Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs

[Jed Rothwell]

Akira Shirakawa  wrote:

>
> This might sound like a naive question, but isn't the Arata technique
> documented? And if it isn't, why it isn't?
>

First, Arata's technique is documented, but not well according to some
people. He tends to keep secrets.

Second, when I said Rossi "applied" the technique, I meant that loosely.
Arata was working with Pd nanoparticles loaded with deuterium gas. He first
used pure Pd, and later various mixtures. Rossi is working with Ni loaded
with H. Rossi says he added two secret ingredients to the metal.

I meant that Rossi decided to try gas loading of nanoparticles. The actual
details of the two systems are quite different.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs

[Akira Shirakawa]

On 2012-10-25 17:05, Jed Rothwell wrote:


1. It is lot harder to accomplish than it sounds. I can summarize it in
a single sentence, "apply the Arata technique to nickel" but that
describes years of effort.


This might sound like a naive question, but isn't the Arata technique 
documented? And if it isn't, why it isn't?


As long as "recipes" that work remain secret or purposely badly 
described, people will have to reinvent the wheel each time, resulting 
in delays of the scientific acceptance of the effect and the technology 
to the market.


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs

[Jed Rothwell]

Alain Sepeda  wrote:

>
> As far as i know, NiH heat anomaly was known sine 89 with some ignored
> experience by Piantelli.
> in 93 I have been reading among the thousands of abstracts on CF, few
> results about NiH , yet like everybody of that time I took them as minors...
>

It was not ignored. Many people made sincere, sustained efforts to
replicate Ni-H. Most of them failed. A few succeed in producing minor
effects, close to the noise. These might have been experimental error.
The consensus was that power density was inherently low for some unknown
reason. Pd-D continued to look like a better research tool. The original
Mills/Thermacore paper shows something like 50 W coming from a tremendous
mass of Ni, enough to fill a large garbage can.

People were unable to replicate Piantelli.

When Rossi applied the Arata nano-particle technique to Ni, he succeeded in
producing much higher power density. That was a "game changer" as they say
in politics. Rossi deserves a great deal of credit for that. He made one of
the most important contributions to the field. It may seem like a small
step, applying Arata's idea to another material, but it is actually a giant
leap because:

1. It is lot harder to accomplish than it sounds. I can summarize it in a
single sentence, "apply the Arata technique to nickel" but that describes
years of effort.

2. There must be thousand of permutations and combinations of techniques
that might be tried, and that seem promising. We could have hundreds of
different research groups spending a billion dollars a year trying them
out, one after the other. Rossi somehow knew which one to try. He ignored
all the other potential variations and went right to one that turned out to
be very promising.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs

[Jed Rothwell]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:

Well, Mr. Gibbs, while I appreciate your reporting on Defkalion, you
> continue to confuse and conflate two separate issues.
>
> 1. The reality of cold fusion as a physical phenomenon.
> 2. The existence of practical applications.
>

Exactly.


"Reliably reproducible" is not a requirement for scientific validation of a
> phenomenon.


That is true. It is important. It is often overlooked by skeptics, who
should know better. Beaudette pointed to the example of cloning mammals
which used to work 0.1% of the time, yet no one doubted that mammals can be
cloned.



> However, the reality of cold fusion does not equal practical application.
> The effect has been extremely difficult to control.
>

Exactly. And as I keep saying, *if* the problem of control is solved,
everything else will soon follow. Granted, that's a big if. There is no
telling whether it will be solved, or when. That mainly depends on funding,
and there has not been any funding for 15 years. There is a little now.

Without sustained funding, the problem of control may never be solved. Cold
fusion might remain a laboratory curiosity for hundreds of years. It might
well be forgotten. Failure is always an option.

I think that with control, commercialization is a sure thing, because we
know for sure the reaction can produce enough heat and power density to
melt ceramic proton conductors (for example). I think Abd disagrees with me
about that.

I think that Rossi did actually demonstrate 16 kW reactions in January
2011. I think fraud is so unlikely it is not worth worrying about. However,
he did not seem to have the reaction under control. It seems the reactor
came close to catastrophic overheating, with a surge from 16 kW to some
much higher value. I have no idea whether he now has better control or not.

It must be emphasized that a reactor which produces 16 kW for a while and
then suddenly begins producing over 100 kW has absolutely NO COMMERCIAL
VALUE. It is terribly dangerous! It could easily kill someone. As a
demonstration, it has no more value than a 100 W reactor would have. You
would have to be crazy to begin mass producing 16 kW reactors that
sometimes go out of control and begin producing 100 kW or more.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs

[Alain Sepeda]

Thanks Abd for that clear explanation,

As usual you are very strict with the required level of proof.

I have gathered some data that I think valid, but please all here correct
me if I'm wrong.

As far as i know, NiH heat anomaly was known sine 89 with some ignored
experience by Piantelli.
in 93 I have been reading among the thousands of abstracts on CF, few
results about NiH , yet like everybody of that time I took them as minors...


about He4/Heat correlation, the story of the Report41 of ENEA is
instructive.
It have been rejected, while clearly superior in quality to many papers
accepted by Science, and by the 41one review it have been proposed to (is
it really 41? look like a joke)
(see that topic http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=451 )

about the condition to trigger LENR in PdD experiments, the most complete
paper seems to be that report of ENEA at ICCF15 :
(see http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=674 )

ENEA have a strange story about CF, and the report: hystory of CF at ENEA
that you can find in the same forum can show you why Italy is well
represented in CF.

to understand the sociology/psychiatry of LENR you should looks at the
story of gas permeation experiments started by NASA GRC, then tsighua
uni+infinicon, then Biberian, the Nasa GRC again...
see http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=474
the way that NASA GRC claim discretely that they validated heat anomaly
without doubt in 89, is strange since their report just prove they refuse
to fund needed experiments to be sure... They lie, discretely, to look
pioneer while they have been denier until Spawar get public.


