[Vo]:Goodbye, Vortex!
Re: [Vo]:ACS press release for the upcoming cold fusion session: Krivit's folly.
Dear Vorts, I see by the subject header that some messages on Vortex have been directed at me personally again. I had thought people on Vortex were more mature than this. I had thought people on Vortex had less tolerance for personal attacks. I had thought that personal attacks were unacceptable etiquette here. Perhaps people on Vortex feel that the rules on Vortex are different for me because of the work I do. If that's the way you want Vortex to be, not a problem. Journalists are used to people coming unglued when we report hard-hitting facts that ruffle people's feathers. As I told Jed on the phone just now, the press conference was webcast and Adam Dylewski from the ACS News Service was monitoring the chat room and relaying questions from the Web audience. If Jed hears anything else about me, he is welcome to check his facts with me in advance before spreading hearsay and misunderstandings about me. Steve At 03:53 PM 3/22/2010, you wrote: Ask Steve. I have heard that Steve was relaying e-mailed questions from Larsen during the discussion. I do not mean to imply there is anything wrong with that, by the way. It would good to open these conferences to real-time Internet participation.
Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper
At 01:46 AM 3/15/2010, you wrote: 2010/3/14 Steven Krivit stev...@newenergytimes.com: At 02:35 AM 3/14/2010, you wrote: Interesting, but why would Focardi discredit his own work? I don't think he would want to. Then it can't be a Ni-H research discrediting operation can it? Or one would have to imagine that Focardi himself has been conned. Right. That's not possible. What a relief. Note that multi-kW excess heat must be quite easy to fake in this particular device, with its built-in heating resistor. For example, add AC current of a higher frequency than the meter's bandwidth. Is there any support on this research such as a published paper or a conference presentation or is it just this blog site that is made to look like a journal? Not that I know, apart from the patent application which of course isn't valid support either. Ok...thanks. My next question is how the whole buzz on this started...obviously there was the Journal of Nuclear Physics Web site. But who propagated that around? Anybody know? I have received several queries on this matter from multiple sources from several countries in Europe and in the U.S. Something/someone triggered/launched a viral response. I do not have any clue at the moment what/who did so. S
Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper
At 02:35 AM 3/14/2010, you wrote: Interesting, but why would Focardi discredit his own work? I don't think he would want to. Have you been following the thread more closely than I? Is there any support on this research such as a published paper or a conference presentation or is it just this blog site that is made to look like a journal? And what kind of idiot uses this domain name http://whois.domaintools.com/journal-of-nuclear-physics.com when one without hyphens is available and has NEVER been registered? http://whois.domaintools.com/journalofnuclearphysics.com (I'm sure someone will soon grab this domain, it's a great domain name) SOMEBODY registered and used this name knowing full well that no such journal in the English language existed but that the Soviet Journal of Nuclear Physics does not have a Web site. http://journalseek.net/cgi-bin/journalseek/journalsearch.cgi?field=issnquery=0038-5506 Whoever registered the name is probably an American because of the California registration. It has been registered through a proxy service that keeps the identity of the domain owner private. By using a name with hyphens, and of a similar journal that does not have its own web site, they avoid a direct confrontation with the actual journal, if it still exists. But the journal may have been renamed to Physics of Atomic Nuclei http://www.phy.ornl.gov/divops/library/holdings.html I wonder which of the people involved in journal-of-nuclear-physics.com are familiar with the Russian science scene and which of them might be conversant in Russian and who has been a frequent co-author on Russian LENR papers? s
[Vo]:Imagine that!
Can you believe this??? The http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_communications_commission/index.html?inline=nyt-orgFederal Communications Commission is proposing an ambitious 10-year plan that will reimagine the nation's media and technology priorities by establishing high-speed Internet as the country's dominant communication network. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/business/media/13fcc.html?themc=th
Re: [Vo]:Imagine that!
Aha! That expains it. At 02:28 PM 3/13/2010, you wrote: It's called 'convergence'. All major corporations' enterprise networks already work this way. Voice, video and data are all on the same network. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergence_(telecommunications) It will happen. It's just a matter of when. T
Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper
Ladies and gentlemen, The truth is, I plead, to a large degree, ignorance of this FocardiRossi matter. It had been originally brought to my attention as a patent, and then I pointed out to the person it was merely a patent application and I said, So what, don't bother me. Even granted patents don't mean that the devices work as stated. Just look at Seth Putterman's patent for sonofusion. So here's my question for all you science hounds: Have FocardiRossi actually published a real paper or presented one at a science conference? Has the FocardiRossi paper/work been vetted, in any way, in the formal science channel or has it just been hyped up on some bogus Web site that is masquerading as some sort of Journal? Journal or Nuclear Physics? Really??? Can someone please tell me something about this? http://whois.domaintools.com/journal-of-nuclear-physics.com And can someone please explain why the good Dr. Melich, allegedly representing the entire DoD, is involved with this? http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?page_id=2 And isn't there some mention in the paper of this having to do with the DoD yet the paper provides no details? And a Board of Advisers comprising the key authors of this paper? Is this a con or what? Will somebody puhleeze tell me that someone is not running a false flag to discredit Ni-H work. Will somebody puhleeze tell me that someone did not go to Focardi and Rossi and represent himself as the DoD and thereby test and validate inflated claims to set them up for a fall. Steve
Re: [Vo]:Response from McKubre regarding the Case cell
At 09:54 AM 2/25/2010, you wrote: Okay, I asked McKubre why he thinks the helium in the Case cell declined. Here is part of his response, edited to remove irrelevant comments: . . . I am glad [Krivit and the rest of you people] are encouraged to read the paper . . . Our gas cells are helium-leak-tight. The 4He is actually being absorbed in the carbon substrate at ~200°C. This confused me at first but there is literature on this process from the old days Jed, ask for a citation on the literature. (1950's, Los Alamos I think) -- and we checked it out by direct measurement using 4He in D2 at temperature. The 4He really does absorb slowly -- but only at temperature. Jed, ask for the publication or conference presentation of this check out. So our measurement of 4He rise was something of an underestimate. We also looked at the 4He in the starting material (Case Pd on C catalyst) and found that the solid contained less 4He per unit VOLUME than air, so this was not the source. I still don't understand why Tom [Passell, et al.] made the mistake [in their ICCF-15 paper] . . . They saw the pressure going down and did not guess that the starting 4He was simply being concentrated in the residuum. If we made a mistake (which I cannot rule out, but doubt) then it was not this one. . . . Now that he told me this, about carbon absorbtion, I recall he did discuss it in lectures or papers. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:SRI Experiment HH
Jed, Without seeing a lot more heat data, I have to agree, it is difficult to derive any meaning from this and that there is, as you say, practically no real-time correlation to the helium. We also are missing a lot of information about their method of helium sampling. Steve At 08:29 PM 2/23/2010, you wrote: I think that is clearer. You can see that the power levels are really not that varied, and there is practically no real-time correlation to the helium. Actually, the error bars are probably even larger because the instrument is at the limits of detection. At higher levels both accuracy and precision improve. That's true of most instruments. Plus, I have no doubt the helium levels really do vary, and this is not just an instrument artifact, for the reasons given in the document: different amounts of helium are captured in the near surface layers of the metal, depending on complex factors. That is well established. You have to go to great lengths to recover all of the helium. During the run the stuff will suddenly vent at odd times, presumably when a crack forms. This is how marginal experimental data looks. If the correlation was better than this I would begin to suspect someone doctored the data. With an instrument that can detect 1 ppb minimum, the difference between 1 and 3 ppb is hardly meaningful. On the other hand the difference between 100 ppb and 101 ppb is more significant and reliable. - Jed At 07:10 AM 2/24/2010, you wrote: I wrote: You can see that the power levels are really not that varied, and there is practically no real-time correlation to the helium. Also bear in mind those are instantaneous power levels, and there is no telling what it was doing in the instant before they were taken. For example, data point #2, 11-29-93 is 35 mW. It might have been 50 mW sometime earlier, which would explain why there is more helium in the cell than there was with data point #1 even though the power level is the same. Cold fusion power does not fluctuate wildly, but it does fluctuate. Also, as I said, the helium you measure at any given moment might have been generated hours or days before, and it is just escaping now through a newly opened crack. You need much higher, more steady power to establish the ratio of helium to heat more accurately. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:SRI Experiment HH
(I was amused to see a skeptic the other day suggest that when Rob Duncan visited Energetics Technology, he should have surreptitiously attached a flask to the cell and taken a sample of helium to see if it really is fusion. I told the skeptic you have to design the experiment from the ground up to do this, and it takes hours or days to collect the sample. These people get their notions of experimental science from Hollywood movies.) - Jed There are skeptics and there are skeptics.
Re: [Vo]:SRI Experiment HH
I haven't taken the time to look into this in detail, but my first impression is that, unless there is a typo, it makes no sense at all to attempt to draw the 23.82 MeV line through Fig. 1, or to draw any conclusions from the graph as to energy per helium atom produced. Perhaps I'm misreading the x axis labeling Excess Power/Current (mW / A), or the intended meaning of the x axis values. To be sensible the x axis should simply be excess energy, i.e. the integral of mW over time. It looks like voltage was roughly uniform, so the (input) mW/A should roughly be a constant, given power P = I * (V - v0). So, basically, the x axis is a constant times excess power. It should be a constant times excess energy to make any sense, or to plot the green line on it. Alternatively, at a constant power the helium could be measured over equally spaced intervals, and then the green line should be horizontal, i.e. fixed amount of helium produced per interval of time corresponding to the mean excess power for the interval. Maybe if someone took the time to look deeper into this they could make some sense of it. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Horace, You are not misreading the X axis label. I too have great difficulty understanding a) the rationale of displaying power/current for the x axis and b) relating power/current to heat (energy) which is what the green line allegedly represents. I've inspected the 300+ page EPRI report and I cannot find mention of calorimetry data for these two runs. (HH Sept. and HH Nov/Dec.) Maybe they somehow derived heat (energy) from power/current??? Jed - You said you didn't find anything confusing. So maybe you can explain what power/current (on the x axis) has to to with heat/4He? Steve
[Vo]:SRI Experiment HH
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/SRI-Expt-HH/SRI-Experiment-HH.shtml Vorts, I have deliberately not provided any explanation, analysis or interpretation. Instead, I'd like to hear your thoughts first. In particular, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the graph drawn by McKubre as compared to the graph I drew. I'd also like to hear your thoughts and analyses on the green and blue lines. Steve
Re: [Vo]:SRI Experiment HH
I don't see any problem or confusion with this. Maybe I am missing something. The bottom graph (Krivit's) is a little confusing. It would be improved with: 1. The error bars. 2. The power on the right y-axis starting at zero. Good ideas Jed. Done. Let me know if that helps clarify. s
Re: [Vo]:Storms Theory Explains All Known Cold Fusion Phenomena
Storms responds, Krivit responds: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/?p=126#comment-7388
RE: [Vo]:Joint General Colloquium at Purdue
At 08:35 AM 2/19/2010, you wrote: Ya gotta like this guy Kims open-minded thought process. And to think he is at Purdue and has not been silenced ? I notice that he and Rusi were both hired on at the same time in 2003. Go figure. Maybe Kim is next in line to get the axe from those geniuses. It's pretty hard to get axed (apologies to the literati) for espousing a theory. Also, in Rusi's case, his team generated a lot of attention and controversy even before their seminal paper published. What would later become his nemesis, Purdue Prof. Tsoukalas sweet-talked Rusi to leave a cushy gov't got at ORNL...and in the interim Tsoukalas rapidly set up a group at PU to replicate BF. Inexplicably Kim's cold fusion theory doesn't seem to be drawing the same kind of attention. I am somewhat confused about the title of the Colloquium. The title gives the impression that multiple specialists will deliver addresses (m-w.com) I only see a time period of 4-5pm with Kim's presentation. s
Re: [Vo]:Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook
At 06:27 AM 2/19/2010, you wrote: You can see a list of papers and download the Sourcebook EndNote records for Vol. 1 here: http://pubs.acs.org/isbn/9780841269668 It looks like you can get the full papers if you have sponsored access. I do not know what that is. That means ACS is giving those papers away for free.
