Technology of Lattice-assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR) involving Deuterated Metals, Engineering and Devices. Specifically, attempts will be made to cover the following: Continuum Electromechanics Impact on Loading and Codeposition, Electrode radiation and emission, Excess Heat Measurements, Phonon Theory, Quantum Electrodynamic Theory, Metamaterial Issues, Optimal Operating Point Operation, Tardive Thermal Power, LANR transmutation, LANR experimental issues and problems, Energy production and energy conversion, Update on patents and IP issues. Tentative Speakers: Mitchell Swartz Peter Hagelstein Larry Forsley Pam Boss Tom Claytor Scott Chubb John Thompson Brian Ahern == (**) This Colloquium is part of the continuing Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reactions (Cold Fusion) Colloquia series, which have been conducted to increase scientific education in this field since 1991. Space is limited, and advanced registration is required. Further details will be forthcoming. If you are interested in attending, or an experimentalist interested in possibly contributing: Contact : Dr. Mitchell Swartzm...@theworld.com
Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion
At 12:38 AM 10/28/2008 +1100, Wesley Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jed, Another point you should consider including is that because America has failed to follow thorough on its own discovery and fund the research; other country's are also effected. Some countries have been actively discouraged from working in the field by American government employees; Huizenga on his Australian tour in the 1990's. If the technology becomes very significant but allies miss out because of the position the US government and its textbook authors took, it may prove to have very adverse effects on foreign relations. Its already tarnished the countries reputation as a scientific leader with those foreign researchers that know of its past erroneous analysis of the discovery. Excellent analysis and report. Thank you for sharing that P.O.V.
Re: [Vo]:Banking on BLP?
At 06:38 PM 10/25/2008 -0600, Edmund (Neutral potential) Stroms wrote: The infrequent success in CF can be explained if the required and rare catalyst is absent in most studies. This being the case, we need to search for this catalyst. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke [The Jargon File, Version 2.9.10, 01 Jul 1992 ] Those who have used engineering have done quite well in lattice assisted nuclear reactions (LANR, ie. CF).
[Vo]:LANR Colloquium update - (expanded hours)
The tentative schedule of the August 2007 Cold Fusion Colloquium on Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR) The Science and Technology of Deuterated Metals at MIT Date: Saturday, August 18, 2007 Title: Colloquium on the Physics, Electrical Engineering, and Material Science of Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reactions [cold fusion, LENR] Place: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA * Pre-registration required Tentative Lecture Schedule: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM [please note the expanded hours] Experimental Studies of Lattice-assisted Nuclear reactions Dr. Mitchell Swartz - Excess Heat Measurements in Deuterated Palladium Dr. Scott Chubb - Review of experimental presentations at ICCF13 (Sochi, Russia) Dr. Larry Forsley - Gamma emissions from CR39 Films near Codeposited Deuterated Palladium Dr. Mitchell Swartz - Optimal Operating Point Operation and Tardive Thermal Power in Deuterated Palladium Rick Cantwell - Loading Studies of Pressure Loaded Hydrided Metals Dr. Brian Ahern - Phenomena associated with Ultrahigh Loading Rates of Wires Theoretical Analyses of Lattice-assisted Nuclear reactions Prof. Peter Hagelstein - Phonon Theory Involving Deuterated Metals Dr. Michael Melich - Some thoughts on the creation of useful models of CMNS systems Dr. Scott Chubb - Symmetry and Finite Size in the Quantum Electrodynamics of Lattice-Assisted (d)-d fusion Dr. Talbot Chubb - Solid State Fusion in Deuterated Metals Business/IP Issues of Lattice-assisted Nuclear reactions Prof. Robert Rines -The Blockage of CF Patent Applications Other Lectures to be announced Tentative Group Discussions [Current RD issues, Intellectual Property]: Current Issues/problems in CR39, and other types of, recording devices Business Developments More Information (will be changed as developments follow): at url: http://world.std.com/~mica/colloq07.html
Re: [Vo]:Requesting comments to this comment