There is (only) one great reason to doubt about LENR being real, it is only
that one cannot accept that on the whole planet, the greatest brains,
reject LENR without even a question,  while there is visibly so clear,
validated, replicated, precise, intense, evidences... any trusting citizen
will rationally assume that these evidences are faked, because we cannot
accept so huge collective delusion.

Don't tell me about the constraint of replication, since any scientist
having learned history know that at the beginning of a new science,
replication is hard...
Don't talk me about impossibility, since any scientist knowing quantum
physics in lattice, know that we can be surprised...
All the mainstream excuse don't hold 5 minute facing an historian of
science or a semiconductor physicist.
BTW I've been trained to micro-electronics, and the few of QM and history
I've learned make me easily accept LENR as not breaking any physics law.
It is shocking how the critics repeat stupid claim (like thermodynamic law
broken, coulomb barrier, reliability...) at that level of competence, while
any student should be fired of PhD course for such a bad excuse. The case
of intelligent rebuttal of LENR , not using those stupid excuses are rare...

If you read the appendix "patterns of denial" by Roland Benabou, and his
key paper "Groupthink: collective delusion in organizations and market",
the situation is less surprising.
http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Patterns%20of%20Denial%204l%20fin.pdf
http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%207p%20paper.pdf




2012/10/25 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 

> Well, Mr. Gibbs, while I appreciate your reporting on Defkalion, you
> continue to confuse and conflate two separate issues.
>
> 1. The reality of cold fusion as a physical phenomenon.
> 2. The existence of practical applications.
>
> The kind of information you request below is entirely focused, in terms of
> what you want, on validated practical applications. At this point, those
> don't really exist, and it's a matter of speculation and whom to trust as
> to whether anything is coming soon.
>
> But the reality of cold fusion is not in question any more, not in the
> scientific journals, at least. There is still a lot of held opinion out
> there, but it hasn't been seen in the journals for almost a decade. The
> actual evidence that this was real was available with the publication of
> Miles' helium measurements by 1993, and with the confirmation of Miles'
> measurements after that.
>
> You wrote, in your article:
>
>  Unfortunately it turned out that the Fleischmann and Pons experiment was
>> not reliably reproducible. In the academic fracas that followed, both men’s
>> reputations were ruined and the field was quickly relegated to the domain
>> of “fringe” science along with perpetual motion, telekinesis, and
>> anti-gravity.
>>
>
> "Reliably reproducible" is not a requirement for scientific validation of
> a phenomenon. Some phenomena are difficult to reproduce, generally because
> there are unknown or difficult-to-control conditions. However, what Miles
> found and reported in 1993 was that, while the amount of heat produced in a
> series of cold fusion cells was not easily predicted, the cells produced
> helium proportionally to the heat measured.
>
> That was an astonishing result at the time, because helium 

Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Abd,

Some people are focused on Truth, some on Value.
Mark is interested in Value- he wants CF/LENR to be useful, to do something
good- give energy to the people.
Your premises being different there is difficult to arrive at compatible
views.
However if CF generates Value, than it is implicitly true.
Peter

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:

> Well, Mr. Gibbs, while I appreciate your reporting on Defkalion, you
> continue to confuse and conflate two separate issues.
>
> 1. The reality of cold fusion as a physical phenomenon.
> 2. The existence of practical applications.
>
> The kind of information you request below is entirely focused, in terms of
> what you want, on validated practical applications. At this point, those
> don't really exist, and it's a matter of speculation and whom to trust as
> to whether anything is coming soon.
>
> But the reality of cold fusion is not in question any more, not in the
> scientific journals, at least. There is still a lot of held opinion out
> there, but it hasn't been seen in the journals for almost a decade. The
> actual evidence that this was real was available with the publication of
> Miles' helium measurements by 1993, and with the confirmation of Miles'
> measurements after that.
>
> You wrote, in your article:
>
>  Unfortunately it turned out that the Fleischmann and Pons experiment was
>> not reliably reproducible. In the academic fracas that followed, both men’s
>> reputations were ruined and the field was quickly relegated to the domain
>> of “fringe” science along with perpetual motion, telekinesis, and
>> anti-gravity.
>>
>
> "Reliably reproducible" is not a requirement for scientific validation of
> a phenomenon. Some phenomena are difficult to reproduce, generally because
> there are unknown or difficult-to-control conditions. However, what Miles
> found and reported in 1993 was that, while the amount of heat produced in a
> series of cold fusion cells was not easily predicted, the cells produced
> helium proportionally to the heat measured.
>
> That was an astonishing result at the time, because helium was not
> expected to be the main product, and far more helium was being produced
> than would be expected from the expected ordinary deuterium fusion reaction
> (which only produces helium in a tiny fraction of the involved fusions).
> Indeed, as it turned out, the energy produced is quite close to the
> expectation if deuterium is somehow fused to helium with there being no
> other products, no gamma rays, no neutrons, no tritium. Basically, no
> radiation.
>
> This work has been amply confirmed, being done with increased accuracy.
> There is still a lot of work to do, but the science is now clear, that a
> nuclear reaction is responsible for the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect. That
> is no longer being actively contested by anyone who knows the literature;
> what we have seen in recent years has only been the internet activity of a
> few pseudoskeptical cranks, raising preposterous arguments that ignore the
> basic evidence.
>
> Storms' paper, "Status of cold fusion (2010)" is the basic review recent
> of the field, published in Naturwissenschaften, a peer-reviewed
> multidisciplinary journal that's been established since 1913. It's
> unchallenged, so far. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/**
> StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf
>
> However, the reality of cold fusion does not equal practical application.
> The effect has been extremely difficult to control.
>
> You report on recent work with nickel hydride, but that work is *not*
> massively confirmed, as was the palladium deuteride work of Pons and
> Fleischmann and others (including Miles). We don't know for sure that
> nickel hydride even works, though so many people are now working with it,
> mostly under commercial secrecy, that there probably is *something* there.
> We don't know what the product is, the "ash." (Helium is the ash from
> palladium deuteride fusion.) Most importantly, we don't know how reliable
> the nickel hydride reaction is.
>
> One of the likely explanations for all the obfuscation and delay from
> Rossi and Defkalion is that they are having difficulty with reliability and
> sustainability. How long does one of these cells work? We don't know.
>
>  While mainstream science was apparently quite happy with this situation
>> and went about spending billions of dollars on “hot” fusion (there are many
>> who claim that cold fusion was systematically marginalized and deprecated
>> by establishment scientists), a few “rogue” researchers continued with cold
>> fusion research and, over the last few years, evidence has piled up that
>> cold fusion may, in fact, be real.
>>
>
> It's just not accurate. The evidence for reality was available by a decade
> ago. It was difficult to get anything published, and that's a major story
> on its own. It's been covered by a sociologist of science, a book called
> Undead Science, by 

Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

Well, Mr. Gibbs, while I appreciate your 
reporting on Defkalion, you continue to confuse 
and conflate two separate issues.


1. The reality of cold fusion as a physical phenomenon.
2. The existence of practical applications.

The kind of information you request below is 
entirely focused, in terms of what you want, on 
validated practical applications. At this point, 
those don't really exist, and it's a matter of 
speculation and whom to trust as to whether anything is coming soon.


But the reality of cold fusion is not in question 
any more, not in the scientific journals, at 
least. There is still a lot of held opinion out 
there, but it hasn't been seen in the journals 
for almost a decade. The actual evidence that 
this was real was available with the publication 
of Miles' helium measurements by 1993, and with 
the confirmation of Miles' measurements after that.


You wrote, in your article:

Unfortunately it turned out that the Fleischmann 
and Pons experiment was not reliably 
reproducible. In the academic fracas that 
followed, both men’s reputations were ruined and 
the field was quickly relegated to the domain of 
“fringe” science along with perpetual motion, telekinesis, and anti-gravity.


"Reliably reproducible" is not a requirement for 
scientific validation of a phenomenon. Some 
phenomena are difficult to reproduce, generally 
because there are unknown or difficult-to-control 
conditions. However, what Miles found and 
reported in 1993 was that, while the amount of 
heat produced in a series of cold fusion cells 
was not easily predicted, the cells produced 
helium proportionally to the heat measured.


That was an astonishing result at the time, 
because helium was not expected to be the main 
product, and far more helium was being produced 
than would be expected from the expected ordinary 
deuterium fusion reaction (which only produces 
helium in a tiny fraction of the involved 
fusions). Indeed, as it turned out, the energy 
produced is quite close to the expectation if 
deuterium is somehow fused to helium with there 
being no other products, no gamma rays, no 
neutrons, no tritium. Basically, no radiation.


This work has been amply confirmed, being done 
with increased accuracy. There is still a lot of 
work to do, but the science is now clear, that a 
nuclear reaction is responsible for the 
Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect. That is no longer 
being actively contested by anyone who knows the 
literature; what we have seen in recent years has 
only been the internet activity of a few 
pseudoskeptical cranks, raising preposterous 
arguments that ignore the basic evidence.


Storms' paper, "Status of cold fusion (2010)" is 
the basic review recent of the field, published 
in Naturwissenschaften, a peer-reviewed 
multidisciplinary journal that's been established 
since 1913. It's unchallenged, so far. 
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf


However, the reality of cold fusion does not 
equal practical application. The effect has been 
extremely difficult to control.


You report on recent work with nickel hydride, 
but that work is *not* massively confirmed, as 
was the palladium deuteride work of Pons and 
Fleischmann and others (including Miles). We 
don't know for sure that nickel hydride even 
works, though so many people are now working with 
it, mostly under commercial secrecy, that there 
probably is *something* there. We don't know what 
the product is, the "ash." (Helium is the ash 
from palladium deuteride fusion.) Most 
importantly, we don't know how reliable the nickel hydride reaction is.


One of the likely explanations for all the 
obfuscation and delay from Rossi and Defkalion is 
that they are having difficulty with reliability 
and sustainability. How long does one of these cells work? We don't know.


