[Vo]:Anomalous heat production validated by a Young Dude
Leaving aside for the moment that he was working with the controversial Randall Mills, a professor from University of Illinois has affixed his good name to evidence that non-chemistry-based heat is produced when a copper hydroxide/copper bromide mixture is heated to 300C in a differential scanning calorimeter. http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/GlumacReportwithGraphics2014.pdf Acknowledging that I am not an expert in technology such as this, this evidence does appear as credit-worthy as any of the material I saw presented at the recent MIT colloquium. A well-documented fairly straight-forward replication of an experiment showing an anomalous heat signature. As such his work deserves to be added to the diverse gallery of anomalies that we so avidly track and discuss, and is ultimately deserving of an explanation why and how. An added benefit:if you google the image of Nick Glumac you will quickly notice that he is not a septuagenarian shuffling around a lab long after he has earned his pension. So let's give him credit for being a young man who is willing to put his career in jeopardy by demonstrating and affirming an effect that most of his peers would deride as junk science. May there be many more like him. Steve High
RE: [Vo]:Anomalous heat production validated by a Young Dude
Well, the professor should be questioned, if not chided - about what is not seen and not reported, instead of what is seen and glossed over. This is substandard, at best. It is an interesting experiment BUT it is one that looks more like the Rossi effect than Mills. Heat is added to trigger thermal gain in experiment in which a ferromagnetic material is used - and the added gain is seen. That fits Rossi whereas the hallmark of Mills experiments is UV emission. No mention of UV. The most reasonable conclusion for UV not being mentioned is that Mills knew ahead of time, when he provided the experimental details, that UV was absent. There is no indication that this relates to “hydrinos”… From: Carl High Leaving aside for the moment that he was working with the controversial Randall Mills, a professor from University of Illinois has affixed his good name to evidence that non-chemistry-based heat is produced when a copper hydroxide/copper bromide mixture is heated to 300C in a differential scanning calorimeter. http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/GlumacReportwithGraphics2014.pdf Acknowledging that I am not an expert in technology such as this, this evidence does appear as credit-worthy as any of the material I saw presented at the recent MIT colloquium. A well-documented fairly straight-forward replication of an experiment showing an anomalous heat signature. As such his work deserves to be added to the diverse gallery of anomalies that we so avidly track and discuss, and is ultimately deserving of an explanation why and how. An added benefit:if you google the image of Nick Glumac you will quickly notice that he is not a septuagenarian shuffling around a lab long after he has earned his pension. So let's give him credit for being a young man who is willing to put his career in jeopardy by demonstrating and affirming an effect that most of his peers would deride as junk science. May there be many more like him. Steve High
Re: [Vo]:Anomalous heat production validated by a Young Dude
Well, Jones, to be fair to Dr Glumac, I do not see where he is verbalizing support for Mills' theoretical underpinnings. Scientific progress is based on having the funds and initiative to move forward. It is not surprising that as a contractee to Mills, Glumac was not asked to check for photon emission the absence of which would tend to invalidate Mills' hypothesis. It is Sunday morning and as a nominal Christian my little prayer for the day would be that a fellow scientist to Glumac would notice this report and have the guts and initiative (and the funds) to replicate the work as well as check for photon emission. Reproducibility is the bugbear of the LENR field. This experiment seems to be astonishingly simple from a technologic perspective, take some chemicals you bought from Sigma-Aldrich and heat them to 300 degrees Steve High On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Well, the professor should be questioned, if not chided - about what is not seen and not reported, instead of what is seen and glossed over. This is substandard, at best. It is an interesting experiment BUT it is one that looks more like the Rossi effect than Mills. Heat is added to trigger thermal gain in experiment in which a ferromagnetic material is used - and the added gain is seen. That fits Rossi whereas the hallmark of Mills experiments is UV emission. No mention of UV. The most reasonable conclusion for UV not being mentioned is that Mills knew ahead of time, when he provided the experimental details, that UV was absent. There is no indication that this relates to “hydrinos”… *From:* Carl High Leaving aside for the moment that he was working with the controversial Randall Mills, a