At 11:55 PM 7/21/2007 -0400, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote: 1) For example, even tonight, I observed that the papers of Dr. Ken Shoulders still are censored. Rothwell: Shoulders has never submitted a paper to me. As far as I know he has never written one about cold fusion. I do not think he or anyone else believes that his clusters have any connection with metal lattice cold fusion, although I gather he does believe they produce anomalous energy. With all due respect, this example of censorship at the Censored and Misnamed LENR-CANR site is deaf, dumb and blind or ... disingenuous. Why would ANYONE think Dr. Shoulders had never written one (a paper) about cold fusion? For example at ICCF-10, Dr. Shoulders gave a paper on Low Voltage Nuclear Transmutation. It was nice to see him there, and not nice to see his paper's title censored at the site which purported itself worldwide to represent ICCF-10. . Given the presence of Dr. Shoulders at the ICCF-10 meeting with a paper relevant to the field, the question arises: exactly why does Rothwell think Dr. Shoulders goes to the International Conferences on Cold Fusion, and gives papers there? Ken has been doing that for almost two decades. Was it for his work on digital signal processing? on transistor circuits? No and no. Conclusion: Jed Rothwell and his co-censors/sappers are now caught and hoisted in their own petard. --- Rothwell: ..., the purpose of LENR-CANR is to help bring about the widespread acceptance of cold fusion, to spur research in the field. My goal is to bring energy to starving people, and to prevent catastrophic global warming. If I could accomplish that goal by ruthlessly censoring papers, I would do so without hesitation. As it happens I have only censored 2 or 3 papers, but if I had to censor 10,000 for political reasons, I would do it. Given that penultimate admission that the Censored and Misnamed LENR-CANR site would indeed censor 10,000 papers for political reasons, there is only one thing possible left to say, and this would be: Conclusion: quod erat demonstrandum (QED).
Re: [Vo]:Requesting comments to this comment
At 08:04 AM 7/22/2007 -0600, Edmund Storms wrote: Storms: Since Swartz has once again brought up his obsession about censorship at LENR ... Projection and ad hominem. The ONLY obsession with censorship has been, and remains, from Ed Storms, himself. Rothwell even admitted that Storms has controlled the censorship at the (misnamed) LENR both in conversations and when he leaked it to vortex, to wit: From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 Furthermore, I have no editorial role in LENR-CANR. Ed and others make all decisions about what papers will be uploaded. All I do is OCR the papers and generate the indexes. So the 'obsession' with censorship, according to Rothwell, began with none other than Edmund Storms, himself. [In fact, Rothwell began this discussion, earlier in this thread, by impugning our engineering papers (again) which explained the error of the Rothwell 'kilowatt' that doomed the study of cold fusion in the early '90s.] As Dr. Mallove said, Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 Subject: Storms/Rothwell censorship From: Eugene F. Mallove [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is known as science by politics -- it is disgusting. Storms doesn't have leg to stand on and he knows it. - Gene Storms: The main issue in Swartz's complaint appears to involve Item #3. More untruth. There is no complaint, and most in the field no longer care about the past or continuing censorship, or even their evasions about it. Perhaps Dr. Storms ought consider stopping being disingenous about it, rather than blaming others for HIS myopia and/or need to censor. One last clarification. The issue was that until after the murder of Gene Mallove (~a year after ICCF10), Storms and Rothwell censored the TITLES of papers given at ICCF-10. This was already stated, and will not be discussed again. Titles of papers were censored in a site which purported to represents the community, and which claimed to represent ICCF-10. 5) This censorship was first noticed when Storms/Rothwell even censored the TITLES of papers by Dr. Bass, Dr. Shoulders and myself (and others) of papers given at ICCF-10. Even the titles -- while they advertised their site as representing ICCF-10. That was outrageous. Even the TITLES. They did not add the titles until long after Dr. Mallove was murdered. As said before, over and over, for the record, I support, and have always supported, the right of Rothwell and Storms to do this because it is their choice, even if it has been counterproductive to the interests and good will of the general cold fusion community. Dr. Mitchell Swartz
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR papers must be in text Acrobat format