[Vo]:Fwd: An Incoherent Explanation of LENR
E-mail from Stephen Lawrence, edited letter from Lomax and correction posted last night to NET blog comments: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/?p=113#comments
[Vo]:An Incoherent Explanation of LENR
NET 34 is out. Read it carefully. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/ Feathers will be ruffled; yes, I know. Your comments, questions and critique, as always, are invited as letters to the editor, however, I will most likely not engage in debate on this here in Vortex. If you think you have a valid critique and are willing to put your reputation behind it, as I am with what I have published, then submit your letter to the editor and have your voice heard worldwide - and I will respond and answer to any letter that is honest, factual and concise. Steve
Re: [Vo]:An Incoherent Explanation of LENR
NET Letters Policy: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/contact/contact.shtml At 12:33 PM 1/30/2010, you wrote: NET 34 is out. Read it carefully. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/
Re: [Vo]:Contropedia
This is my preferred encyclopedia: http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Main_Page
Re: [Vo]:Contropedia
At 02:27 PM 1/26/2010, you wrote: Just ignore it. Don't mess with free speech. I am editing papers for a REAL encyclopedia. Every once in a while authors will submit papers that include references to Wikipedia. I tell them all that such references are unacceptable. End of story. s
Re: [Vo]:test
succeeded At 06:26 PM 1/11/2010, you wrote: test (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]: Yet another Wikipedia use of CF in a bad light...
At 08:41 AM 1/5/2010, you wrote: Wikipedia's use of CF as an example for 'science by concensus' and 'burden of proof'... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof About 4/5s the way down the page. Examples in science As a general rule, the less coherent and less embedded within conventional knowledge a claim appears, the heavier the burden of proof lies on the person asserting the claim. ***The scientific consensus on cold fusion is a good example.*** The majority of physicists believe cold fusion is not possible, since it would force the alteration or abandonment of a great many other tested and generally accepted theories about nuclear physics. -Mark Mark, It would be helpful if more people distinguished between the *theory* of cold fusion from the observations of low-energy nuclear reaction experimental evidence. The theory of cold fusion - like-charged atomic nuclei joining together at room-temperature - may never get accepted. It would be unfortunate if the non-acceptance of the theory of cold fusion impedes the acceptance of LENR. Does this make sense? -Steve
[Vo]:ACS LENR/New Technologies Sourcebook Vol. 2 Publishes Online
The ACS LENR/New Technologies Sourcebook Vol. 2 has just published online. Individual copies of chapters may be purchased from the ACS site, though Marwan's Preface and my Introduction are available free of charge. The print version has not published yet. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/books/2009-LENR-Sourcebook/2009-LENR-Sourcebook.shtml
Re: [Vo]:Krivit Elsevier Encyclopedia Articles Publish
Fleischmann, M., et al., http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1989/1989Fleischmann-PrelimNote.pdfElectrochemically Induced Nuclear Fusion of Deuterium, Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Vol. 261, Issue 2, Part 1, p. 301-308 (April 10, 1989) and errata in Vol. 263, p. 187-188, (1989) In view of the very high compression and mobility of the dissolved species there must therefore be a significant number of close collisions and one can pose the question: would nuclear fusion of D+ such as 2D + 2D 3T(1.01 MeV) + 1H(3.02 MeV) (v) or 2D + 2D 3He(0.82 MeV) + n(2.45 MeV) (vi) be feasible under these conditions? At 03:08 PM 12/24/2009, you wrote: Steven Krivit wrote: On 23 March 1989, electrochemists M. Fleischmann and S. Pons claimed in a press conference at the University of Utah that they had achieved nuclear fusion . . . Their hypothesis that a novel form of thermonuclear fusion was responsible for their experimental results is still unproved. I don't get this. I don't think Fleischmann and Pons ever claimed this is fusion caused by heat (thermo-nuclear fusion). Or anything remotely like plasma fusion. The only people who said that were the skeptics. The suggestion that LENR research represented a new form of thermonuclear fusion has caused significant confusion. This suggestion was a strawman argument by the skeptics intended to cause confusion. No cold fusion researcher has made this suggestion as far as I know. I hope the rest of the article makes this clear. In 1989 I knew a little about plasma fusion, mainly because I had observed plasma fusion experiments back in college, conducted by my roommate (a grad student). When I read the Wall Street Journal article about cold fusion, based on this rudimentary knowledge it took me about 5 seconds to conclude that whatever Fleischmann and Pons had discovered, it could not be anything like plasma fusion. (Of course I assumed it might be an experimental error or misunderstanding. I did not learn any details until Gene's book came out.) I am sure Fleischmann and Pons reached that some conclusion. Although Pons was upset with researchers in 1989 who said there were no neutrons, so in a sense he still had one foot stuck back in the plasma fusion model. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Krivit Elsevier Encyclopedia Articles Publish
I can't post my encyclopedia papers on the Web at this time, however, I have permission to email them to anybody who is interested, so don't hesitate to ask, I'm happy to save you the $1800. (Actually, they may end up selling individual chapters, I don't know.) Steve By golly they did say that, didn't they! I have to admit, Steve is right on this. It was a dumb thing for FP to say, but they said it. I think it is important to keep in mind they went on to clarify their position: The most surprising feature of our results however, is that reactions (v) and (vi) are only a small part of the overall reaction scheme and that the bulk of the energy release is due to an hitherto unknown nuclear process or processes (presumably again due to deuterons).
[Vo]:Krivit Elsevier Encyclopedia Articles Publish
http://www.elsevierdirect.com/brochures/ecps/Encyclopedia of Electrochemical Power Sources Five-Volume Set Krivit, S.B, Cold Fusion: History, Encyclopedia of Electrochemical Power Sources, Vol 2, Juergen Garche, Chris Dyer, Patrick Moseley, Zempachi Ogumi, David Rand and Bruno Scrosati, eds, Amsterdam: Elsevier; Nov. 2009. p. 271276, ISBN 9780444520937 Krivit, S.B, Cold Fusion - Precursor to Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions, Encyclopedia of Electrochemical Power Sources, Vol 2, Juergen Garche, Chris Dyer, Patrick Moseley, Zempachi Ogumi, David Rand and Bruno Scrosati, eds, Amsterdam: Elsevier; Nov. 2009. p. 255270, ISBN 9780444520937 (Author copies are available on request) stev...@newenergytimes.com
Re: [Vo]:Krivit Elsevier Encyclopedia Articles Publish
At 11:21 AM 12/24/2009, you wrote: That's great! For my database, please upload the abstracts here. If they don't have abstracts, the few paragraphs. - Jed Jed, There are no abstracts. Feel free to publish the introductions. Steve Cold Fusion Precursor to Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions SB Krivit, New Energy Times, San Rafael, CA, USA 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. On 23 March 1989, electrochemists M. Fleischmann and S. Pons claimed in a press conference at the University of Utah that they had achieved nuclear fusion in a tabletop chemistry experiment. Since then, evidence of fusion in what is now called low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) research has grown only slightly stronger. Their hypothesis that a novel form of thermonuclear fusion was responsible for their experimental results is still unproved. On the contrary, LENR experiments have continued to demonstrate increasingly convincing evidence for some sort of nuclear process or processes though not necessarily fusion year after year. The suggestion that LENR research represented a new form of thermonuclear fusion has caused significant confusion. The two fields, thermonuclear fusion and LENR research, and their respective sets of phenomena are very different. Therefore, direct comparisons between the two are irrelevant. Cold Fusion: History SB Krivit, New Energy Times, San Rafael, CA, USA 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Introduction Research on low-energy nuclear reactions (LENRs) originated as the result of an electrolysis experiment that used the elements palladium (a heavy metal) and deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen). The first modern experiment was performed by Martin Fleischmann and B. Stanley Pons at the University of Utah in early 1985. Fritz Paneth and Kurt Peters of the University of Berlin preceded Fleischmann and Pons with a similar experiment in 1926. Fleischmann and Pons used an electrochemical method of generating nuclear energy, in the form of heat, in a way previously unrecognized by nuclear physicists. The two electrochemists announced their work at a press conference on 23 March 1989. They said that they had attained a sustained nuclear fusion reaction. The media identified the discovery as cold fusion. This event initiated a new field of science. It did not belong exclusively to chemistry, physics, or any other scientific discipline. As the field approaches its third decade, much has been learned, but certain significant facts remain unknown. However, this limitation is not unexpected, considering the novelty and scope of the subject matter.
Re: [Vo]:Executive Director of the AIP says cold fusion is wrong and fraud
As long as the Executive Director of the AIP and people like him accuse you of fraud, you will make no progress. I do not think you will convince people that cold fusion is legitimate when the Director of the AIP goes around saying this sort of thing, and cites Wikipedia instead of your books and papers. These attacks will continue until you people respond forcefully instead of ignoring them. - Jed Jed, You do realize, of course, that your good buddy Kirk Shannahan is so obsessed with cold fusion that he reads this list? Steve
Re: [Vo]:Executive Director of the AIP says cold fusion is wrong and fraud
Jed, I'm sure Shanahan is finding immeasurable entertainment in these messages. Particularly your comment about certified fruitcake. It is the season, though, isn't it? Steve
Re: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
Dear Horace, Even if you concur with Storms that the WL theory suffers from so many basic problems, you have every right to discuss the merits or lack thereof of any theory (WL, Storms/Scanlan, or your own) without being subject to intimidation to suppress discussion. Is Storms intimidating you? In my opinion, yes. Did you feel the need to defend yourself to him? Apparently so. As far as I know, only open science and open discussion is the to sort these things out, not suppression. Dear Ed, I bring the theoretical ideas of Lewis Larsen (later developed with the help of Allan Widom and Yogendra Srivastava) because it is the first theory that I see that has - in my opinion - a high probability of explaining most of the LENR experimental phenomena. Of course, I could be wrong and I'm completely willing to be wrong. You and I have disagreed on this matter for several years now and, as you know, I have been intransigent in my view, despite your numerous attempts to discourage me and New Energy Times from paying attention to it. But if WL is as bad as you allege, it will die on its own accord and nobody will pay any attention to it. It needs no help from you to discourage me, Horace, or the CMNS field from talking about it. Steve CMNS: Re: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR Date: 12/12/2009 9:23:25 From: mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.comstor...@ix.netcom.com Reply-to: mailto:c...@googlegroups.comc...@googlegroups.com To: mailto:c...@googlegroups.comc...@googlegroups.com CC: mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.comstor...@ix.netcom.com [STORMS] As for WL, this theory suffers from so many basic problems, in addition to the one you noted, I'm at a loss as to why it is even discussed. [HEFFNER] I didn't bring it up. I merely responded to other posters on vortex-l, especially Steve Krivit...I looked back at the thread and see it was begun with a question directed at me by Steve Krivit. The thread can be viewed from the beginning here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg36350.html [STORMS] Yes I know. I should have said I'm at a loss as to why Krivit brings this up.