professor from University of Illinois has affixed his good name to evidence that non-chemistry-based heat is produced when a copper hydroxide/copper bromide mixture is heated to 300C in a differential scanning calorimeter. http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/GlumacReportwithGraphics2014.pdf Acknowledging that I am not an expert in technology such as this, this evidence does appear as credit-worthy as any of the material I saw presented at the recent MIT colloquium. A well-documented fairly straight-forward replication of an experiment showing an anomalous heat signature. As such his work deserves to be added to the diverse gallery of anomalies that we so avidly track and discuss, and is ultimately deserving of an explanation why and how. An added benefit:if you google the image of Nick Glumac you will quickly notice that he is not a septuagenarian shuffling around a lab long after he has earned his pension. So let's give him credit for being a young man who is willing to put his career in jeopardy by demonstrating and affirming an effect that most of his peers would deride as junk science. May there be many more like him. Steve High
Re: [Vo]:Anomalous heat production validated by a Young Dude
It would have been interesting to see a assay of the elements present in the sample before an after the experiment. This is a means to find out if any transmutation resulted from the experiment. Did the gas pressure inside the test cell increase? Was helium produced? It would be interesting to see how long this heat anomaly lasted in a long duration experiment, an experiment lasting months. Also, it would have been interesting to see if excess heat corresponded with the production of magnetic fields in and around the sample. Did the experiment produce excess charge? Was the surface of the gold containment affected by the reaction...pitting or decrease in smoothness? Was alpha and/or beta particles and/or neutrons seen? Was super-fluidity in heat production or reduction in electric resistance seen through the sample? Did the Fe used show and increase in magnetization level as a result of the experiment? On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Carl High diamondweb...@gmail.com wrote: Well, Jones, to be fair to Dr Glumac, I do not see where he is verbalizing support for Mills' theoretical underpinnings. Scientific progress is based on having the funds and initiative to move forward. It is not surprising that as a contractee to Mills, Glumac was not asked to check for photon emission the absence of which would tend to invalidate Mills' hypothesis. It is Sunday morning and as a nominal Christian my little prayer for the day would be that a fellow scientist to Glumac would notice this report and have the guts and initiative (and the funds) to replicate the work as well as check for photon emission. Reproducibility is the bugbear of the LENR field. This experiment seems to be astonishingly simple from a technologic perspective, take some chemicals you bought from Sigma-Aldrich and heat them to 300 degrees Steve High On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Well, the professor should be questioned, if not chided - about what is not seen and not reported, instead of what is seen and glossed over. This is substandard, at best. It is an interesting experiment BUT it is one that looks more like the Rossi effect than Mills. Heat is added to trigger thermal gain in experiment in which a ferromagnetic material is used - and the added gain is seen. That fits Rossi whereas the hallmark of Mills experiments is UV emission. No mention of UV. The most reasonable conclusion for UV not being mentioned is that Mills knew ahead of time, when he provided the experimental details, that UV was absent. There is no indication that this relates to “hydrinos”… *From:* Carl High Leaving aside for the moment that he was working with the controversial Randall Mills, a professor from University of Illinois has affixed his good name to evidence that non-chemistry-based heat is produced when a copper hydroxide/copper bromide mixture is heated to 300C in a differential scanning calorimeter. http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/GlumacReportwithGraphics2014.pdf Acknowledging that I am not an expert in technology such as this, this evidence does appear as credit-worthy as any of the material I saw presented at the recent MIT colloquium. A well-documented fairly straight-forward replication of an experiment showing an anomalous heat signature. As such his work deserves to be added to the diverse gallery of anomalies that we so avidly track and discuss, and is ultimately deserving of an explanation why and how. An added benefit:if you google the image of Nick Glumac you will quickly notice that he is not a septuagenarian shuffling around a lab long after he has earned his pension. So let's give him credit for being a young man who is willing to put his career in jeopardy by demonstrating and affirming an effect that most of his peers would deride as junk science. May there be many more like him. Steve High