While mainstream science was apparently quite 
happy with this situation and went about 
spending billions of dollars on “hot” fusion 
(there are many who claim that cold fusion was 
systematically marginalized and deprecated by 
establishment scientists), a few “rogue” 
researchers continued with cold fusion research 
and, over the last few years, evidence has piled 
up that cold fusion may, in fact, be real.


It's just not accurate. The evidence for reality 
was available by a decade ago. It was difficult 
to get anything published, and that's a major 
story on its own. It's been covered by a 
sociologist of science, a book called Undead Science, by Simon.


What's been happening recently is the flap about 
nickel hydride, and evidence for the reality of 
of nickel hydride nuclear reactions is still anecdotal and shady.


I wrote “may … be real” because until recently 
the evidence looked promising but hardly conclusive.


Again, this confuses the issue. Cold fusion is 
real, as found with palladium deuteride, under 
the right conditions, that's been confirmed by 
hundreds of researchers, independently.


"Promising" would be, again, a reference to 
pra

Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs

[hellokevin]

Mark:
 
This appears to be your second article on LENR, at least as far as I am aware.  
For the third article, why don't you correspond with Jed Rothwell and 
incorporate some of his excellent advice?  
 
Kevmo

--- On Sun, 10/21/12, Mark Gibbs  wrote:


From: Mark Gibbs 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs
To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" 
Date: Sunday, October 21, 2012, 10:37 AM


If you go back and re-read my previous columns on cold fusion you'll see that 
my interest has always been in useful cold fusion ... The cold 
fusion phenomena, while scientifically intriguing, amounts to to nothing of 
practical interest if you can't do something useful with it ... rather like 
muon catalyzed fusion ... Interesting but not practically useful.


[mg]


On Sunday, October 21, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote:

Gibbs:

"I know that there will be a handful of people (the “believers” I
wrote about some time ago)  who read that statement and cry “lies” but
the fact is that no one has yet demonstrated, definitively, that cold
fusion or LENR exists in a form that is actually useful."

Now the argument is being useful.  LOL!

Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> So, there has never been the *slightest doubt* that cold fusion is
> capable of producing useful levels of energy if it can be controlled. There
> is not one reason to think that!
>

Per a suggestion by Jeff Berkowitz, I should clarify what I meant by that:

It was established that cold fusion is real around 1991 or so, after it was
widely replicated. In some cases, even the first round of replications
produced power density, temperatures and energy density high enough for
practical commercial applications. Although the actual power was too low
for any application larger than a hearing-aid or wrist-watch battery.

In other words, if you could scale up a coin-shaped cathode to something
the size of a loaf of bread, it would easily be enough to power your house
or your automobile.

For as long as we have known cold fusion is real, we have also known that
if it can be controlled, it will be useful for just about every application
short of surface to orbit spacecraft.

Incidentally, the dollar value of energy far below 0.1 watt, in the
hearing-aid and wrist-watch battery scale, is billions of dollars a year.
Even at present levels, controllable cold fusion would be worth a vast
fortune, and that breakthrough alone would, in a few days, pay for all of
the research conducted so far. Focusing only on large scale energy
applications is another typical amateur mistake, made by people who know
nothing about technology, business, or the energy market.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Mark,

First- thanks for the article. And may I invite you for a friendly
visit to my blog http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com, papers
labelled NEW ENERGY?

A good candidate for the best Pd-D LENR peak performer
is described here:
http://www.fondazionefrisone.it/eventi/catania07/LesinSreportonelectr.pdf

It is cathode no 64 of Energetics Israel, ; excess power up to
34W, average 20W for 17 hours.
An Everest for Pd-D.

Peter

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Mark Gibbs  wrote:

> I don't have the time to review the huge amount of literature you people
> have already looked at ... if any of you, Rothwell included, would like to
> help build a list of successful experiments I'd be happy to build it into
> an article with full attribution to all contributors. I'd like to see a
> list that includes:
>
>- where
>- when
>- technology
>- run time
>- COP
>- experimenters and affiliations
>- observers and affiliations
>- references
>
> I think such a list would be very useful in public discussions about the
> reality of cold fusion.
>
> [mg]
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Jeff Berkowitz  wrote:
>
>> Good question Peter. I've been wondering something similar, just slightly
>> more specific. Ni-H has gotten a lot of attention lately. But what sequence
>> of Pd-D experiments over the years was most significant to the "...slow
>> erosion of the psuedoskeptic position..." that Abd described in email to
>> the group some time back?
>>
>> Possible answer - "read the Storms 2010 summary paper and follow his
>> references" ? Or is there a shorter / more specific / different answer?
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Jed,
>>>
>>> Which experiment of all (except the 1kW Patterson Cell)
>>> was the best ever?
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>>
 Sigh . . . Another ignorant article by Gibbs.

 Here is what I just wrote in the Forbes article comment section:



 The author wrote: "Even so, the Defkalion tests were, as far as any
 cold fusion experiment performed to date has gone,  the best so far and
 they were witnessed by someone who is, for want of a better description, a
 serious scientist."

 This statement is preposterous. Cold fusion has been replicated in
 hundreds of major laboratories, in thousands of test runs. Many of these
 runs were far better than the Defkalion tests witnessed by Nelson. Many of
 these other tests have been witnessed by world-class experts in
 calorimetry, such Robert Duncan of U. Missouri. This was shown in "60
 Minutes."