At 04:20 PM 7/21/2007 -0400, you wrote: Michel Jullian wrote: Let's pretend for a minute that both sides in this dispute are in good faith: - Jed understandably prefers text because it allows indexing and searching. - Mitchell understandably prefers raw scanned images because they are more faithful to the original document. I doubt that is the reason he prefers raw scanned images. If it was, he would upload the raw scanned image to his own web page, wouldn't he? Anyway there was nothing faithful about the image he sent me. It was badly scanned. The figures were distorted and the text was difficult to read. I told Swartz to send me a printed copy and I would make a decent scan of the figures. Also, there were two or three spelling mistakes, which I was planning to correct, so it would have been better than the printed version. This dispute has nothing to do with the format of the papers. Swartz does not want to upload his papers anywhere, in any format: not at his own web site, not at LENR-CANR, ISCMNS.org, not in Acrobat format, not in a scanned image. There are 2 or 3 other cold fusion authors who do not wish to make their papers available on line. That's okay with me. I never upload anything without permission. What sets Swartz apart from these others is: 1. He is more vehement. He he told me that if I uploaded one he would sue me. Not that I ever would! 2. He pretends that I am persecuting him by refusing to upload. The OCR function built in Acrobat Professional (Document Recognize text using OCR) does just that, and is in my experience sufficiently Hi Fi, even without correcting the few inevitable OCR mistakes(*) . . . I have had bad results with this. To be blunt, I have been a tech writer and editor for 30+ years and I am not going upload crappy-looking, third-generation copies of documents. That's unprofessional. I have no say over the content of these papers, but I am not going to be associated with amateur presentations, spelling errors, and blurry, sideways figures! It takes little effort to OCR most papers. People download thousands of copies of a paper, so we should take the trouble to present it properly, without OCR errors or blurry figures. The paper Swartz sent me was short and it could be prepared in an hour or two. If Swartz does not think it worth an hour of his time to clean up a paper for an audience of 300,000 people per year, then I think he has no respect for his readers. I gave Swartz a list of reasons why I insist on the text Acrobat format. He did not respond. Note that other websites nowadays, including all professional journals and Arxiv.org, insist on text Acrobat format. I think cold fusion researchers should at least try to look as professional as other scientists. I might have published the list of reasons here before, but here it is again. 1. It looks more professional and neat. Like it or not, readers often judge the quality of a paper or web site by neatness. They will not even read a paper that looks messy. 2. Image files are difficult for many people to read, and large, and unwieldy. Many of our readers in Russia, China, the Middle East and elsewhere must use slow connections. Scientists in Iran and Russia have such difficulty, they sometimes ask before a CD-ROM copy of the system (which I am happy to provide). 3. Google and the other search tools will not properly index an image Acrobat paper. The hybrid image-text format is even worse. Most of our readers come via Google, Yahoo and the other search tools, so we must make the papers visible to them, and correctly indexed. 4. They are compatible with tools used by disabled people, such as voice output, vision enhancement, Braille output, and special cursor controls. Since I am a mildly disabled person myself, I am acutely aware of how important this is. (For anyone who has trouble controlling a cursor -- as I do -- image files are a damn nuisance to view and scroll through. I can do it with my special office gadgets and gigantic screen, but I would never bother with an ordinary computer. There are countless web sites I will not bother to look at because of problems like this.) 5. Text Acrobat files are compatible with electronic dictionaries and translation tools. Many of our readers are outside of the US, and many are not native speakers of English so I expect they use electronic dictionaries to look up words. I often do this with papers in Japanese. 6. Text format makes it much easier to look up references and quote text. 7. Text format allows important electronic content enhancements such as hyperlinks, contextual information, rejuvenation and so on. See: http://arxiv.org/help/faq/whytex I think these advantages far outweigh the minor imposition of having to spend a few hours converting a paper back into a machine readable format. Of course it is best to preserve the original machine readable files in the first place. -
Re: [Vo]:LENR-CANR papers must be in text Acrobat format