Re: [Vo]:New and revised ICCF-10 papers
Jed, Which ones did Hagelstein edit? Steve At 10:15 AM 12/11/2009, you wrote: Peter Hagelstein sent me his versions of the ICCF-10 papers. There were a few that I did not have, notably two by Kenney, and one by Cecil, about neutrons and charged particles. There were also some Russian papers that Hagelstein edited extensively, plus my own paper that he changed. Anyway, I uploaded 12 new and revised ICCF-10 papers. See: http://lenr-canr.org/FilesByDate.htmhttp://lenr-canr.org/FilesByDate.htm In the previous copy of this message, I attached Table of Contents. Maybe that is too big. Anyway, I now have all papers on file except those by Swartz et al. For several papers, I compared Hagelstein's version to mine and found minimal changes. Looking back, I wish I had edited these papers more aggressively because some of them have serious errors in English grammar. On the other hand, those are mainly by authors who refused assistance from me. For future ICCF proceedings, I think it would be a good idea to force authors to use correct grammar and/or get assistance from native speakers of English. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Crematorium to use burning bodies to generate electricity
This gives new meaning to heat after life At 09:55 AM 12/10/2009, you wrote: (Move over Soylent Green. How many kilowatt-hr do you weigh?) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6753705/Crematorium-to-use-burning-bodies-to-generate-electricity.html http://tinyurl.com/ylqbjos
Re: [Vo]:Crematorium to use burning bodies to generate electricity
or heat after death At 10:16 AM 12/10/2009, you wrote: This gives new meaning to heat after life At 09:55 AM 12/10/2009, you wrote: (Move over Soylent Green. How many kilowatt-hr do you weigh?) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6753705/Crematorium-to-use-burning-bodies-to-generate-electricity.html http://tinyurl.com/ylqbjos
Re: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
At 06:43 AM 12/9/2009, you wrote: On Dec 8, 2009, at 9:03 PM, Steven Krivit wrote: Horace, Have you considered the possibility of neutral entities such as neutrons? Steve Yes, I have considered it. Excellent. Neutrons in the lattice can not be an explanation for the number of events required to produce even modest excess heat. I think your reasoning is because of neutron activation. (correct me if I am wrong.) Have you considered ultra-low momentum neutrons, as proposed by WL that never even leave the local environment, and which therefore would not cause NA, or very little NA? Steve
RE: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
Jones, and how about ultra-low momentum neutrons? Steve At 03:34 PM 12/9/2009, you wrote: Ultra-cold neutrons can move relatively far. With a lifetime of 886 seconds, they could potentially move several miles before decay. Apparently, even at near absolute zero - they still achieve about the same velocity as a human running fairly fast. Wiki sez: The kinetic energy of 300 neV corresponds to a maximum velocity of 7.6 m/s or a minimum wavelength of 52 nm... and can be described as a very thin ideal gas with a temperature of 3.5 mK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultracold_neutrons
RE: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
-Original Message- From: Steven Krivit Jones, and how about ultra-low momentum neutrons? Steve At 04:43 PM 12/9/2009, you wrote: Steve, No difference that I can see. Unless, that is - that terminology is being used in a specialized way, and them it must be pre-defined for that usage. Otherwise, in both cases we are essentially talking about kinetic energy, and there should be no difference. Jones Jones, Thanks for the translation to English. ;) Steve
RE: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
At 04:59 PM 12/9/2009, you wrote: Horace , The above is a rather arbitrary estimate of momentum by WL, on which is based the mean free path estimate, etc. Well, as I intimated in previous post, if you define a term in such a way that you cannot be wrong in the secondary calculations - then yes -- like WL you can make a case for almost anything. I gave up on them years ago when it became obvious that they were borrowing and repackaging the ideas of many theorists - including yourself - without proper attribution. Jones Jones, Can you be clear please? Did you give up on them because your opinion of their science was low? Or because you judged them to be unethical? Or both, in which case, why would you care who they gave attribution to or not? Steve
RE: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
Jones, Thanks for your reply. Now can you defend your insinuation (quoted below) with some evidence? and repackaging the ideas of many theorists - including [H. Heffner] - without proper attribution. Steve
RE: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
Jones, I take public character insinuation toward scientists and researchers very seriously. So when I see a comment such as yours, it gets my attention. Vortex is a forum which I find to be one of the more enlightened and intelligent discussion lists. I am also very enthusiastic about the Widom-Larsen theory. As a consequence, if there is something you know about WL that you think should be known publicly, I want to know about it. That way, I can best differentiate between important facts, feelings that some people may have, or smoke that some people may blow. Steve At 06:40 PM 12/9/2009, you wrote: Given time ... which is not available now. It would involve comparing dates and details in hundreds of pages of text. No thanks. BTW - are you on a mission, or what? After all, this is an informal newsgroup, not the investigative arm of the anti-defamation league of oppressed unrecognized scientists ... -Original Message- From: Steven Krivit Jones, Thanks for your reply. Now can you defend your insinuation (quoted below) with some evidence? and repackaging the ideas of many theorists - including [H. Heffner] - without proper attribution. Steve
RE: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
At 08:15 PM 12/9/2009, you wrote: Steve, Well - you have effectively raised up on the www horizon, a large and fluttering call me flag - and every investigative journalist should do this on a cherished subject - and I suspect that if anyone out there has specific details that they would like to share with you, they will contact you off-list. Over the course of years, any good observer will get an impression of what is going on in the larger community, but this will often come without a time-stamp. If I read the ideas of x,y and z, and then notice that from my perspective z seems to be echoing the ideas of x and y over and over again - that is not proof of anything, without more. In fact x and y could have borrowed the ideas of z inadvertently (or not). However, if I personally know x and y from a long history, and at the same time heard negatives about z, heard negatives about z Sometimes that's called the grapevine. Sometimes that's called gossip. Sometimes it refers to facts. Most often is character attack. You would not believe some of the negatives that *I* have heard about Larsen -- that are completely false, from Bev Barnhart of DIA, no less. The rumor mill about him is in a feeding frenzy. Larsen appears to have no shortage of enemies. this will slant the picture - yet it does not prove or disprove anything. The negatives could relate to something else. These things will usually tend to always work themselves out in the end - maybe it takes decades. In an age of 'instant messaging', however, many in the general public may want quicker answers. If you want to hasten the process as a cutting-edge reporter - all the better, so long as accuracy is not compromised. If my accuracy gets compromised, I'm sure (and I hope) you'll be the first to let me know. ;) You *do* get credit, by the way, for being the first to find the transposition error in my recent RSC paper. That is what the internet is for - but it is unwise to try to limit what is 'informed opinion' on newsgroups, even if it happens to contradict a preconceived notion that may be equally premature or ill-conceived. Heck they (meaning big-shots in general) let bimbos like Palin pretend to write OpEd pieces in a major newspaper, but that does not mean they don't care about truth (since they know the piece came from a staff of hired guns anyway). You seem to be leaning towards the WL theory, others may like some of it but not all; I may be leaning to a variation on the fractional hydrogen theory, and Horace has a good deflation model; and all theories have evolved considerably over time and often towards common focal points along the way. As a result, all theories develop crossovers and cross-connections. The general idea of an energy depleted neutron, however is very old (Mills and Dufour circa 1993?) ... but his was not a 'real' neutron YET neither is the WL variety, if it differs from the known 'cold neutron'. And that is a most apt example, and the reason for my original posting - this is to say - because the known ultra-cold neutron is very different from that of WL. Yet the important thing here Steve, is that you did NOT hear this bit of information from them. I think you are saying that WL did not disclose that an ultra-cold neutron doesn't work the way WL suggest it does? Am I understanding you? A top-rate scientist (in my dreams) always acknowledges not only the source of ideas he borrows, but explains the evidence going the other way. We (some of us) suspect that the proponents are far from top-rate, but they could still be close enough to get major credit. So it goes Let's hope that in the end, PF get the lion's share of the credit, even for the theory that they may have missed, since they took most of the hits in getting us there. Jones
Re: [Vo]:helicopter electrostatic glow
cavitation??? At 01:15 PM 12/8/2009, you wrote: Dust impact? Glow discharge? Dust contaminates the N2O2 plasma? Bright yellow glow from helicopter rotors http://www.michaelyon-online.com/the-kopp-etchells-effect.htm (from http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/pc/realitycarnival.html) (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
[Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
Horace, Have you considered the possibility that neutrons may be forming, a la Widom-Larsen? Steve Subj: CMNS: Jan Naudts' relativistic orbital solutions and the deflated state Date: 11/8/2009 7:25:12 From: mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.nethheff...@mtaonline.net Reply-to: mailto:c...@googlegroups.comc...@googlegroups.com To: mailto:c...@googlegroups.comc...@googlegroups.com The existence of a small hydrogen state, in effect a sub-ground state, is the basis for various theories of cold fusion, and for theorizing electron screening as the means of overcoming the Coulomb barrier in order to achieve cold fusion. Numerous cold fusion researchers have hypothesized such small states, and thus recognized the need for such small neutral states. However, without formation of an actual neutron, the difficulty with some of the states proposed is a lack of adequate binding energy to approach the nucleus. The presence of actual neutrons in the lattice in sufficient quantities to match excess heat observed would cause clearly visible neutron activation of even very small amounts of common elements, and also cause high energy signatures of nuclear reactions with lattice elements. The deflation fusion theory (as defined here: http:// www.mtaonline.net/hheffner/DeflationFusion2.pdf) solves these problems by noting that a brief attosecond sub-orbital state, if repeated frequently enough, can provide a high probability of lattice spacing distance simultaneous tunneling by the combined neutral species, i.e. by the ground state energy bound electron and nucleus. The Hamiltonian of the electron in the deflated state remains unchanged until joint wavefunction collapse occurs with another nucleus, fusion occurs, and the total charge of the combined nucleus suddenly becomes highly positive, thus driving the electron Hamiltonian negative by millions of electron volts, due to the initially extremely small size of the collapsed wavefunction. [SNIP] Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:neutron formation in LENR
Horace, Have you considered the possibility of neutral entities such as neutrons? Steve Subj: CMNS: Re: Jan Naudts' relativistic orbital solutions and the deflated state Date: 11/10/2009 12:12:47 From: mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.nethheff...@mtaonline.net Reply-to: mailto:c...@googlegroups.comc...@googlegroups.com To: mailto:c...@googlegroups.comc...@googlegroups.com Not true. For example, in a hot fusion model the approaching deuterons must overcome the Coulomb barrier until coming very close. This is one on the early mysteries of CF, how is the Coulomb barrier overcome. My answer is it is obvious, the barrier is tunneled through in its entirety, except not by a deuteron, but by a small neutral entity. Because it is neutral, and because it it is small, it can tunnel to the site of the another nucleus, or maybe more importantly vice versa, without having to achieve any F*d work overcoming the Coulomb barrier. The barrier is totally down. In fact, due to spin coupling, it is a downhill trip.
Re: [Vo]:1939 Ford to be clocked at 300 mph
All I want is a road on which I can drive it. ;) At 08:09 AM 11/27/2009, you wrote: All I want for Christmas is a little red Ford. See: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/26/hemi.ford.car/index.html http://tinyurl.com/yb64btu Excerpts: The car is an amalgamation of the Big Three, with a Chrysler engine, Chevrolet drivetrain and Ford body. Wilkins says the jet engine was probably used as an APU and weighs 110 pounds. [Wilkins] claims the car is street legal so long as the jet stays stowed. He fires it up from time to time to show off, and he plans to run it flat-out at the Bonneville Salt Flats. ... Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:google news search
Thanks Jones, But this is apples and oranges. I'm specifically looking for the news index not the web index. Steve At 11:17 AM 11/24/2009, you wrote: Apparently it is in the definition of News If you enter [ bubble fusion November 2009] in the regular google search you will get 3000+ hits.
Re: [Vo]:google news search
At 11:10 AM 11/24/2009, you wrote: V, Can anybody figure out why the all 10 news articles are not showing up on this query? Are you a news source syndicated with google news? I bet you're not. I think you are correct as far as the news index. But I know my blog is in Google's blog index http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?client=newsum=1cf=allhl=enq=taleyarkhan I don't know what must be done (and if it's possible) to be added to that list of news sources, but it could be a good idea to have your site or part of it (i.e. your RSS feeds) included. Btw, a query for bubble fusion in plain google (english version) lists your (excellent) article at the end of the second page (in the 20th position). Which is not so bad, considering page rank and the rest of google magic sorting algorithm. http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=fpz=1cf=allned=ushl=enq=bubble+fusion Good to know. S
[Vo]:Science Magazine References NET Bubble Fusion Story
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/11/roundup-1123-ke.html
Re: [Vo]:Long interview with Taubes
I even registered a domain name in his honor: http://sciencefabrication.com/ At 01:28 PM 11/22/2009, you wrote: What a creep! See: http://www.thedailybell.com/BellPage.asp?nid=604http://www.thedailybell.com/BellPage.asp?nid=604
Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia
At 07:26 AM 11/21/2009, you wrote: Steven Krivit wrote: Actually, I did not assume. I called Bev up and spoke with her about publishing the document before I had done so. Ha! That's proper form. Uncharacteristic, I realize. But it was not necessary. She had already written to people encouraging its dissemination to interested parties. I was an interested party.
RE: [Vo]:ONR Inspector General Helps New Energy Times Break Story
Sorry for the confusion and concern folks Adams mobile phone number got disconnected after I spoke with her on Feb. 17 and stayed that way for some time afterwards. I thought the number was dead, but it has been re-assigned.
Re: [Vo]:ONR Inspector General Helps New Energy Times Break Story
Stephen, you're absolutely right. I failed to realize that I knew her number had been disconnected the day after I last spoke with her, BUT there's no way that you all would have known that. Thank you, Steve At 08:20 PM 11/20/2009, you wrote: Steven Krivit wrote: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/ Uh ... That page seems to include the work and cell phone numbers of the person with whom you've been corresponding at ONR. Is that appropriate? Shouldn't the cell number, at least, be blacked out or something? Sorry, I know that's not the point here, but it just kind of jumped off the page at me.