 The Defkalion tests were not bad, but tests at SRI, Los Alamos, BARC,
 China Lake and other major laboratories used much better equipment and
 produced much larger signal to noise ratios. In some of these other tests
 the ratio of input to output was larger than Defkalion's, and in some there
 was no input, so the ratio was infinite.

 Hundreds of mainstream, peer-reviewed journal papers have been
 published describing experiments more convincing than the Defkalion tests.
 Gibbs is ignoring this peer-reviewed literature and looking instead at few
 preliminary documents published on the Internet. He is ignoring the gold
 standard of established science.


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


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

Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs

[Jed Rothwell]

Mark Gibbs  wrote:


> The cold fusion phenomena, while scientifically intriguing, amounts to to
> nothing of practical interest if you can't do something useful with it ...
> rather like muon catalyzed fusion ... Interesting but not practically
> useful.


Oy veh. Where to begin?!? This is such a grievous technical confusion, I
hardly know what to say. Okay:

Cold fusion caused a major explosion before 1989, at U. Utah, and it boiled
away water in Mizuno's lab in the early 1980s. This was even before anyone
managed to confirm the effect exists. After 1989, DOZENS of experiments
produced power density and temperatures roughly equal to the core of
conventional fission reactor. Some of the produced 50 to 100 MJ of energy
from samples weighing a few grams. In other words, a device the size of a
small coin produce as much energy as kilogram of gasoline, sometimes at
boiling temperatures. Or in some cases at temperature high enough to melt
ceramic cold fusion cathodes. OBVIOUSLY that is enough power and energy for
a practical application.

So, there has never been the *slightest doubt* that cold fusion is capable
of producing useful levels of energy if it can be controlled. There is not
one reason to think that! The question has always been: Can the reaction be
controlled? Since every other physical reaction ever discovered in the
laboratory has been controlled, eventually, and since several control
parameters of cold fusion have been discovered, it is reasonable to suppose
that it can be controlled.

Muon catalyzed fusion, on the other hand, is known to be limited to
extremely low power levels, and an useless input to output ratio. This
known by theory and confirmed by experiment. Using this for practical
purposes would be like trying to power our electrical machinery with
Benjamin Franklin's electrostatic generators. Those generators could charge
up Leyden jar capacitors enough to kill a turkey, and enough to nearly kill
Franklin himself. But obviously you could not power a factory with one,
even if you scaled it up. It is equally obvious that if you scale up a 1989
cold fusion device, you *could* power a factory, a city, or the whole
planet with it.

Furthermore, nearly every useful scientific discovery in the last 400 years
began as a small reaction in the laboratory, and was later scaled up. I
mean things like electricity and radiation. We went from the Curies finding
samples of radium are slightly warm, to full scale fission reactors 50
years later. The fact that a reaction is small at the beginning is never a
reason to suppose it cannot be scaled up to industrial-scale applications.
History has shown over and over that this is wrong.

I could say much more to address this miasma of confusion, but I shall
refrain. Let me say only that Fleischmann, I, and many others believed all
along that the only reason cold fusion has not been controlled and scaled
up in the last 23 years is because it has not been funded properly.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs

[Jeff Berkowitz]

I should add that I don't have the training or experience to take the lead
on such an effort. I am just a basically competent writer with an interest
in the subject matter.

Jeff

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Jeff Berkowitz  wrote:

> For the technical reader, this has already been done, here:
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf
>
> I would be interested in cooperating to put something aimed at
> non-technical readers together.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Mark Gibbs  wrote:
>
>> I don't have the time to review the huge amount of literature you people
>> have already looked at ... if any of you, Rothwell included, would like to
>> help build a list of successful experiments I'd be happy to build it into
>> an article with full attribution to all contributors. I'd like to see a
>> list that includes:
>>
>>- where
>>- when
>>- technology
>>- run time
>>- COP
>>- experimenters and affiliations
>>- observers and affiliations
>>- references
>>
>> I think such a list would be very useful in public discussions about the
>> reality of cold fusion.
>>
>> [mg]
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Jeff Berkowitz wrote:
>>
>>> Good question Peter. I've been wondering something similar, just
>>> slightly more specific. Ni-H has gotten a lot of attention lately. But what
>>> sequence of Pd-D experiments over the years was most significant to the
>>> "...slow erosion of the psuedoskeptic position..." that Abd described in
>>> email to the group some time back?
>>>
>>> Possible answer - "read the Storms 2010 summary paper and follow his
>>> references" ? Or is there a shorter / more specific / different answer?
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
>>>
 Dear Jed,

 Which experiment of all (except the 1kW Patterson Cell)
 was the best ever?

 Peter


 On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Sigh . . . Another ignorant article by Gibbs.
>
> Here is what I just wrote in the Forbes article comment section:
>
>
>
> The author wrote: "Even so, the Defkalion tests were, as far as any
> cold fusion experiment performed to date has gone,  the best so far and
> they were witnessed by someone who is, for want of a better description, a
> serious scientist."
>
> This statement is preposterous. Cold fusion has been replicated in
> hundreds of major laboratories, in thousands of test runs. Many of these
> runs were far better than the Defkalion tests witnessed by Nelson. Many of
> these other tests have been witnessed by world-class experts in
> calorimetry, such Robert Duncan of U. Missouri. This was shown in "60
> Minutes."
>
> The Defkalion tests were not bad, but tests at SRI, Los Alamos, BARC,
> China Lake and other major laboratories used much better equipment and
> produced much larger signal to noise ratios. In some of these other tests
> the ratio of input to output was larger than Defkalion's, and in some 
> there
> was no input, so the ratio was infinite.
>
> Hundreds of mainstream, peer-reviewed journal papers have been
> published describing experiments more convincing than the Defkalion tests.
> Gibbs is ignoring this peer-reviewed literature and looking instead at few
> preliminary documents published on the Internet. He is ignoring the gold
> standard of established science.
>
>
> - Jed




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


>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs

[Jeff Berkowitz]

For the technical reader, this has already been done, here:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf

I would be interested in cooperating to put something aimed at
non-technical readers together.