At 04:20 PM 7/21/2007 -0400, disingenous Jed Rothwell wrote: Michel Jullian wrote: Let's pretend for a minute that both sides in this dispute are in good faith: - Jed understandably prefers text because it allows indexing and searching. - Mitchell understandably prefers raw scanned images because they are more faithful to the original document. I doubt that is the reason he prefers raw scanned images. If it was, he would upload the raw scanned image to his own web page, wouldn't he? What utter complete nonsense. The reason we wanted the papers posted, and were willing to let Rothwell scan the abstract only, is that Jed Rothwell simply cannot be trusted to be accurate and precise in his translations. We have seen him mistranslate 'cathode' for 'anode', and make other errors over the years. He simply neither 'cares', nor understands the importance of accuracy in this matter. -- Anyway there was nothing faithful about the image he sent me. It was badly scanned. The figures were distorted and the text was difficult to read. I told Swartz to send me a printed copy and I would make a decent scan of the figures. Also, there were two or three spelling mistakes, which I was planning to correct, so it would have been better than the printed version. More Rothwell falsehoods. Rothwell (and Storms) were given complete copies of the papers, including by mail, and by CDROM, and by email, as readers of vortex and CMNS (and those who received identical copies as test issues) know, but Rothwell has elected (as we have said they have the right to do) to keep them censored, just as they have censored others, such as the good works of Ken Shoulders, and previously Bob Bass. The single case to which Rothwell refers was test, done with Dr. Brian Josephson, to see if Rothwell would accept being able to OCR only the abstract. He refused and demanded to scan the entire paper (and screw it up as he does to others). That is not acceptable. Anyone who has ever taken the time to correct Rothwell knows that such an effort is unfortunately a serious waste of time.
Re: [Vo]:Requesting comments to this comment
At 02:26 PM 7/20/2007 -0400, disingenous Jed Rothwell wrote: Swartz I do not understand, except for his comments about flow calorimetry, which are wrong. Continuum electromechanics and engineering may be foreign to Jed Rothwell, but they are not wrong. Our papers demonstrated that Rothwell was frankly inept in his calorimetry of the Patterson beads, to wit: by him falsely and deliberately claiming a kilowatt, through the use of vertical flow calorimetry while simultaneously refusing to use a thermal control. In fact, as was discussed at the time on spf, the evidence was that there was nothing like a kilowatt of excess heat. Result: The field was hurt by Rothwell's uncalibrated nonsense. Patterson got a half watt of excess heat which was remarkable, and there was no need for Rothwell to purport it was a 'kilowatt'. In the end, people looked for a kilowatt, and walked away when it was not there, thus ending Patterson and Motorola's input. This systematic error was a result of the vertical flow calorimetry, and has to do with Bernard instability, which like other concepts, Rothwell is oblivious to. Rothwell ignored the correction, downplayed the result, impugned the work, and has kept the papers which demonstrate how to do correct flow calorimetry off the LENR site. The second paragraph above is the real reason for the censorship and Jed's putdowns of of a semiquantitive technique which would have led to a more accurate result. For those who are interested in science, rather than Rothwell's uncalibrated nonsense, the papers are: Swartz, M, Improved Calculations Involving Energy Release Using a Buoyancy Transport Correction, Journal of New Energy, 1, 3, 219-221 (1996), and Swartz, M, Potential for Positional Variation in Flow Calorimetric Systems, Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130 (1996), and Swartz. M.., Patterns of Failure in Cold Fusion Experiments, Proceedings of the 33RD Intersociety Engineering Conference on Energy Conversion, IECEC-98-I229, Colorado Springs, CO, August 2-6, (1998) . As to the rest of his crap and continual put downs, I will not respond except to say that when Rothwell was given the papers in pdf form of images (so that he could not misedit them), he and Storms elected (to this day) to censor them. In fact, they would not even list the papers were delivered at ICCF10 orally (including an open demonstation for a week) until more than a year later, after Dr. Mallove was murdered. We have said before that it their right to keep the misnamed LENR site censored and to pick whatever papers they want, but in the end as regards flow calorimetry and the science involved, it is Jed Rothwell who was, and is, wrong.