RE: [Vo]:Anomalous heat production validated by a Young Dude
Perhaps the initial response was too harsh … as this could be important – but Mills has a long history of trying to “buy” academic support for his theory, in various subtle ways like this – with the result being that at least one Professor was fired for not disclosing the personal contacts and more should have been. Nevertheless – thanks for finding and reporting on this, Steve – as it could be the first step in getting the experiment done correctly by someone who is truly independent. As you note: it seems remarkably simple to do, and many variations can be imagined unless Mills has hidden an important detail behind an NDA. (his usual scheme) If there really is a COP3 thermal anomaly in a ferrous hydroxide – then this would be a major find. It does point to the Rossi effect however instead of hydrinos. Isn’t this Miley’s former alma mater? It should not be hard to entice associates to look into this… However - it took me all of 45 seconds to find an alternative explanation for the gain. Turns out that FeOOH is a photochemical catalyst for water splitting, previously not well-known as such. Did Glumac insure against light and water splitting as the source of gain? http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja411835a Dunno – But it is not too much to ask that a professor who puts his name, and that of a prestigious University, on a report that will be used for financial benefit to the funding group - to at least look for alternative explanations – or at least have the work validated by someone else in the Department? As mentioned, this kind of end-run around science fits Mills’ past tactic$ perfectly, and there are numerous red flags pointing to another round of false promises from BLP, leading up to yet another plea for more investment with hardly a mention of the past failures … this could in fact amount to nothing less than the obit for CIHT… RIP. From: Carl High Well, Jones, to be fair to Dr Glumac, I do not see where he is verbalizing support for Mills' theoretical underpinnings. Scientific progress is based on having the funds and initiative to move forward. It is not surprising that as a contractee to Mills, Glumac was not asked to check for photon emission the absence of which would tend to invalidate Mills' hypothesis. It is Sunday morning and as a nominal Christian my little prayer for the day would be that a fellow scientist to Glumac would notice this report and have the guts and initiative (and the funds) to replicate the work as well as check for photon emission. Reproducibility is the bugbear of the LENR field. This experiment seems to be astonishingly simple from a technologic perspective, take some chemicals you bought from Sigma-Aldrich and heat them to 300 degrees Steve High http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/GlumacReportwithGraphics2014.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Anomalous heat production validated by a Young Dude
FWIW if you take a look at Dr Glumac's faculty directory page he does list himself as a consultant for Blacklight Power. That seems to be an out-in-the-open disclosure of contact. This guy might turn out to be a valuable ally, would be interesting to hear from him. Steve High On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Perhaps the initial response was too harsh … as this could be important – but Mills has a long history of trying to “buy” academic support for his theory, in various subtle ways like this – with the result being that at least one Professor was fired for not disclosing the personal contacts and more should have been. Nevertheless – thanks for finding and reporting on this, Steve – as it could be the first step in getting the experiment done correctly by someone who is truly independent. As you note: it seems remarkably simple to do, and many variations can be imagined unless Mills has hidden an important detail behind an NDA. (his usual scheme) If there really is a COP3 thermal anomaly in a ferrous hydroxide – then this would be a major find. It does point to the Rossi effect however instead of hydrinos. Isn’t this Miley’s former alma mater? It should not be hard to entice associates to look into this… However - it took me all of 45 seconds to find an alternative explanation for the gain. Turns out that FeOOH is a photochemical catalyst for water splitting, previously not well-known as such. Did Glumac insure against light and water splitting as the source of gain? http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja411835a Dunno – But it is not too much to ask that a professor who puts his name, and that of a prestigious University, on a report that will be used for financial benefit to the funding group - to at least look for alternative explanations – or at least have the work validated by someone else in the Department? As mentioned, this kind of end-run around science fits Mills’ past tactic$ perfectly, and there are numerous red flags pointing to another round of false promises from BLP, leading up to yet another plea for