RE: [Vo]:ONR Inspector General Helps New Energy Times Break Story
In a phone call with Adams in February, she was setting me up to break the story then and there. She was suggesting that the story was going to break big and implying to me that she was helping me to be the first to break it by giving me favored treatment. You'll recall that, in fact, the story did not break then, nor did anybody report on it then. Had the story broken when she either thought it was going to break or wanted it to break, it would have broken long before RT had a chance to a) respond to the *proposed* debarment and b) appeal it after it was executed. (he was denied appeal.) Consider that with regard to Adams' initiative to get the story out prematurely. Then she also encouraged me to do a FOIA request to get all the details. I had some doubts about if it was worth doing that. I had asked her why I should go through the trouble of making a FOIA request. Here's a few other excerpts from my Feb 12 phone call with her, before I knew the Navy had proposed debarment. * SK: Is this going to be worth my time? HA: [Laughs] I think so. You will know if it's worth your time after Dr. Taleyarkhan gets the letter. HA: All the others are calling our public affairs. There will be flurries of phone calls and there will be questions. I can guarantee it. And I would not be surprised if Purdue does some kind of a press release and maybe they are preparing it now because they are receiving a letter as well. SK: I don't know, I'm almost at my burn out point on this story HA: It's worth it. SK: Okay HA: This is part of the history. If I was to write a history book, this would be probably, an epilogue. * Presumably she thought/hoped her recommendation to debar would end the matter... After I spoke with her on Feb. 17 - for about two hours and explained some facts to her - she reiterated in her own words, her understanding that RT had been framed. At that point, she could have called the dogs off. But she didn't. Why not? I don't know. Perhaps she lacked integrity, courage, the freedom to do so, or some combination. -sk
Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia
Actually, I did not assume. I called Bev up and spoke with her about publishing the document before I had done so. She did not have a problem with me publishing it and she even gave me some suggestions as to how I could find a copy. Very nice lady. At 11:09 AM 11/19/2009, you wrote: Steven Krivit quoted the distribution letter that I also quoted: OK folks, The LENR paper (below) finally got released on Friday and should have gone into the OSD (at least the ATL) read books this morning. The paper is unclassified so feel free to forward it to whomever you think would be interested . . . You can see why Steve and I both assumed it would be okay to upload it. Besides that, there is no copyright, it says unclassified and there is not even a sentence saying please do not distribute. In my experience, you can always distribute government documents of this nature. I was taken aback to learn that it was not quite fully cleared for distribution on Wednesday morning. Anyway, it is now. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia
At 06:47 AM 11/19/2009, you wrote: okay, WHERE was it published, is the big question. This is a good question. Here is the answer: Beverly Barnhart distributed it on Monday with the following note: OK folks, The LENR paper (below) finally got released on Friday and should have gone into the OSD (at least the ATL) read books this morning. The paper is unclassified so feel free to forward it to whomever you think would be interested and anyone on our STIC working groups that I have missed. Thanks for all those who helped with this one. Let me know if you can't open the attachment since it got transferred from the JWICs to the low side. Bev Bev Barnhart Energy Technology Steward DIA, Defense Warning Office, DWO-4 [phone numbers redacted]
Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia
At 07:21 AM 11/19/2009, you wrote: Steven V Johnson wrote: ...but that does not answer the principal question: How does one verify its pedigree? For those of us (particularly me!) who may not be as quick witted as you appear to be can you clarify how you went about verifying the presumed legitimacy of this report? I spoke with Barnhart extensively on Monday. I also spoke with Pat McDaniels. There is a story to how this document was created and the initiative behind it. Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to write. But I will. Promise. Other news is brewingstay tuned...the storm should blow in by the weekend Steve
RE: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released
Well...what I said is my view of the effect of the documentall the players in this have different goals and objectivesBarnhart's job is to scan the horizon and warn other people in DoD of potential, uh, issues. ...the co-authors of the document have different goals objectives, as you imply... the science is strong enough now that, yes indeed, with a good conduit, it can put up a very good fight At 11:37 PM 11/16/2009, you wrote: So the Intelligence community of the DoD looked into LENR, decided that there's enough sound scientific evidence to suggest that LENR just might be real, and because of the most extraordinary ramifications if it is real, is, with this report, warning government agencies and the scientific mainstream to WAKE THE F*CK UP or GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR A$$! ??? Or, someone on the inside found a conduit thru which to fight the 'perception'...
Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released
At 07:37 AM 11/17/2009, you wrote: Is the DIA a parody of the CIA? profound question
RE: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released
At 05:43 PM 11/16/2009, you wrote: Terry, Good point regarding what might be in the classified report. These authors are all very likely to have confidential information of their own research and consulting with industry. I think their tone reflects something they know but cant say. I think they correctly highlight just how far behind the US has fallen and that our data and talent is being exploited by other countries Basically they told our government to put up or shut up . in my view, I see it as they told our government to get their heads out of the sand... and it was long overdue! Regards Fran
Re: [Vo]:VORTEX ALIVE AGAIN
At 09:21 AM 11/13/2009, you wrote: On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Horace Heffner wrote: In the event vortex-l goes down for an extended time, or gets shut down by men in black, etc., I would like to suggest designating a group on which messages can be exchanged to get status info and regroup if necessary. I would like to suggest: eskimo.com was offline because the owner is in jail, and he left the user billing in disarray which interrupted the cash flow, so broadband service was cut off. http://www.eskimo.com/outages/msg01872.html Ahem. Maybe it's time to move vortex to google groups etc. No Wi-Fi in jail? ;)
Re: [Vo]:Krivit and Marwan review of cold fusion article published
*Kidwell* does not what? At 10:38 AM 11/8/2009, you wrote: Steven Krivit wrote: I need to have another look at Kitamura's claims about light water. I didn't get that they claim excess heat. Kidwell does not. Kidwell does not what? He does not claim excess heat from light water, except chemical heat. He shows that it is chemical because it is completely reversible. That is, it is exothermic while loading and endothermic while deloading, and heat balances exactly. I do not think previous studies could have demonstrated this so convincingly. That's the beauty of a microcalorimeter. When I wrote this previously Ed Storms cautioned me to add that not all chemical reactions are reversible. Combustion, for example, is not. You cannot run it backwards in an electrochemical cell. (You can in an algae cell doing photosynthesis! Ha, ha.) But the heat of formation of a hydride is reversible, which is fortunate for this experiment. You don't have to know exactly how highly loaded it is. You do not have to know exactly how much chemical heat it should produce, which may not even be in the chemistry reference books. You need only show a balance. Scott Little has nice calorimeters. Not micro-calorimeters, but accurate. He showed an elegant demonstration with a reversible chemical reaction: charging and discharging a rechargable battery. It was endothermic charging up, and exothermic discharging inside the cell through a Joule heater, and it balanced up nicely. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Krivit and Marwan review of cold fusion article published
I need to have another look at Kitamura's claims about light water. I didn't get that they claim excess heat. Kidwell does not. Kidwell does not what?
Re: [Vo]:Krivit and Marwan review of cold fusion article published
Jed, If you'd like to write a letter to either New Energy Times or the JEM, it will be my pleasure to reply to any of your concerns or comments. Steve At 04:32 PM 11/6/2009, you wrote: This paper is very clearly written. On p. 1739 this paper discusses Iwamura, saying it has not been challenged. Alas, that is no longer quite true. Grabowski et al. show reasons to doubt the Cs into Pr results, in the slides I uploaded yesterday. On p. 1740 it says: In 2009, Akira Kitamura's group at Kobe University published a replication of the Arata-Zhang gas absorption experiment. Although they did not report findings of helium-4, they did report anomalously large energy release from both deuterium and hydrogen experiments. [33] Izzatso? With hydrogen as well? I don't recall that. I shall have to look more carefully. I thought that was only the expected chemical heat. They did not look for helium-4 as far as I know, so I wouldn't say they did not report . . . That's a little confusing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Heat is the principal signature of the reaction
At 05:17 AM 10/30/2009, you wrote: Michel Jullian wrote: My suggestion: like the SPAWAR people have done before you, forget about excess heat, hot spots, or other expensive to detect and ambiguous signatures . . . The people at SPAWAR did not forget about excess heat and hot spots. They published papers and videos showing these things. They were the first to show hot spots, as far as I know. That is a strange thing to say. - Jed Jed, In other words - for the moment - they left it behind, in the past. They moved on to more effective, more reliable and more reproducible tools and experiments. Steve
Re: [Vo]:Heat is the principal signature of the reaction
At 12:07 PM 10/29/2009, you wrote: Michel Jullian wrote: Why? Nuclear track counts in a _dry_ SSNTD as in the 2009 SPAWAR paper http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBosscharacteri.pdf , and as Abd is planning now following Horace's advice, are much easier to measure, much more sensitive, and much less disputable proofs of LENRs than calorimetry aren't they? Jed wrote: Not in my opinion. Jed, From what do you base your opinion that excess heat is a more convincing proof of a LENR reaction than Nuclear track counts in a _dry_ SSNTD as in the 2009 SPAWAR paper? Steve
RE: [Vo]:Neutron Bubble detector
reported to me at about 700 Euro At 01:55 PM 10/29/2009, you wrote: What does one cost? -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hvee...@ncf.ca] http://www.bubbletech.ca/radiation_detectors_files/bubble_detectors.html Bubble Detectors are the most sensitive, accurate, neutron dosimeters available.
Re: [Vo]:Heat is the principal signature of the reaction
Very interesting. Thank you. Jed, From what do you base your opinion that excess heat is a more convincing proof of a LENR reaction than Nuclear track counts in a _dry_ SSNTD as in the 2009 SPAWAR paper? I did not say less convincing, although as far as I know, so far fewer people are convinced by the SPAWAR experiment than the excess heat experiments. However, as you see in the text you quoted, I said that in my opinion CR-39 is not more sensitive or less disputable. That is not quite the same as less convincing. SENSITIVITY Good calorimetry is more sensitive because cold fusion produces more heat than neutrons (and sometimes, probably, no neutrons), and because a calorimeter surrounds the whole cell captures all the heat, indisputably, whereas as far as I know neutron detectors miss a lot. DISPUTABLE Given all the disputation it seems self evident that CR-39 is disputable. People argue about hamburger versus actual tracks, about problems with etching, and tracks induced by cosmic rays and so on, whereas there are no serious, published, sane arguments claiming that calorimetry does not work (except Shanahan). After the conference in Italy several people expressed admiration of the expertise of the people using CR-39, but remarked that the stuff is a nightmare compared to more modern electronic methods of detecting neutrons. At a high enough s/n ratio, neutrons, tritium or any nuclear signal is totally convincing. It goes without saying that the heat Mizuno measured by evaporating water from buckets during the heat after death event is totally convincing. That is either a lie or indisputable proof of a non-chemical reaction. I cannot imagine how anyone argues with tritium at 50 times background. Ed Storms pointed out that the SPAWAR CR-39 sometimes has millions of holes that are obviously not hamburger and that originate from the cathode (you can tell from the direction of the holes) and that is indisputably a nuclear effect. I agree of course, but heat is more reliable, easier to detect and a better place to start, in my opinion. Especially heat with no input power. I suppose even Shanahan and Garwin cannot argue with that . . . but you never know with those two. - Jed
Re: RE: [Vo]:Neutron Bubble detector
Thank you for the correction Harry At 07:57 PM 10/29/2009, you wrote: I searched the forums on this site, http://www.fusor.net/board/index.php?site=fusor (the search function is at top of page)and found this in the forum _Neutron - Radiation detection_ in a post from this year: -- The quote for 8 detectors is 8 x BD-PND @$135.00 = $1,080.00 -- Also, of interest is this paper by Richard Hull, http://www.fusor.net/board/getfile.php?bn=fusor_filesatt_id=4385 --- The Neutron Detecting Bubble Dosimeter for the Amateur By Richard Hull Abstract The use of the modern bubble detector for rough, quantitative, absolute fast neutron counting due to classic fusion has freed the amateur fusioneer from the absolute necessity of purchasing or constructing very expensive electronic neutron counting systems. The average amateur fusioneer is often faced with many doubting peers and on-looking professionals as regards their success in producing actual fusion or in proclaiming a specific amount of fusion based on neutron counting. The amateur who is without a proper neutron measuring system is at a tremendous disadvantage and should not even be in the field. Even if armed with neutron sensitive instrumentation, a now confident amateur can misread or misapply the instrument through simple ignorance, convincing himself that he is doing fusion when he is not. This paper will give an overview of the bubble dosimeter, a relatively modern device, that will virtually allow any fusion experimenter to be proof against recriminations from any critic who might decry their successful work. At the same instant, it will serve as a wakeup call for experimenters who are, as their critics say, not doing fusion at all. This makes this device a classic double-edged sword, capable of cutting both ways, shutting down would-be claimants as quickly as shutting the mouths of self-styled critics. Bubble detectors can, at very little expense, serve as the final arbiter as to whether neutrons are in the air or not. It will be seen that, given sufficiently measurable fusion, the bubble detector suffers few drawbacks so often encountered with any number of classic electronic neutron detection systems. Finally, it will be shown how the neutron bubble detector can be used to verify the general performance and operation of electronic neutron counting systems in the presence of know EMP and other electrical disturbances to which many such systems are sensitive. Harry - Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net Date: Thursday, October 29, 2009 5:55 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Neutron Bubble detector What does one cost? -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hvee...@ncf.ca] http://www.bubbletech.ca/radiation_detectors_files/bubble_detectors.html Bubble Detectors are the most sensitive, accurate, neutron dosimeters available.