Re: [Vo]:Requesting comments to this comment
it is your choice, even if it has been counterproductive to the interests of the general cold fusion community. But the two of you ought be finally honest about it. You ought reconsider the excellent work of Dr. Shoulders and others. Hope that helps clarify this subject that Jed Rothwell brought up with his false assertions about our efforts in this field. Best wishes. Dr. Mitchell Swartz
[Vo]:LANR Colloquium update (more expt'l papers)
The tentative schedule of the August 2007 Cold Fusion Colloquium on Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR) The Science and Technology of Deuterated Metals at MIT continues to develop. Date: Saturday, August 18, 2007 Title: Colloquium on the Physics, Electrical Engineering, and Material Science of Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reactions [cold fusion, LENR] Place: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA * Pre-registration required Tentative Lecture Schedule: 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM Experimental Studies of Lattice-assisted Nuclear reactions Dr. Mitchell Swartz - Excess Heat Measurements in Deuterated Palladium Dr. Scott Chubb - Review of experimental presentations at ICCF13 (Sochi, Russia) Dr. Melvin Miles - Calorimetry in Excess Heat Measurements in Deuterated Palladium Alloys Dr. Larry Forseley- Gamma emissions from CR39 Films near Codeposited Deuterated Palladium Dr. Mitchell Swartz - Optimal Operating Point Operation and Tardive Thermal Power in Deuterated Palladium Rick Cantwell - Loading Studies of Pressure Loaded Hydrided Metals Dr. Brian Ahern - Phenomena associated with Ultrahigh Loading Rates of Tungsten Wires Theoretical Analyses of Lattice-assisted Nuclear reactions Prof. Peter Hagelstein - Phonon Theory Involving Deuterated Metals Dr. Mitchell Swartz - Continuum Electromechanical Approach to Lattice-assisted Fusion Dr. Scott Chubb - Symmetry and Finite Size in the Quantum Electrodynamics of Lattice-Assisted (d)-d fusion Dr. Talbot Chubb - Solid State Fusion in Deuterated Metals Other Lectures to be announced Tentative Group Discussions [Intellectual Property, Business Development, RD issues]: --- Obstruction at the US Patent Office Business Developments Current Issues/problems in CR39, and other types of, recording devices More Information (will be changed as developments follow): at url: http://world.std.com/~mica/colloq07.html
RE: [Vo]:The Twilight Experience
At 01:04 PM 7/14/2007 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: William Beaty wrote: And whatever did happen with the CETI/Patterson-cell investors, staff, management, etc.? I head different things about the Patterson cell. Gene Mallove told me that it did, in fact, STOP WORKING when they ran out of the beads that were manufactured in the 1960s. Patterson told me that wasn't true, and he could make more beads any time. On the other hand he did not produce any more working cells as far as I know. What happened to his staff and management is well known, and tragic. His grandson, Jim Redding, was running CETI. He dropped dead one day after playing tennis. I guess it was a heart attack. He was still in his 40s. Patterson lost heart, and I do not think he pursued the invention much after that. He was old back then. I do not know if he is still alive. Fortunately, Dr. Patterson is still alive. The Patterson cell was set up deliberately in a vertical flow system which created large false postive levels of excess heat. I know from speaking to those who did the experiments at that time, that the levels of excess heat decreased when horizontal flow was (correctly) used.THAT proves the importance of Bernard instability in this matter. This has been extensively discussed in Swartz, M, Improved Calculations Involving Energy Release Using a Buoyancy Transport Correction, Journal of New Energy, 1, 3, 219-221 (1996) and Swartz, M, Potential for Positional Variation in Flow Calorimetric Systems, Journal of New Energy, 1, 126-130 (1996), and Swartz. M.., Patterns of Failure in Cold Fusion Experiments, Proceedings of the 33RD Intersociety Engineering Conference on Energy Conversion, IECEC-98-I229, Colorado Springs, CO, August 2-6, (1998). These papers show the error of a vertical flow system, and how to correct the false positive results which result from Bernard instability, so that the actual excess heat can be calculated in a semiquantitative fashion, thus avoiding said error. The upcoming MIT colloquium [which continues to grow in its presenters] will have have at least two presentations on calorimetry, and if there is more interest, perhaps this problem and its solution will be briefly discussed then. Hope that helps. Dr. Mitchell Swartz