Jeff

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Mark Gibbs  wrote:

> I don't have the time to review the huge amount of literature you people
> have already looked at ... if any of you, Rothwell included, would like to
> help build a list of successful experiments I'd be happy to build it into
> an article with full attribution to all contributors. I'd like to see a
> list that includes:
>
>- where
>- when
>- technology
>- run time
>- COP
>- experimenters and affiliations
>- observers and affiliations
>- references
>
> I think such a list would be very useful in public discussions about the
> reality of cold fusion.
>
> [mg]
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Jeff Berkowitz  wrote:
>
>> Good question Peter. I've been wondering something similar, just slightly
>> more specific. Ni-H has gotten a lot of attention lately. But what sequence
>> of Pd-D experiments over the years was most significant to the "...slow
>> erosion of the psuedoskeptic position..." that Abd described in email to
>> the group some time back?
>>
>> Possible answer - "read the Storms 2010 summary paper and follow his
>> references" ? Or is there a shorter / more specific / different answer?
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Jed,
>>>
>>> Which experiment of all (except the 1kW Patterson Cell)
>>> was the best ever?
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>>
 Sigh . . . Another ignorant article by Gibbs.

 Here is what I just wrote in the Forbes article comment section:



 The author wrote: "Even so, the Defkalion tests were, as far as any
 cold fusion experiment performed to date has gone,  the best so far and
 they were witnessed by someone who is, for want of a better description, a
 serious scientist."

 This statement is preposterous. Cold fusion has been replicated in
 hundreds of major laboratories, in thousands of test runs. Many of these
 runs were far better than the Defkalion tests witnessed by Nelson. Many of
 these other tests have been witnessed by world-class experts in
 calorimetry, such Robert Duncan of U. Missouri. This was shown in "60
 Minutes."

 The Defkalion tests were not bad, but tests at SRI, Los Alamos, BARC,
 China Lake and other major laboratories used much better equipment and
 produced much larger signal to noise ratios. In some of these other tests
 the ratio of input to output was larger than Defkalion's, and in some there
 was no input, so the ratio was infinite.

 Hundreds of mainstream, peer-reviewed journal papers have been
 published describing experiments more convincing than the Defkalion tests.
 Gibbs is ignoring this peer-reviewed literature and looking instead at few
 preliminary documents published on the Internet. He is ignoring the gold
 standard of established science.


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

Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs

[Mark Gibbs]

I don't have the time to review the huge amount of literature you people
have already looked at ... if any of you, Rothwell included, would like to
help build a list of successful experiments I'd be happy to build it into
an article with full attribution to all contributors. I'd like to see a
list that includes:

   - where
   - when
   - technology
   - run time
   - COP
   - experimenters and affiliations
   - observers and affiliations
   - references

I think such a list would be very useful in public discussions about the
reality of cold fusion.

[mg]

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Jeff Berkowitz  wrote:

> Good question Peter. I've been wondering something similar, just slightly
> more specific. Ni-H has gotten a lot of attention lately. But what sequence
> of Pd-D experiments over the years was most significant to the "...slow
> erosion of the psuedoskeptic position..." that Abd described in email to
> the group some time back?
>
> Possible answer - "read the Storms 2010 summary paper and follow his
> references" ? Or is there a shorter / more specific / different answer?
>
> Jeff
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
>
>> Dear Jed,
>>
>> Which experiment of all (except the 1kW Patterson Cell)
>> was the best ever?
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>>> Sigh . . . Another ignorant article by Gibbs.
>>>
>>> Here is what I just wrote in the Forbes article comment section:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The author wrote: "Even so, the Defkalion tests were, as far as any cold
>>> fusion experiment performed to date has gone,  the best so far and they
>>> were witnessed by someone who is, for want of a better description, a
>>> serious scientist."
>>>
>>> This statement is preposterous. Cold fusion has been replicated in
>>> hundreds of major laboratories, in thousands of test runs. Many of these
>>> runs were far better than the Defkalion tests witnessed by Nelson. Many of
>>> these other tests have been witnessed by world-class experts in
>>> calorimetry, such Robert Duncan of U. Missouri. This was shown in "60
>>> Minutes."
>>>
>>> The Defkalion tests were not bad, but tests at SRI, Los Alamos, BARC,
>>> China Lake and other major laboratories used much better equipment and
>>> produced much larger signal to noise ratios. In some of these other tests
>>> the ratio of input to output was larger than Defkalion's, and in some there
>>> was no input, so the ratio was infinite.
>>>
>>> Hundreds of mainstream, peer-reviewed journal papers have been published
>>> describing experiments more convincing than the Defkalion tests. Gibbs is
>>> ignoring this peer-reviewed literature and looking instead at few
>>> preliminary documents published on the Internet. He is ignoring the gold
>>> standard of established science.
>>>
>>>
>>> - Jed
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Peter Gluck
>> Cluj, Romania
>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs

[ChemE Stewart]

Best we figure out a way to contain the neutrinos, fission and fusion
products.  I don't believe voids in a lattice is the answer, just creates
more fission and fusion products and corresponding low levels of radiation.
 I still like the Papp idea if it can be contained safetly.  Just my take
on it.