Re: [Vo]:The Strange World of Cold Fusion
Dear Dennis Abd ul-Rahman Lomax, For a few years - you have been a great fan of New Energy Times. You have been militant and aggressive on Wikipedia in your support of New Energy Times and you were instrumental in getting New Energy Times removed from the Wikipedia blacklist. You did this, I note, even when I made it clear to you that I did not care about Wikipedia and had no desire for you to embark on your crusade to get it delisted. But I did not want to participate with you in your crusade in Wikipedia. I thank you, and a I hope back then that I did thank you, for your care, desire and effectiveness to support New Energy Times. This was the situation as of April this year. I do recall you seemed to be a bit bristly to me though when I did not want to join you in your crusade; you lectured me and argued with me against my disinterest in your Wikipedia crusade. Sometime after all this, you seem to have completed your focus on Wikipedia, you advised me of your interest to develop a cold fusion kit. You contacted me because of my experience with the Galileo Project, a replication effort of the SPAWAR SSNTD and Co-dep expt. Again, I think - as I recall - I had limited interest in your project, though I believe I did direct you to the laboratory protocol. You wrote to me in April the following: Meanwhile, your work is appreciated; please be careful to not get caught up in squabbles, pass them by, just do your job and do it well. It's sad to watch the infighting among those who support lenr research, and it, unfortunately, reflects badly on the field and makes it more difficult for the awakening to come. In spirit, I agree with your thoughts - and I would completely love to focus my entire attention on scientific work. Alas, I have found that science does not occur in vacuo; for some strange reason, there always seem to be human beings involved. So in a span of a few months, you have become a staunch advocate of New Energy Times and now you are spewing language filled with hatred, hostility, and derision and you appear intent to cause destruction. I'm curious how you explain your 180 degree shift. I'm curious about exactly what bothers you. Were you expecting that New Energy Times should be more of a PR organization and be soft on snake oil salesmen within the field? Were you expecting that we would or could discuss the science, the business and the politics of the field without discussing human behavior? Or were you so offended that I repeated things that 60 Minutes said about someone's health conditions? Or have the facts I've recently published caused you angst and disillusionment about your cold fusion heroes? What is it about my recent reporting that bothers you so much? You have conveyed a lot of drama and emotion, but you are sparse when it comes to identifying any real problems, aside from your judgment about editorial perspectives and decisions. If you don't like the editorial decision-making of New Energy Times, you don't have read it. So what's the problem? I really do appreciate your enthusiasm for this field. I know you truly care about the end result - a better world and a better choice for energy solutions. I'm not going to be able to explain all of the details to your satisfaction in an e-mail, or even in a slew of e-mails, but you appear to be are under a mistaken belief that individuals who are principal researchers in the field are homogenous and unified in their approach and philosophy of LENR. This is a myth as great as the myth that Caltech and MIT disproved excess heat. Following from the myth of all for one and one for all of cold fusion researchers against the evil empire of mainstream science, you appear to assume that observers and proponents of LENR should, in turn, all be unified in their approaches and philosophy. This may or may not be true, I don't wish to argue the point with you, but I will say the obvious - I don't agree. There is the very great danger of groupthink. As is the danger with observers such as you and I. To whatever extent you can see beyond your hateful, mean-spirited messages that you have posted here recently, I strongly encourage you to look at the minority viewpoint of the field which you are so passionately supportive. I began to hear strong shifts in people's perspectives once I began to openly question the reality of cold fusion and rather, consider the very strong reality of the empirical research independent of a cold fusion process. It is true, I experienced a change of philosophy a few years ago. I began to discuss this openly at the August 2008 ACS meeting. I quoted former APS spokesperson Robert Park: If something you have been attributing to [D-D] fusion is observed with ordinary water, it means you've been fooling yourself. I quoted LENR Theorist John Fisher: In my opinion [LENR] has been crippled by wide acceptance of the belief that deuterium fusion of
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:The Strange World of Cold Fusion
Michel, Your summary is yours, I really can't and don't wish to comment on that. Thank you for alerting me to the typo. Steve At 11:58 PM 10/21/2009, you wrote: Thanks for this very interesting report Steven. Summary (correct me if I misunderstood) : - Dardik's SuperWaves are a scam, their application to CF is entirely PR stuff based on concepts stolen from the Widom Larsen theory for CF. - McKubre and Fleishmann support Dardik and SuperWaves because of personal interests (common financial interests for the former, free health treatment promising to cure his diseases for the latter). - Dardik's 2008 Preparata medal is the result of McKubre's support, Fleishmann's 2009 Preparata medal talk strongly implies support for SuperWaves. Michel P.S. Typo: International Society for Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science for International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2009/10/22 Steven Krivit stev...@newenergytimes.com: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:The Strange World of Cold Fusion
At 07:08 AM 10/22/2009, you wrote: Steven, The summary of your article provided by Michel Jullian (below) shows the impression your style creates. You are not helping yourself or the field by this approach. First of all, some of your facts are wrong. Mckubre is not on the nominating committee and was involved because he suggested, as the rules provide, giving the Medal to Dardik, which all members of the committee supported. Discussions have been underway about how to give a similar metal to Stan, but that involves the cooperation of Stan. Your evaluation of the Larsen-Widom theory reveals your complete lack of scientific understanding. The model, as I have told you in the past and discussed publicly in several places, is not consistent with any experimental fact about CF and has very little relationship to general understanding. Apparently, such facts have no meaning to you because you do not have the background to understand them. This being the case, you should avoid discussing scientific issues and do what you do best when you give interesting information about what is happening to people in the field. Ed Hi Ed, You were the first cold fusion scientist that was very gracious with me and generous with your time. That was in February, 2002. I sincerely thank you for helping me get introduced to the field, and in many ways, being a mentor to me. But times have changed; your mentorship with me, as I have decided, has long been over. Your termination as an active employee from Lattice (Lew Larsen's company) qualifies you as a disgruntled ex-employee and, at least in my book, precludes you from being an objective critic of his idea. I'm willing to be wrong about my assessment of the potential viability of the Widom-Larsen theory; it may be right, wrong, or somewhere in between. But I'm not going to put my head in the sand or dismiss it with prejudice like some other people are doing. I'm also willing to let time decide if, and to what extent, my instincts on either the Widom-Larsen theory or other weak-interaction theories turn out to be correct. Best regards, Steve
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:The Strange World of Cold F usion
Hi Ed, With all due respects, you do not seem to understand the fact that, as a journalist, I posted my writing publicly and openly and that, as I journalist - serving the broader public - I expect to keep things public and open. Please do not fail to distinguish your communications with me from your private communications such as as those with, for example, your wife, attorney or a health professional. Best regards, Steve At 09:27 AM 10/22/2009, you wrote: Steve I see that you posted this on Vortex. I don't not have access to vortex so I must reply directly to you. I sent my e-mail to you as a personal communication. You do not seen to understand the difference between a personal communication and one that is public. Just because you consider yourself a journalist does not give you the right to make a personal communication public without permission. If you had asked, I would have given permission, but you did not give me the respect to ask. Ed
Re: [Vo]:The Strange World of Cold Fusion
Jed, You wish it was made-up. Fact is, I suck at nonfiction. Almost failed my creative writing classes in high school. Have a real nice day. Steve At 10:37 AM 10/22/2009, you wrote: Steven Krivit wrote: With all due respects, you do not seem to understand the fact that, as a journalist, I posted my writing publicly and openly and that, as I journalist - serving the broader public - I expect to keep things public and open. Krivit's report is made-up nonsense plus some personal details that are not anyone's business. A journalist is not supposed to publish every weird notion that crosses his mind without confirmation. This is not journalism; it is a stream of consciousness blog. I have known some real journalists in my time, including distinguished people in the mass media, and anti-establishment people similar to I. F. Stone. (I did not know him, but I knew his friends and enemies.) These people do not operate by Krivit's rules. They do not publish half-baked fluff. A responsible journalist sometimes publishes, and sometimes refrains from publishing. Publishing everything you hear without distinction or careful consideration makes you an Internet server, not a journalist. Even when you know something to be a fact, it may be personal, or irrelevant, or unimportant, or likely to be misunderstood out of context, so it should be keep confidential. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Strange World of Cold Fusion
Uhh..no, that was supposed to say fiction not nonfiction. Where's Michel Julian to proof my posts when I need him? ;) Jed, You wish it was made-up. Fact is, I suck at fiction. Almost failed my creative writing classes in high school. Have a real nice day. Steve At 10:37 AM 10/22/2009, you wrote: Steven Krivit wrote: With all due respects, you do not seem to understand the fact that, as a journalist, I posted my writing publicly and openly and that, as I journalist - serving the broader public - I expect to keep things public and open. Krivit's report is made-up nonsense plus some personal details that are not anyone's business. A journalist is not supposed to publish every weird notion that crosses his mind without confirmation. This is not journalism; it is a stream of consciousness blog. I have known some real journalists in my time, including distinguished people in the mass media, and anti-establishment people similar to I. F. Stone. (I did not know him, but I knew his friends and enemies.) These people do not operate by Krivit's rules. They do not publish half-baked fluff. A responsible journalist sometimes publishes, and sometimes refrains from publishing. Publishing everything you hear without distinction or careful consideration makes you an Internet server, not a journalist. Even when you know something to be a fact, it may be personal, or irrelevant, or unimportant, or likely to be misunderstood out of context, so it should be keep confidential. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Strange World of Cold Fusion
Jed, For made-up nonsense that is irrelevant and unimportant, you seem to be reacting quite strongly. I presented the facts; you didn't like them -- you attacked the messenger -- with your speculations. If you can prove my facts to be wrong, then go ahead... Otherwise, I will file your diatribes as they appear: hateful, cowardly and desperate. Steve At 01:55 PM 10/22/2009, you wrote: Steven Krivit wrote: You wish it was made-up. Fact is, I suck at fiction. Almost failed my creative writing classes in high school. This is probably not a serious comment . . . But in any case, an inability to write fiction is no indication that you are good at writing non-fiction. On the contrary, writing is writing. A skilled writer can describe reality, speculation, and hypothetical or imaginary subjects equally well. Most technical writing, for example, describes speculative or imaginary objects, or wishful thinking, because the manuals are written before the product is finished. (That is an old joke, but it is also true and it makes writing technical manuals harder than you might think.) An unskilled writer who has difficulty writing fiction may be having problems distinguishing between his own ideas and fantasies, other people's ideas, and facts grounded in reality. That appears to be Krivit's problem. Francis Bacon first described this confusion in what he called the idols of the mind. This is not an important report, and there is nothing particularly damaging about it. But it is nonsense. Let me relate one example of the nonsense: Another person who was involved, but who did not wish to be quoted, later told New Energy Times that they were informed with two weeks' advance notice that the plan for Fleischmann was to arrive in Rome on Sunday evening and return home on Tuesday. I was periodically in touch with the people in Tisbury before the conference. I know they did not make final plans until the last days. Mike McKubre reiterated this in a message to me today. I checked through my e-mail and that's what they were telling me: We hope to go but we're not sure. And that is what you would expect with Parkinson's. There is nothing odd or sinister or surprising about it. That's how it was with my mother. When she felt okay, she went as planned. We got refundable tickets. Krivit plays it up into some kind conspiracy, as if someone was trying to cover up Fleischmann's plans. That's silly. Perhaps Krivit made this up, or misunderstood, or perhaps he heard it from someone who made it up. If he had bothered to ask me or anyone else in touch with the Fleischmanns, we would have told him: Oh no, they say won't know until the last minute. That's how it is traveling with Parkinson's. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Strange World of Cold Fusion