RE: [Vo]:The Twilight Experience
At 03:25 PM 7/14/2007 -0400, you wrote: Dr. Mitchell Swartz wrote: The Patterson cell was set up deliberately in a vertical flow system which created large false postive levels of excess heat. I don't think so. A couple of questions about this hypothesis: Why did this artifact sometimes produce heat, but not at other times? Jed, Even if active materials are used, failiure to operate them at the optimal operating point, results in failure and/or irreproducibility. This was discussed in Swartz. M., Control of Low Energy Nuclear Systems through Loading and Optimal Operating Points, ANS/ 2000 International Winter Meeting, Nov. 12-17, 2000, Washington, D.C. (2000), and Swartz. M., Generality of Optimal Operating Point Behavior in Low Energy Nuclear Systems, Journal of New Energy, 4, 2, 218-228 (1999), and Swartz. M., G. Verner, A. Frank, H. Fox Importance of Non-dimensional Numbers and Optimal Operating Points in Cold Fusion, Journal of New Energy, 4, 2, 215-217 (1999), and Swartz, M, Optimal Operating Point Characteristics of Nickel Light Water Experiments, Proceedings of ICCF-7 (1998), and Swartz. M., Consistency of the Biphasic Nature of Excess Enthalpy in Solid State Anomalous Phenomena with the Quasi-1-Dimensional Model of Isotope Loading into a Material, Fusion Technology, 31, 63-74 (1997) . Why did it always produce heat with some cathode materials, but never with other materials? - Jed Nickel materials are very varied in activity, and one of the most difficult of materials to work with (compared to say, palladium in heavy water) to maintain production of excess heat with light water. Furthermore, other problems accrue because nickel undergoes metallurgical change upon loading leading to no excess heat in the changed materials (which also blacken as they become inactive). We presented ervidence of these material changes in Swartz. M., The Impact of Heavy Water (D2O) on Nickel-Light Water Cold Fusion Systems, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Cold Fusion (Condensed Matter Nuclear Science), Beijing, China, Xing Z. Li, pages 335-342. May (2002). Hope that helps. Dr. Mitchell Swartz
[Vo]:LANR Colloquium update
The LANR (LENR,CF) scientific meeting on August 18, 2007 which will be held at at MIT continues to develop. Below is the present tentative schedule of the scientific meeting. At least one or two other topics are being discussed, planned and might be posted in the next update. Best wishes. Mitchell Swartz This is the tentative schedule of the August 2007 Cold Fusion Colloquium on Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR) The Science and Technology of Deuterated Metals at MIT Date: Saturday, August 18, 2007 Title: Colloquium on the Physics, Electrical Engineering, and Material Science of Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reactions [cold fusion, LENR] Place: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA Pre-registration required Tentative Lecture Schedule: 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM Experimental Studies of Lattice-assisted Nuclear reactions Dr. Mitchell Swartz - Excess Heat Measurements for Deuterated Palladium Phusor Devices Dr. Scott Chubb - Review of experimental presentations at ICCF13 (Sochi, Russia) Dr. Larry Forseley- Gamma emissions from CR39 Films near Co-deposited Deuterated Palladium Dr. Mitchell Swartz - Optimal Operating Point Operation and Tardive Thermal Power in Deuterated Palladium Rick Cantwell - Loading Studies of Pressure Loaded Hydrided Metals Dr. Brian Ahern - Phenomena