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Mark Gibbs  wrote:

> If you go back and re-read my previous columns on cold fusion you'll see
> that my interest has *always* been in useful cold fusion ... The cold
> fusion phenomena, while scientifically intriguing, amounts to to nothing
> of practical interest if you can't do something useful with it ... rather
> like muon catalyzed fusion ... Interesting but not practically useful.
>
> [mg]
>
>
> On Sunday, October 21, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote:
>
>> Gibbs:
>>
>> "I know that there will be a handful of people (the “believers” I
>> wrote about some time ago)  who read that statement and cry “lies” but
>> the fact is that no one has yet demonstrated, definitively, that cold
>> fusion or LENR exists in a form that is actually useful."
>>
>> Now the argument is being useful.  LOL!
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs

[Mark Gibbs]

If you go back and re-read my previous columns on cold fusion you'll see
that my interest has *always* been in useful cold fusion ... The cold
fusion phenomena,
while scientifically intriguing, amounts to to nothing of practical
interest if you can't do something useful with it ... rather like muon
catalyzed fusion ... Interesting but not practically useful.

[mg]

On Sunday, October 21, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote:

> Gibbs:
>
> "I know that there will be a handful of people (the “believers” I
> wrote about some time ago)  who read that statement and cry “lies” but
> the fact is that no one has yet demonstrated, definitively, that cold
> fusion or LENR exists in a form that is actually useful."
>
> Now the argument is being useful.  LOL!
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs

[Jeff Berkowitz]

Good question Peter. I've been wondering something similar, just slightly
more specific. Ni-H has gotten a lot of attention lately. But what sequence
of Pd-D experiments over the years was most significant to the "...slow
erosion of the psuedoskeptic position..." that Abd described in email to
the group some time back?

Possible answer - "read the Storms 2010 summary paper and follow his
references" ? Or is there a shorter / more specific / different answer?

Jeff

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

> Dear Jed,
>
> Which experiment of all (except the 1kW Patterson Cell)
> was the best ever?
>
> Peter
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> Sigh . . . Another ignorant article by Gibbs.
>>
>> Here is what I just wrote in the Forbes article comment section:
>>
>>
>>
>> The author wrote: "Even so, the Defkalion tests were, as far as any cold
>> fusion experiment performed to date has gone,  the best so far and they
>> were witnessed by someone who is, for want of a better description, a
>> serious scientist."
>>
>> This statement is preposterous. Cold fusion has been replicated in
>> hundreds of major laboratories, in thousands of test runs. Many of these
>> runs were far better than the Defkalion tests witnessed by Nelson. Many of
>> these other tests have been witnessed by world-class experts in
>> calorimetry, such Robert Duncan of U. Missouri. This was shown in "60
>> Minutes."
>>
>> The Defkalion tests were not bad, but tests at SRI, Los Alamos, BARC,
>> China Lake and other major laboratories used much better equipment and
>> produced much larger signal to noise ratios. In some of these other tests
>> the ratio of input to output was larger than Defkalion's, and in some there
>> was no input, so the ratio was infinite.
>>
>> Hundreds of mainstream, peer-reviewed journal papers have been published
>> describing experiments more convincing than the Defkalion tests. Gibbs is
>> ignoring this peer-reviewed literature and looking instead at few
>> preliminary documents published on the Internet. He is ignoring the gold
>> standard of established science.
>>
>>
>> - Jed
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Jed,

Which experiment of all (except the 1kW Patterson Cell)
was the best ever?

Peter

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Sigh . . . Another ignorant article by Gibbs.
>
> Here is what I just wrote in the Forbes article comment section:
>
>
>
> The author wrote: "Even so, the Defkalion tests were, as far as any cold
> fusion experiment performed to date has gone,  the best so far and they
> were witnessed by someone who is, for want of a better description, a
> serious scientist."
>
> This statement is preposterous. Cold fusion has been replicated in
> hundreds of major laboratories, in thousands of test runs. Many of these
> runs were far better than the Defkalion tests witnessed by Nelson. Many of
> these other tests have been witnessed by world-class experts in
> calorimetry, such Robert Duncan of U. Missouri. This was shown in "60
> Minutes."
>
> The Defkalion tests were not bad, but tests at SRI, Los Alamos, BARC,
> China Lake and other major laboratories used much better equipment and
> produced much larger signal to noise ratios. In some of these other tests
> the ratio of input to output was larger than Defkalion's, and in some there
> was no input, so the ratio was infinite.
>
> Hundreds of mainstream, peer-reviewed journal papers have been published
> describing experiments more convincing than the Defkalion tests. Gibbs is
> ignoring this peer-reviewed literature and looking instead at few
> preliminary documents published on the Internet. He is ignoring the gold
> standard of established science.
>
>
> - Jed




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

Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs

[Jed Rothwell]

Sigh . . . Another ignorant article by Gibbs.

Here is what I just wrote in the Forbes article comment section:



The author wrote: "Even so, the Defkalion tests were, as far as any cold
fusion experiment performed to date has gone,  the best so far and they
were witnessed by someone who is, for want of a better description, a
serious scientist."