Jed, For made-up nonsense that is irrelevant and unimportant, you seem to be reacting quite strongly. I presented the facts; you didn't like them -- you attacked the messenger -- with your speculations. If you can prove my facts to be wrong, then go ahead... Otherwise, I will file your diatribes as they appear: hateful, cowardly and desperate. Steve At 01:55 PM 10/22/2009, you wrote: Steven Krivit wrote: You wish it was made-up. Fact is, I suck at fiction. Almost failed my creative writing classes in high school. This is probably not a serious comment . . . But in any case, an inability to write fiction is no indication that you are good at writing non-fiction. On the contrary, writing is writing. A skilled writer can describe reality, speculation, and hypothetical or imaginary subjects equally well. Most technical writing, for example, describes speculative or imaginary objects, or wishful thinking, because the manuals are written before the product is finished. (That is an old joke, but it is also true and it makes writing technical manuals harder than you might think.) An unskilled writer who has difficulty writing fiction may be having problems distinguishing between his own ideas and fantasies, other people's ideas, and facts grounded in reality. That appears to be Krivit's problem. Francis Bacon first described this confusion in what he called the idols of the mind. This is not an important report, and there is nothing particularly damaging about it. But it is nonsense. Let me relate one example of the nonsense: Another person who was involved, but who did not wish to be quoted, later told New Energy Times that they were informed with two weeks' advance notice that the plan for Fleischmann was to arrive in Rome on Sunday evening and return home on Tuesday. I was periodically in touch with the people in Tisbury before the conference. I know they did not make final plans until the last days. Mike McKubre reiterated this in a message to me today. I checked through my e-mail and that's what they were telling me: We hope to go but we're not sure. And that is what you would expect with Parkinson's. There is nothing odd or sinister or surprising about it. That's how it was with my mother. When she felt okay, she went as planned. We got refundable tickets. Krivit plays it up into some kind conspiracy, as if someone was trying to cover up Fleischmann's plans. That's silly. Perhaps Krivit made this up, or misunderstood, or perhaps he heard it from someone who made it up. If he had bothered to ask me or anyone else in touch with the Fleischmanns, we would have told him: Oh no, they say won't know until the last minute. That's how it is traveling with Parkinson's. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Strange World of Cold Fusion
Dear Dennis Abd ul-Rahman Lomax, If you can discuss something factual about my work, please do so. I'm more than happy to discuss and debate facts. If not, what you have written here amounts to nothing but a personal attack and an expression of hatred. Anybody who knows me and my work can recognize this as smoke and noise. I also suggest that this, your second unprovoked personal assault to me on this list, may be approaching the limits of what is socially acceptable behavior here. I have found that when I expose or report truths that people don't want exposed - or truths which some people just cannot face - if they can't disprove my facts then they react just like you have done - with invective and hostility, and attack the messenger. Consequently, I take your response as a complement, regardless of your unpleasantness. Steve At 08:09 PM 10/22/2009, you wrote: At 02:37 PM 10/22/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: Steven Krivit wrote: With all due respects, you do not seem to understand the fact that, as a journalist, I posted my writing publicly and openly and that, as I journalist - serving the broader public - I expect to keep things public and open. Krivit's report is made-up nonsense plus some personal details that are not anyone's business. A journalist is not supposed to publish every weird notion that crosses his mind without confirmation. This is not journalism; it is a stream of consciousness blog. Rothwell is accurate, unfortunately. Something has gone very, very wrong at New Energy Times. Krivit is, I assume, accurately reporting what he recalls of what he's seen, but also what he has said and thought, he's becoming the topic of his own writing, and it is becoming more and more unbalanced in that way. He's lost journalistic objectivity, and that's very damaging. I'd stopped responding publicly about his behavior, and wrote privately to him; he'd pointed to a document on journalistic ethics, claiming that this was his guide, and I'm sure it is, regarding some of his practices, such as refusing to accept a retainer from Energetics Technologies, and I assume, fully, that those events happened. Krivit, however, with regard to criticism of his reporting on Fleischmann, and his drawing of drastic conclusions from what appears to be a few days of indisposition or illness, has become increasingly hostile and unresponsive. I pointed out to him aspects of the journalistic ethics guide that he'd mentioned that he was not fulfilling well. He did not respond to that. But today, I asked him if he had any CR-39 left over from the Galileo Project, because he'd bought quite a bit, and it's expensive his response: with friends like you, who needs enemies? take a hike The criticism I had previously offered was sincere and intended to help him avoid what could be a disaster for New Energy Times if he continues on his course; and if he was satisfied that my objections were invalid, he's the one responsible for his actions, not me, and I consider it my duty to my friends to warn them when I see them sawing off the tree limb they are sitting on. This isn't about defending Dardik or McKubre or the other figures. It's not about trying to stop any investigation of what may indeed involve some questionable activities or conflicts of interest, and it's not about Krivit reporting relevant facts. I've thought, maybe this is just his blog, he can express his opinions, right? Well, the blog is part of the NET web site. It colors NET, and the web site is the publication. Krivit was turned away in England, and he's striking back, I'm afraid, he is going to get even. It's conduct unbecoming a professional; I thought the field was benefitting from the work of a professional journalist; but I'm afraid it's being lost. Perhaps Krivit has some friends who are close enough to him and whom he trusts sufficiently that they can explain to him what he's doing. If not, I don't see much hope. I have known some real journalists in my time, including distinguished people in the mass media, and anti-establishment people similar to I. F. Stone. (I did not know him, but I knew his friends and enemies.) These people do not operate by Krivit's rules. They do not publish half-baked fluff. A responsible journalist sometimes publishes, and sometimes refrains from publishing. Publishing everything you hear without distinction or careful consideration makes you an Internet server, not a journalist. Even when you know something to be a fact, it may be personal, or irrelevant, or unimportant, or likely to be misunderstood out of context, so it should be keep confidential. There is plenty of room for disagreement about the exact boundaries with regard to what Krivit has reported. Rothwell knows Fleischmann and the family situation, probably better than Krivit. My concern, though, is the political fallout of Krivit's apparent feud, and it's a feud, all right
Re: [Vo]:strange request
Yes. At 03:38 AM 10/21/2009, you wrote: Hi All, 10-21-09 Is this a scam? Jack Smith --- Dear eskimo.com Subscriber, We are currently carrying-out a mantainace process to your eskimo.com account, to complete this, you must reply to this mail immediately, and enter your User Name here () And Password here (...) if you are the rightful owner of this account.
Re: [Vo]:Fleischmann
Dear Vortex, Jed Rothwell and Abd ul-Rahman_Lomax have expressed themselves with a great deal of rage and outrage that I reported that Martin is suffering from Parkinson's disease and diabetes. Despite their mudslinging and pontification (a popular word here in Italy), the fact is that Martin's health challenges are far from private. I learned about Martin's health issues from the CBS 60 Minutes program earlier this year - as did the rest of the world. I quote: Martin Fleischmann, the man who announced cold fusion to the world, is hindered by years, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, and maybe a little bitterness. At home, he pulled out an improved version of his experiment, something that he was working on when he was hounded out of science. I don't recall any such outrage from Jed Rothwell and Abd ul-Rahman_Lomax at that time. Steve
Re: [Vo]:Fleischmann
Jed, As before, I thank you for your opinions. And certainly Bill Beatty is wise and cool-headed enough to notice that I have not made personal attacks against you, but you have against me. Steve At 11:27 AM 10/13/2009, you wrote: Steven Krivit wrote: Jed Rothwell and Abd ul-Rahman_Lomax have expressed themselves with a great deal of rage and outrage . . . Disgust, not outrage. Despite their mudslinging and pontification (a popular word here in Italy), the fact is that Martin's health challenges are far from private. I learned about Martin's health issues from the CBS 60 Minutes program earlier this year - as did the rest of the world. I quote: Martin Fleischmann, the man who announced cold fusion to the world, is hindered by years, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, and maybe a little bitterness. At home, he pulled out an improved version of his experiment, something that he was working on when he was hounded out of science. Mentioning that someone has Parkinson's is not an invasion of privacy. When you see someone with this disease (or something like it) either in person or in a video it is obvious. Anyone watching me drink hot coffee for 20 seconds will see the symptoms. It is nothing to get worked up about. What Lomax and I object to are gratuitous invasions of privacy such as detailed descriptions of personal behavior, the choice of therapy, the fact that some people consider the doctor a quack, or a description of the caretaker Freilino (who is a nice young man doing a fine job). These things are all off limits. They are personal; private; none of your damn business. And who the heck thinks it is newsworthy that a sick man in his 80s decides cancel an appointment?!? This is not surprising, significant, and a polite person will not mention it except to say, we had an appointment but regrettably Fleischmann did not feel up to it. These ridiculous insinuations that he is being controlled by Freilino are out of line and completely without foundation. As I said before, it is bad enough being old and sick. Who the heck wants to see the details spewed on the Internet? Who needs nitwits coming to your door and asking nosy questions? Frankly, if I were Bill Beaty, I would delete this whole thread and ban Krivit if he does not stop this nonsense. Krivit apparently never learned grown-up manners or the concept of privacy, and he makes a mountain out of a molehill. An imaginary molehill! It is regrettable that this field attracts so many dysfunctional people. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Fleischmann
Frankly, if I were Bill Beaty, I would delete this whole thread and ban Krivit if he does not stop this nonsense. Jed, I never thought I'd see the day that you would encourage censorship, either post facto, or pre-emptively. Steve
Re: [Vo]:Fleischmann
Jed, You are welcome to your opinions, your judgements, your understanding of media and your interpretation of what happened or what you have heard from people who were not there. Anybody else on this list is welcome to read the facts and make up their own minds about the situation. Should the facts presented leave any question in anybody's mind about my behavior, I will be pleased to answer. Related reports - thus far - are here: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/?p=87 http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/?p=89 Should anyone wish to contact a witness who was present with me at the Fleischmann house or when I called the Fleischmann house about my behavior, I can arrange that. Good day. Steve At 06:50 PM 10/11/2009, you wrote: I have learned more about this report by Steve Krivit, and about Krivit's behavior. It is appalling. It is crass and it serves no purpose. He had absolutely no business bothering Fleischmann or publishing this report. Fleischmann's medical condition and treatment is no one's business but his own. This statement about the meeting that failed to occur allegedly as a result of Fleischmann's failing health is disgraceful. Fleischmann is under no obligation to meet with Krivit or anyone else. He is under no obligation to give a reason why he does not wish to speak with Krivit. He and his family have been put upon and harassed many times, and even physically attacked on a few occasions. The fact that his health is poor has been known to his friends for quite some time. He is old, and this only to be expected. The details of his treatment have also been known to his friends, including me, but like most people over age six I never discuss other people's medical problems in public. - Jed
[Vo]:Fleischmann
Dardik's Team Blocks Reporters Attempt to Meet With Fleischmann by Steven B. Krivit TISBURY, U.K. -- A pre-arranged meeting between this reporter and Professor Martin Fleischmann, co-discoverer of cold fusion, failed to occur yesterday, allegedly as a result of Fleischmann's failing health. Fleischmann had recently been in the U.S. receiving treatments from Irving Dardik's LifeWaves program. Fleischmann is suffering from Parkinson's disease and diabetes. The program, which, according to Dardik, can heal any disease, is based on the same concept that Dardik uses in his SuperWaves to trigger low-energy nuclear reactions. In 2004, this reporter interviewed Dardik about the way the process delivers the waves to the patient; however, the reporter did not understand Dardiks explanation. Fleischmann had told this reporter several months ago that he was going to the U.S. for several months to work with Dardik, though Fleischmann did not specify whether he was going for treatment by Dardik or for collaborative LENR research with Dardik. This week, Sheila Fleischmann told this reporter that her husband has been confined to his bed since returning to the U.K. several days ago. He has been unable to see visitors or take phone calls, she said. Along with Sheila Fleischmann, Ryan Freilino met this reporter at the door of the Fleischmann home in Tisbury on Thursday. Freilino introduced himself as part of the U.S. health team that was caring for Fleischmann. Freilino, 23, is the chief operating officer and head trainer for LifeWaves International, LLC, based in Califon, N.J. According to his companys Web site, his education comprises an undergraduate degree in biology earned at Bucknell University, in Pennsylvania, in 2008. [] Photo: Ryan Freilino, LifeWaves, LLC After being turned away at Fleischmanns door, this reporter e-mailed Rick Kramer, who handles media relations for Dardik, to get more information. I can tell you that my understanding is that Fleischmann is doing quite well and that the family is extremely encouraged with the progress made this past summer at LifeWaves, Kramer wrote today. I dont believe that he is confined to bed or too ill to talk on the phone in fact, he conducted several press interviews during his time in the U.S. This reporter then telephoned Sheila Fleischmann and again asked to speak to her husband. Freilino took the phone and advised this reporter that it was the wish of the Fleischmann family that this reporter not make further contact with the Fleischmanns. Freilino declined to answer to this reporter in what capacity he was acting and specifically who in the Fleischmann family had decided, on behalf of Fleischmann, that this reporter cease attempts to contact either Fleischmann. Freilino also advised this reporter that further attempts to contact either Fleischmann would result in Freilinos calling the local police. Dardik is a physician, though his New York state http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/companies/Energetics/DardikNYS-Licence-Revocation.pdfmedical license was revoked in 1995 by the state Department of Health. The department found Dardik guilty of professional misconduct and fraud. According to http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/Dardik/index.htmlQuackwatch, the revocation proceeding was initiated by Ellen Burstein MacFarlane, a former TV investigative reporter. The Health Department stated that Dardik had developed a wave energy theory and a treatment program to create wave patterns of behavior designed to optimize the bodys normal health patterns. The report also stated, The Petitioner argues that the Respondents inappropriate, unethical, insensitive and unconscionable conduct is consistent with a finding of moral unfitness and that the facts that support the Committees Determination that the Respondent guaranteed a cure, committed fraud, exerted undue influence, exploited patients and failed to maintain adequate records are sufficient to sustain the charge of moral unfitness. New Energy Times has published stories on Dardik's Energetics Technologies LLC, which claims SuperWaves as its key ingredient to achieve LENR excess heat. In 2004, the company reported a record 2,500 percent excess heat in a one-time LENR experiment, but the firm has never reported either its own repetition or a third-party replication of such a stunning achievement. The companys Web site implies that its technology produces an astonishing 25 times more energy output than the energy required to produce it. Fleischmann is scheduled to go to Rome next week to receive an award at the 15th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. inline: C:/DOCUME~1/SKRIVI~1.DLS/LOCALS~1/Temp/msoclip1/03/clip_image002.jpg