associated with Ultrahigh Loading Rates of Tungsten Wires Theoretical Analyses of Lattice-assisted Nuclear reactions Prof. Peter Hagelstein - Phonon Theory Involving Deuterated Metals Dr. Mitchell Swartz - Continuum Electromechanical Approach to Lattice-assisted Fusion Dr. Scott Chubb - Symmetry and Finite Size in the Quantum Electrodynamics of Lattice-Assisted (d)-d fusion Dr. Talbot Chubb - Solid State Fusion in Deuterated Metals Prof. Alan Widom- Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces Other Lectures to be announced Tentative Group Discussions [Intellectual Property, Business Development, RD issues]: --- Obstruction at the US Patent Office Business Developments Current Issues/problems in CR39, and other types of, recording devices Coffee/Continental Breakfast 8:30 AM Lunch: 12:30 - 1:30 PM Afternoon Group Lectures and Discussion : 1:30 PM - 4:30 PM == More Information (will be changed as developments follow): at url: http://world.std.com/~mica/colloq07.html Hosted by: Dr. Mitchell Swartz and Prof. Peter Hagelstein For upcoming pre-registration material for the Saturday lecture Colloquium (limited seating) send email (Subject Colloquium) to Science Coordinator: Dr. Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] =
[Vo]:LANR (CF,LENR) Colloquium
This is the first Announcement regarding a 2007 Cold Fusion Colloquium on Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reactions (LANR) The Science and Technology of Deuterated Metals Date: Saturday, August 18, 2007 Title: Colloquium on the Physics, Electrical Engineering, and Material Science of Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reactions [cold fusion, LENR] Place: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA Pre-registration required Hosted by: Dr. Mitchell Swartz and Prof. Peter Hagelstein Preliminary Tentative Lecture Schedule: 9:30 AM - 2:30 PM Other Lectures to be announced Prof. Peter Hagelstein - New Theory Involving Deuterated Metals Dr. Mitchell Swartz - Excess Heat Measurements in Deuterated Palladium Prof. Alan Widom- Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces Dr. Brian Ahern - Phenomena associated with Ultrahigh Loading Rates of Wires Lunch: 12:30 - 1:30 Afternoon Group Discussion : 2:30 PM - 4:30 PM More Information (will be changed as developments follow): at url: http://world.std.com/~mica/colloq07.html For upcoming pre-registration material for the Saturday lecture Colloquium (limited seating) send email (Subject Colloquium) to Science Coordinator: Dr. Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:Atmospheric Gases
At 05:23 PM 4/24/2007 -0400, you wrote: On 4/24/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This reminds me of the idiotic comment by Michael Crichton that Terry Blanton quoted here in 2005: I'm just trying to understand the mechanism. The albedo of the earth reflects multispectrum light back into the atmosphere. How many photons are re-reflected by an additional 80 ppm of CO2? I'm working on a calculation; but, the atmospheric density is a gradient and I hate calculus. More later, maybe. :-) Terry
Re: [Vo]:Atmospheric Gases
At 05:23 PM 4/24/2007 -0400, Terry wrote: On 4/24/07, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This reminds me of the idiotic comment by Michael Crichton that Terry Blanton quoted here in 2005: I'm just trying to understand the mechanism. The albedo of the earth reflects multispectrum light back into the atmosphere. How many photons are re-reflected by an additional 80 ppm of CO2? I'm working on a calculation; but, the atmospheric density is a gradient and I hate calculus. Perhaps this will help deconvolving this issue; with the first useful for your impending integral calculus calculations. - IR DATA: img src=http://melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/picture1s.jpgP TIME LINE GW DATA: img src=http://home.earthlink.net/~a_geezer/Climate/Image2.gifP img src=http://home.earthlink.net/~a_geezer/Climate/Image5.gifP img src=http://aycu15.webshots.com/image/4254/2003253592012895950_rs.jpgP img src=http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/images/nty-timeline.gifP