This statement is preposterous. Cold fusion has been replicated in hundreds
of major laboratories, in thousands of test runs. Many of these runs were
far better than the Defkalion tests witnessed by Nelson. Many of these
other tests have been witnessed by world-class experts in calorimetry, such
Robert Duncan of U. Missouri. This was shown in "60 Minutes."

The Defkalion tests were not bad, but tests at SRI, Los Alamos, BARC, China
Lake and other major laboratories used much better equipment and produced
much larger signal to noise ratios. In some of these other tests the ratio
of input to output was larger than Defkalion's, and in some there was no
input, so the ratio was infinite.

Hundreds of mainstream, peer-reviewed journal papers have been published
describing experiments more convincing than the Defkalion tests. Gibbs is
ignoring this peer-reviewed literature and looking instead at few
preliminary documents published on the Internet. He is ignoring the gold
standard of established science.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs

[James Bowery]

I was going to suggest to Mr. Gibbs that he ask Norman Foster Ramsey,
co-chair of the DoE's original cold fusion panel, if he thought that there
had been even one well attested reproduction of the phenomenon, whether
"useful" or not.  But then I noticed Ramsey died less than a year
ago<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Foster_Ramsey,_Jr.>
:

*"Ordinarily, new scientific discoveries are claimed to be consistent and
reproducible; as a result, if the experiments are not complicated, the
discovery can usually be confirmed or disproved in a few months. The claims
of cold fusion, however, are unusual in that even the strongest proponents
of cold fusion assert that the experiments, for unknown reasons, are not
consistent and reproducible at the present time. However, even a single
short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary."
*
- Dr. Norman Ramsey, Nobel laureate and professor of physics at Harvard
University was the only person on the the 1989 Department of Energy cold
fusion review panel to voice a dissenting opinion. Ramsey insisted on the
inclusion of this preamble as an alternative to his resignation from the
panel.

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:06 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

> The goal keeps rising as always.  I suspect that one of the future issues
> will be safety once this latest milestone is achieved according to his
> research.
>
>  Do you think that Gibbs is merely attempting to appear like he is
> writing a balanced article?  You know, where he must show both sides of the
> story.  He does not yet realize that there is only one real side to this
> amazing story!
>
>  Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Terry Blanton 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Sun, Oct 21, 2012 11:21 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs
>
>  Gibbs:
>
> "I know that there will be a handful of people (the “believers” I
> wrote about some time ago)  who read that statement and cry “lies” but
> the fact is that no one has yet demonstrated, definitively, that cold
> fusion or LENR exists in a form that is actually useful."
>
> Now the argument is being useful.  LOL!
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs

[David Roberson]

The goal keeps rising as always.  I suspect that one of the future issues will 
be safety once this latest milestone is achieved according to his research.


Do you think that Gibbs is merely attempting to appear like he is writing a 
balanced article?  You know, where he must show both sides of the story.  He 
does not yet realize that there is only one real side to this amazing story!


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Oct 21, 2012 11:21 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs


Gibbs:

"I know that there will be a handful of people (the “believers” I
wrote about some time ago)  who read that statement and cry “lies” but
the fact is that no one has yet demonstrated, definitively, that cold
fusion or LENR exists in a form that is actually useful."

Now the argument is being useful.  LOL!


 

Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs

[Terry Blanton]

Gibbs:

"I know that there will be a handful of people (the “believers” I
wrote about some time ago)  who read that statement and cry “lies” but
the fact is that no one has yet demonstrated, definitively, that cold
fusion or LENR exists in a form that is actually useful."

Now the argument is being useful.  LOL!

Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs

[Eric Walker]

I wrote:

> Storms, McKubre and Miles by implying that they are somehow not serious 
> scientists.

I have given away my Anglo-American ethnocentrism.  I should add that these 
three are are just several in a long list of capable researchers from all over 
the world.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs

[Eric Walker]

Le Oct 21, 2012 à 12:44 AM, Akira Shirakawa  a écrit 
:

> After contacting Michael A. Nelson directly and receiving confirmation that 
> he attended as an independent witness to Defkalion GT testings, it looks like 
> Mark Gibbs changed his tune a bit. Full article here:

Mark,

I appreciate the positive tone of the new article and share your hopes that the 
new DGT tests will help to put LENR research on a firmer foundation. It is 
difficult, though, to see you be dismissive of folks like Storms, McKubre and 
Miles by implying that they are somehow not serious scientists.  They are 
competent and have chosen the difficult path of pursuing a scientific interest 
that has given them little in the way of recognition among their peers in the 
larger scientific community.  I appreciate the pressure to write in a language 
that a wide audience can relate to, but we should resist pandering to facile 
stereotypes.  The fact is that the recent DGT tests, if confirmed, will only 
have been the tip of an iceberg of solid science backing up cold fusion. It is 
the steadfast critics among physicists whose credentials as serious scientists 
should be given closer scrutiny.


Eric

[Vo]:A little more positive article on Cold Fusion from Gibbs

[Akira Shirakawa]

Hello group,

After contacting Michael A. Nelson directly and receiving confirmation 
that he attended as an independent witness to Defkalion GT testings, it 
looks like Mark Gibbs changed his tune a bit. Full article here:


http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/10/20/cold-fusion-gets-a-little-more-real/

Cheers,
S.A.