Re: [Vo]:Lewis irritating again on the next page
very good observations Jed
Re: [Vo]:The two irritating Nates
Jed, I could be wrong, but my guess is that Nate Lewis just doesn't have what it takes to admit that he was frustrated and very emotional about the whole damn thing and that he threw the baby out with the bathwater. I approached Nate a few years ago in person but he turned his back on me and walked away. He seemed to feel very bad about the whole 1989 situation. Can't say I blame him, though his response didn't register high on my integrity meter. I'm hopeful he will allow me to close the gap with him on this story some day. On the other hand, Frank Close has not run away from me. In fact, I connected with him back in March and we have been having fascinating, in-depth dialogue for several months now - a detente of sorts. Steve cc: Nate Lewis At 07:58 AM 9/16/2009, you wrote: I wrote: Friedman is buddy-buddy with one of the other hard-core opponents . . . I did not mean to include the word other here, which implies that Friedman is a hard-core opponent. I doubt that he knows much about it. But he did mention his good friend who is in the opponent's camp. As I recall, it was Lewis. If Friedman ever thought about the subject, I expect he asked Lewis, and I know what the answer would be. Lewis is a jerk. I printed out the entire NSF/EPRI conference and I am reading all papers and comments carefully. Lewis gave a good presentation laying out potential problems with cold fusion, especially recombination and the separation factor that may concentrate tritium in the electrolyte. Then he sits through several presentations that prove beyond question his concerns are moot. They are legitimate, but they they were tested for and ruled out. He asks the speakers detailed questions to confirm this. So, why didn't he say so, publicly?!? He should have announced: although the problems I cited earlier in the year are real, recent research has ruled them out. What's the matter with that? Lewis starts his presentation by saying that electrochemists all know what he has to say, and the presentation is for people in other fields. Fair enough. It it is a fine presentation, well worth reading. The thing is, he is sitting there with the creme de la creme of 20th century electrochemistry: Fleischmann, Bockris, Huggins, McKubre and others. Does he think they have not heard of recombination? When they demonstrate that recombination can't possibly be an issue, because they used closed cells and for other reasons, why doesn't he acknowledge that?!? Also in attendance are leading experts in tritium, such as Storms and Talcott (Carol -- now Miz. S.). They and others demonstrate many reasons why separation cannot be an issue. Talcott displays a slide with a co-author's v.c.: Roland A. Jalbert *25 years working with tritium and tritium detection * involved in the development, design, and inplementation of tritium instrumentation for 15 years * for 12 years he has had prime responsibility for the design, implementation, and maintainance of all tritium instrumentation at a major fusion technology development facility (Tritium Systems Test Assembly). * Consultant on tritium instrumentation to other fusion energy facilities for 10 years (Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor at Princton) So why the heck does Lewis still, to this day, claim these people don't know tritium when they see it? I am sure he did not sleep through the presentations, because he made comments. (All QA comments are transcribed, and some are more interesting than the papers.) The two irritating Nates were at this meeting: Nate Lewis and Nate Hoffman. Alan Bard of the ERAB panel was also there, and also irritating. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:ICCF Proceedings No Longer Published by a Publisher?
At 02:01 PM 9/7/2009, you wrote: Steven Krivit wrote: Let's say you want to buy a copy of the ICCF-14 proceedings in a few years from now, or you want to get permission to republish text or image from a paper in the proceedings. If Nagel and Melich are on a cruise ship to Alaska for a month, you're dead in the water. That is why I recommend a CCAL instead of a copyright. So that permission is granted automatically to anyone, under the terms of the CCAL. Consumer Consortium on Assisted Living ?
[Vo]:ICCF Proceedings No Longer Published by a Publisher?
At 06:42 AM 9/6/2009, you wrote: Steven Krivit wrote: Do you have any idea why they broke tradition and did not get it published by World Scientific? I do not know, but I am glad they did. Perhaps I influenced their decision, because I recommended they stop using World Scientific. I do not like it for several reasons, which I can enumerate here in detail if anyone is interested. Briefly: World Scientific gets the copyright. I oppose copyrights but if there is going to be one, the ICCF conference and authors should retain it. Jed, Yeah, copyright is a bit of a throwback to the time when publishers really did a lot for authors. But in the case where there are multiple authors such as a proceedings, I think it helps a lot when a real publishing business handles the job. Let's say you want to buy a copy of the ICCF-14 proceedings in a few years from now, or you want to get permission to republish text or image from a paper in the proceedings. If Nagel and Melich are on a cruise ship to Alaska for a month, you're dead in the water. These benefits are part of what you get for your money when you use a publisher rather than a printer. But philosophically speaking, if the whole damn thing was electronic, available ubiquitously, with each paper's copyright retained by each author (like it should be) none of this would matter. Steve
Re: [Vo]:Some notes on uploaded EPRI papers
At 05:52 PM 9/4/2009, you wrote: Steven Krivit wrote: what is the plan for the most recent [ICCF] proceedings and the forthcoming one? I finished editing all papers for the most recent proceedings a week after the final, FINAL deadline, in February or whenever it was. Nagel and Melich have had the papers ever since. They made some corrections to the contents of the papers, they wrote an introduction, and they persuaded 2 or 3 other authors to give papers, as recently as last week. I do not know when they will get around to printing the book. I think they will have it printed in the U.S. rather than India, and they will hold the copyright. Do you have any idea why they broke tradition and did not get it published by World Scientific? As for the next conference, I have been bombarding people with various suggestions. For example I urge them to emulate PLoS and use a CCAL instead of a copyright. (See http://www.plos.org/journals/license.htmlhttp://www.plos.org/journals/license.html) Some have expressed support for these ideas but most remain silent, so I do know what they will do. They say they will have a meeting at the conference to discuss the proceedings. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Some notes on uploaded EPRI papers
At 06:42 AM 9/6/2009, you wrote: Steven Krivit wrote: Do you have any idea why they broke tradition and did not get it published by World Scientific? I do not know, but I am glad they did. Perhaps I influenced their decision, because I recommended they stop using World Scientific. I do not like it for several reasons, which I can enumerate here in detail if anyone is interested. Briefly: World Scientific gets the copyright. I oppose copyrights but if there is going to be one, the ICCF conference and authors should retain it. The book is far too expensive. Their books are printed in a light 10-point Times Roman which I find unreadable. That last reason may seem trivial, but I do not think it is. The book costs $180 and it has hundreds of pages, yet reading 10 or 20 pages causes eyestrain and a headache. The layout and font size mean that your $180 investment is wasted. - Jed I think you said you did the editing and production on the latest proceedings...so then the new format will be closer to 81/2 x 11 and 12-point font? s
Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia's cold fusion entry, what's the status?
There is no page titled jzq. jzg, not jzq. Hard to see. somewhat case sensitive. so JzG is the optimal way stands for Just zis guy, slang for just this guy
Re: [Vo]:Some notes on uploaded EPRI papers
As I see it, these ICCF proceedings papers were never really published. Plus, people will not read papers with spelling errors and so on, so there is no point to reprinting the papers as is. So, while I have never changed the content, I did rewrite them. A few authors say I should reproduced papers exactly, with every typo intact. Naturally, I will do that if the author demands but it seems pointless to me. Anyway, as I tell these people, LENR-CANR.org is supposed to be a useful online source of information, not a museum for papers that no one will read because they are so poorly written and presented. I have had rather contentious discussions with some ICCF organizers for several of the past conferences, and for the upcoming conference. I am trying to ensure that the proceedings data will be preserved, and also that minimum quality standards will be applied for things like spelling and grammar. what is the plan for the most recent proceedings and the forthcoming one? Some of the recent proceedings have been printed in splendid hardback books published by World Scientific in India. Take a close look and you will see that for some of the papers, no one bothered to edit the content or correct the English. So we have splendidly printed books with papers that would not have passed high school English classes in 1975. It is ridiculous! Presentation matters. People will not read papers they have difficulty understanding. Hear hear. Jan Marwan and I have edited two ACS books so far. We had to reject some papers for some reasons, but poor English we could deal with. We had every paper in the books professionally copy edited. Lot of work, time and money. I'd say only 10 percent of the authors provided work that was well-written on the first draft. Mosier-Boss and Dash were notably superior in their writing skills. Many of the authors also seem to have little or no experience with the professional publishing process. I found this quite shocking. In a way, this book reveals the dirty laundry of cold fusion to the world. It shows how many bad papers there are. I do not mind doing that. If I could make every paper ever published available, I would. Looking at the ICCF-4 document strictly as a book, without regard to content, the production quality of these early proceedings is abysmal. I do not understand why. In 1994 I could have done a much better job scanning and printing use the paper's return on paper and not as machine readable files (LaTex, word processor or at least a scanned image). You have to wonder why on earth they do not demand word processor files and why they did not preserve them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia's cold fusion entry, what's the status?
Steve and Vortex, About a year ago, I think it was, the Wikipedia cold fusion haters blacklisted New Energy Times because I added some links to - heaven forbid - the NET site which I thought would be useful. You know, the Internet is good for Wiki, it's good for NET too - we're both vehicles that ride on the same highway, founded on the same principles of open information, I thought. Not so, apparently. Somehow, the Wikipedians think they're the smartest cats on the Internet. (Shhhlet them keep thinking that.) The strange thing is - since OR (Original Research) is verbotten on Wikipedia, you have to ask, well then, where do they get their facts from? Answer: They take (steal) it from other people who have done OR. But they reword it so it doesn't appear to be plagiarism. Nifty, eh? Also, so long as OR is verbotten on Wiki, it will ALWAYS been behind the leading edge as other publications who do use OR diligently will maintain the leading edge. That's where it's at for me. I ended up interviewing ScienceApologist (perhaps the most destructive contributor to the cf page) a while back and was planning on publishing a comprehensive investigation. My sense after tracking him (Joshua Schroeder, Columbia Univ. student), watching a video of him conducting one of his science-hating meetings and speaking with him on the interview (yes, he consented and we both recorded it) was that I was dealing with someone who was hell-bent on a censorship and book-burning crusade. Real scary siht. I won't make any analogies here - use your imaginations. I've not compiled and pub'd the investigation yet...fortunately I've had better and more important things to do. So after the blacklist, I said, enough - these clowns are hopelessly immature and any efforts on my part to help them will be just wasted. I didn't even bother asking them to remove NET from the blacklist. Someone else eventually ended up doing that, I think ABD. He's a noble warrior. Wikipedia is too easy for aggressive, singular-interests to manipulate. It is also often used as a last-ditch battleground for losers of conflicts in the real world. I'm all for the progress of science and communication and I don't have a 20-year axe to grind like some of these players. So playing cat and mouse with the Wikipedia losers is pointless for me. Jed is right, let them fester in their own cess. This way the gap between Wiki and reality will stink so bad, grow so wide, the dysfunction of Wiki will become ever more self-evident. I watch the Wiki CF page and the discussion page now and then to see what is going on. The most prolific and aggressive recent Wikipedia editor on the cold fusion page lurks on this (Vortex) list and is probably reading all of these messages. If he weren't such a coward he would uncloak. He probably couldn't withstand the (mostly) intelligent scrutiny that he would have to subject himself here. If he wants to control the Wiki cf page with his POV, he can go ahead knock himself out. He and his heels-in-the-mud buddies can have Wikipedia. Me, I'll put my attention and efforts in real encyclopedias and peer-reviewed journals thank you very much have a nice day. Steve
Re: [Vo]:Wikipedia's cold fusion entry, what's the status?