more investment with hardly a mention of the past failures … this could in fact amount to nothing less than the obit for CIHT… RIP. *From:* Carl High Well, Jones, to be fair to Dr Glumac, I do not see where he is verbalizing support for Mills' theoretical underpinnings. Scientific progress is based on having the funds and initiative to move forward. It is not surprising that as a contractee to Mills, Glumac was not asked to check for photon emission the absence of which would tend to invalidate Mills' hypothesis. It is Sunday morning and as a nominal Christian my little prayer for the day would be that a fellow scientist to Glumac would notice this report and have the guts and initiative (and the funds) to replicate the work as well as check for photon emission. Reproducibility is the bugbear of the LENR field. This experiment seems to be astonishingly simple from a technologic perspective, take some chemicals you bought from Sigma-Aldrich and heat them to 300 degrees Steve High http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/GlumacReportwithGraphics2014.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Anomalous heat production validated by a Young Dude
http://mechanical.illinois.edu/directory/faculty/glumac On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Carl High diamondweb...@gmail.com wrote: FWIW if you take a look at Dr Glumac's faculty directory page he does list himself as a consultant for Blacklight Power. That seems to be an out-in-the-open disclosure of contact. This guy might turn out to be a valuable ally, would be interesting to hear from him. Steve High On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Perhaps the initial response was too harsh … as this could be important – but Mills has a long history of trying to “buy” academic support for his theory, in various subtle ways like this – with the result being that at least one Professor was fired for not disclosing the personal contacts and more should have been. Nevertheless – thanks for finding and reporting on this, Steve – as it could be the first step in getting the experiment done correctly by someone who is truly independent. As you note: it seems remarkably simple to do, and many variations can be imagined unless Mills has hidden an important detail behind an NDA. (his usual scheme) If there really is a COP3 thermal anomaly in a ferrous hydroxide – then this would be a major find. It does point to the Rossi effect however instead of hydrinos. Isn’t this Miley’s former alma mater? It should not be hard to entice associates to look into this… However - it took me all of 45 seconds to find an alternative explanation for the gain. Turns out that FeOOH is a photochemical catalyst for water splitting, previously not well-known as such. Did Glumac insure against light and water splitting as the source of gain? http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja411835a Dunno – But it is not too much to ask that a professor who puts his name, and that of a prestigious University, on a report that will be used for financial benefit to the funding group - to at least look for alternative explanations – or at least have the work validated by someone else in the Department? As mentioned, this kind of end-run around science fits Mills’ past tactic$ perfectly, and there are numerous red flags pointing to another round of false promises from BLP, leading up to yet another plea for more investment with hardly a mention of the past failures … this could in fact amount to nothing less than the obit for CIHT… RIP. *From:* Carl High Well, Jones, to be fair to Dr Glumac, I do not see where he is verbalizing support for Mills' theoretical underpinnings. Scientific progress is based on having the funds and initiative to move forward. It is not surprising that as a contractee to Mills, Glumac was not asked to check for photon emission the absence of which would tend to invalidate Mills' hypothesis. It is Sunday morning and as a nominal Christian my little prayer for the day would be that a fellow scientist to Glumac would notice this report and have the guts and initiative (and the funds) to replicate the work as well as check for photon emission. Reproducibility is the bugbear of the LENR field. This experiment seems to be astonishingly simple from a technologic perspective, take some chemicals you bought from Sigma-Aldrich and heat them to 300 degrees Steve High http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/GlumacReportwithGraphics2014.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Anomalous heat production validated by a Young Dude
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Was helium produced? I do not think you could detect this, even with the best mass spectrometer and a tightly sealed cell. Helium is ubiquitous and after strenuous efforts to remove it, the background would probably be far higher than the amount produced in this reaction. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anomalous heat production validated by a Young Dude