At 07:07 PM 9/3/2009, you wrote: At 02:26 PM 9/3/2009, Terry Blanton wrote: Thanks for expounding on that, Abd. I'm curious, are you typing or using a voxrec s/w like Dragonspeak? Typing. I bought Dragonspeak when I had a carpal tunnel release, but never used it. brevity? naw!
Re: Mandatory Vaccinations? Re: [Vo]:Journalist Files Charges against WHO and UN for Bioterrorism and Intent to Commit Mass Murder
BB *This* journalist nominates this thread for relocation elsewhere. Puhleeze. SK
Re: [Vo]:Dog bites man. Scientists tend to be conformists.
Jed - I'm waiting for the man bites dog story. At 02:34 PM 7/24/2009, you wrote: Ho-hum news: http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/researcher-condemns-conformity-among-his-peers - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Perspective on Heat Vs. Everything Else
Hi Jed, Good thoughts...thanks for your reply. [snip] A crucial question is: Can we learn to control cold fusion without a comprehensive theory? Can we use empirical methods to improve cells to the point where they become practical sources of energy? Michael Melich believes we can, based on examples of other technology developed without fundamental theory, such as solid state radar. Where did you hear Melich say this? Others say that until the physics are fully understood, it is not likely the reaction will be controlled. I cannot judge this issue, but I hope that Melich is right, because I do not see many prospects for a theory. Sorry Jed, but you asked for this - Of course you don't see many prospects for theory. Your words: I don't care about theory. [snip] Considering that the mystery to 100% PxH is unsolved, what sense does it make to wear blinders with any of the related aspects of LENR research, be they transmutation, tritium, neutrons or theory? No one is wearing blinders. This comment makes no sense. Forgive me, I must have misunderstood your comment about what you give a f*** about [fig was your exact word]: I have not examined the other claims because frankly, I only care about heat. If they have not nailed down heat who cares what else they have? I don't give a fig about tritium or neutrons or shrinking Mills hydrinos for that matter, and especially I don't care about theory. You meant something else? Steve
Re: [Vo]:Perspective on Heat Vs. Everything Else
I do not see many prospects for a theory. Sorry Jed, but you asked for this - Of course you don't see many prospects for theory. Your words: I don't care about theory. Whether I care about it or not has no bearing on the prospects for a robust theory. I know what is being published. Not much about theory. Also I have heard from both experimentalists and theorists that they think cold fusion theory is pretty much dead in the water. Of course, that could change quickly. It does not take much to launch a theory. As Einstein said all you need is a pencil and paper. Jed, Good point. Lord knows there are lots of pencils and plenty of paper out there. Forgive me, I must have misunderstood your comment about what you give a f*** about [fig was your exact word]: And I meant exactly that: fig (Ficus carica). Not figure (which has abbreviated with a capital and period: Fig.) and certainly not what you are implying, so the asterisks are hardly called for and you need only two. It was my understanding that your use of the fruit f word was a polite replacement of the more vulgar f word. So know I know better. When I see you use the word fig (without the period) I will be sure to understand that you are talking about ficus caricum. I have not examined the other claims because frankly, I only care about heat. If they have not nailed down heat who cares what else they have? I don't give a fig about tritium or neutrons or shrinking Mills hydrinos for that matter, and especially I don't care about theory. You meant something else? I meant exactly what I said, as always. I, Jed, have no use for theory. Why would I do with it? I do not understand it and I cannot distinguish a good theory from a bad one. You may underestimate yourself. I suspect you may have more capacity to understand - at least conceptual mechanisms, not necessarily the mathematics - than you give yourself credit for. Perhaps the theories you've looked at so far are indeed hair-brained, castles-in-the-sky, spaghetti-code upchuck and you are justified to relegate all that has crossed your path as unworthy of your attention. It may come to pass that the definitive theory comes to me first. In that event I shall spend several hours correcting spelling, tense, person and number, and probably the formatting of equation numbers and footnotes (which most authors get wrong), without having the foggiest notion that I am dealing with the be-all, end-all answer to cold fusion. I am not the only one. A distinguished experimentalist recently said that a theory paper it might as well be in Chinese for all I can make of it. That's another problem: even if a good theory emerges, many experimentalists will not pay attention because they do not understand modern theories. I agree with the challenge, but I think you're over-generalizing. And if experimentalists completely disregard theory, I think they are limiting themselves. As I see it, there are three pathways forward: Develop a purely empirical understanding of how to make LENR work, develop a theoretical understanding, or combine knowledge from both paths. They skip the ICCF theory sessions. There is a gap between the two groups. That indeed is a problem. Perhaps the reason for the disinterest is legitimate; perhaps the theory sessions presented thus far have been filled with jibberish and self-gratifying fantasy-ego adventures. But we gotta give these people credit for trying, and for their persistence and their imagination, doncha think? But anyway, just because I have no use for theory, that does not mean other people have no use for theory. I doubt many people have a use for a 11-year-old guide to Borland Delphi Pascal Ver. 4.0, but I need it! Still coding in Pascal? Cool! Steve
RE: [Vo]:Most papers from Piantelli are authored by Focardi
I never have a hidden agenda. My view of the Ni-CF research is clearly stated in my book. Jed, Is this the view to which you refer, from Cold Fusion and the Future? Steve *** There is one more twist to this problem. Cold fusion can transmute the cathode metal into some other metal. This was definitively proved in experiments at Texas AM, Hokkaido University, Mitsubishi Corporation and elsewhere. In other words, a cold fusion reactor might gradually convert the palladium into other metals, especially chromium and iron. 60 It is not clear whether this always happens. Perhaps we can find a way to prevent it. If we cannot, the 171 metric tons of palladium we mine every year will rapidly be converted into cheap, useless chromium and iron, before we can generate much energy from it. The scenario described above, with the 24-hour baseline generators, would only work if we can recycle the palladium and use the same cathode metal again and again for decades. If the palladium turns into iron in a few years, cold fusion will never be a practical source of energy. Fortunately, there are good indications that cold fusion works well with abundant metals including nickel and titanium, although experiments with these materials have not yet been widely replicated, so I have lingering doubts about them. Cold fusion probably transmutes these metals too, but that may be an advantage. Suppose the process can be tuned to output any element we choose. After a cold fusion automobile engine has run for a few years, the cells inside it will be swapped out, and the metal recycled. A sizeable fraction of the nickel or titanium may be turned into gold or some other valuable element. ***
[Vo]:Perspective on Piantelli-Focardi Nickel-Hydrogen Work
Jed, The original thread has splintered; one into planet Mills, the other into planet Britz. The Britz issue is an incidental side-issue. I think we are complete with our specific discussion of the CERN replication attempt of the Piantelli-Focardi work...thanks for your critical thoughts on all of that...let's move on. Leaving the details of the Piantelli-Focardi and CERN work aside, I am curious about your thoughts in general on the larger matter. In your book, you wrote, Fortunately, there are good indications that cold fusion works well with abundant metals including nickel and titanium, although experiments with these materials have not yet been widely replicated, so I have lingering doubts about them. I realize that things we all write are susceptible to obsolescence the moment the ink dries. With that caveat in mind, here is my curiosity: Based on what I read in your book, you generally accept that LENR works with nickel but you have lingering doubts because of the low sampling rate. Based on what I read of you in the Piantelli-Focardi thread on Vortex, you seem to broadly and vociferously reject the Piantelli-Focardi work. Questions (present tense): Has your perspective about nickel LENR changed since writing your book? If not, how do you explain the development of your strong skepticism for the Piantelli-Focardi work? Is there something you know that the rest of us does not? What is the basis on which you have derived/developed your feelings about the Piantelli-Focardi work? I know you're a logical guy. You must have some reason. Perhaps after the Vortex discussion you may no longer discount the Piantelli-Focardi work, and if that is the case, then my questions shift into the past tense as follows: Questions (past tense): Did your perspective about nickel LENR change sometime after writing your book? If not, how do you explain the development of your strong skepticism for the Piantelli-Focardi work? Was there something you knew that the rest of us did not? What was the basis on which you had derived/developed your feelings about the Piantelli-Focardi work? Thanks, Steve
[Vo]:Perspective on Heat Vs. Everything Else
Jed, Thanks again for your thorough reply. I understand your perspective now. Heat, heat, heat. That's what it's all about. Heat Energy Useful Application Sorely Need by Society. I get it. Switching threads now once again I have not examined the other claims because frankly, I only care about heat. If they have not nailed down heat who cares what else they have? I don't give a fig about tritium or neutrons or shrinking Mills hydrinos for that matter, and especially I don't care about theory. It is also common, and unfortunate, that people charge off inventing new and unlikely methods of calorimeter instead of reading Himminger and Hohne or consulting with an expert. Or even reading Storms' papers on calorimetry at LENR-CANR.org. Bockris is no slouch at calorimetry, and needless to say he is a world-class expert on electrochemistry, but when he began these experiments, he took the trouble to hunt up the best calorimetry expert in Texas. The guy came to the lab, looked at the equipment and asked some questions, the way Rob Duncan did at Energetics Technology. Then he asked: How much heat are we talking about? What is the power level input and output? Bockris told him and the guy laughed and said, you don't need me. Any calorimeter can measure that. He was right, but he meant any calorimeter constructed by a professional chemist using proper instruments. Not the many peculiar instruments that have enlivened the history of cold fusion much like the multi-wing airplane designs in the photos here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthewrightb.pdf What was the basis on which you had derived/developed your feelings about the Piantelli-Focardi work? Please note the use of feelings in my writing is academic jargon. It means I am trying not to be too insistent. It doesn't mean I have only vague or initiative feelings in the normal sense of the word. - Jed Let me throw out what might seem like a thought out of left field. Please bear with me in PART 1, I will get to my point in PART 2. PART 1 What if I were to say that the researchers in the field do not know how to make heat, and do not know how the heat is made when it does come. But, surely, you will quote even myself, from my presentations in the past when I have said that people like McKubre have identified the required conditions prerequisite to making heat (Loading, current density, disequilibrium and D flux). And we may both remember McKubre once saying that every time he attains the prerequisite conditions that he can produce heat. So...Hey! Where's the heat? (Said to the tune of Hey, Where's the Beef!) McKubre et al published the results of their international collaboration to produce heat in the ACS book that I co-edited last year. On average, I think they got heat about 60-70% of the time, if I recall, all but one properly loaded experiment gave PxH. That one gave Tritium. So why is loading so crucial in bulk Pd expts? Why didn't the other 30-40% load? Nobody knows! Crucial information is missing. Also, why does the SPAWAR co-dep protocol produce results for them every time they do a run? All we can say about the known parametric requirements to produce PxH in bulk Pd is what does NOT work. PxH does not work in bulk Pd with D/Pd ~ 0.85. PxH does not work in bulk Pd with 2.5 amps/cm2. PxH does not work in bulk Pd when the cell is at equilibrium. PART 2 My only point in all of that - NOT TO ARGUE ANY MINUTIA - is that some crucial knowledge is missing. Hopefully we are in agreement that some knowledge is missing that is preventing the full development and the arrival of the inevitable Useful Application Sorely Need by Society. Considering that the mystery to 100% PxH is unsolved, what sense does it make to wear blinders with any of the related aspects of LENR research, be they transmutation, tritium, neutrons or theory? Steve