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I do not think you could detect this, even with the best mass spectrometer and a tightly sealed cell. Helium is ubiquitous and after strenuous efforts to remove it, the background would probably be far higher than the amount produced in this reaction. Just curious -- are your comments in the context of detecting helium in an NiH experiment, or in general? Early on there was a debate on helium production in PdD, and some important researchers (Miles, McKubre, etc.) have weighed in on the question positively. In my own reading I got the impression somewhere along the way, though, that it will be difficult at best to obtain an unequivocal helium signal in any experiment, for the reasons you mention. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Anomalous heat production validated by a Young Dude
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Just curious -- are your comments in the context of detecting helium in an NiH experiment, or in general? Ni-H may not even produce helium. I wouldn't know. I meant any nuclear reaction that produces helium. The amount is tens of millions of times smaller than spent chemical fuel, so it is very difficult to detect. Early on there was a debate on helium production in PdD, and some important researchers (Miles, McKubre, etc.) have weighed in on the question positively. They produce a lot more energy than this experiment does; they have small, carefully closed cells, and they use various clever techniques to purge atmospheric helium. In my own reading I got the impression somewhere along the way, though, that it will be difficult at best to obtain an unequivocal helium signal in any experiment, for the reasons you mention. It is difficult, but with some experiments it is relatively easy. Clear, positive results have been obtained. I did not look carefully at the latest Mills report (Glumac's replication), but I have the impression it would be difficult to seal purge with this device. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anomalous heat production validated by a Young Dude
Anything said or sponsored by BLP is automatically BS. There are no hydrinos. Anyone who would entertain such an idea is ignorant of the most basic physics. -drl --- I write a little. I erase a lot. - Chopin From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2014 2:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Anomalous heat production validated by a Young Dude Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Just curious -- are your comments in the context of detecting helium in an NiH experiment, or in general? Ni-H may not even produce helium. I wouldn't know. I meant any nuclear reaction that produces helium. The amount is tens of millions of times smaller than spent chemical fuel, so it is very difficult to detect. Early on there was a debate on helium production in PdD, and some important researchers (Miles, McKubre, etc.) have weighed in on the question positively. They produce a lot more energy than this experiment does; they have small, carefully closed cells, and they use various clever techniques to purge atmospheric helium. In my own reading I got the impression somewhere along the way, though, that it will be difficult at best to obtain an unequivocal helium signal in any experiment, for the reasons you mention. It is difficult, but with some experiments it is relatively easy. Clear, positive results have been obtained. I did not look carefully at the latest Mills report (Glumac's replication), but I have the impression it would be difficult to seal purge with this device. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anomalous heat production validated by a Young Dude
The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics - enough said. I don't know which is more irritating, that mainstream people ignore the transparent reports of telescopes and thermometers, or that self-serving narcissists invent their own worlds and push them on those who have lost their patience. -drl --- I write a little. I erase a lot. - Chopin
Re: [Vo]:Anomalous heat production validated by a Young Dude
Soa presumably capable researcher puts hydroxy nickel in a sealed crucible, matches it with an equal mass of indium, heats the crucibles to 300 degrees and measures an elevated heat signature from the active crucible. This result is invalidated because there are no hydrinos? I would prefer to see if the experiment can stand on its own legs, and being relatively simple in design, get replicated in short order. If anyone listening has access to a differential scanning calorimeter you could probably do it yourself. Steve High On May 25, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Danny Ross Lunsford antimatte...@yahoo.com wrote: The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics - enough said. I don't know which is more irritating, that mainstream people ignore the transparent reports of telescopes and thermometers, or that self-serving narcissists invent their own worlds and push them on those who have lost their patience. -drl --- I write a little. I erase a lot. - Chopin
