Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Joshua wrote: “… And a top academic career would be a chair at a university or director of a research institute.” ** ** Well, Josh, by your own definition, Dr. Robert Duncan, Vice Chancellor of Research at Univ of Missouri, would then most definitely qualify as “top academic career”, and he was skeptical when CBS 60-Minutes asked him to be their expert on the Cold Fusion piece done in 2009. His conclusions are reasonable and in-line with the evidence: that something interesting seems to be going on and deserves a dedicated effort; which is CONTRARY to your position. Sure, but the point was not that anyone at the top of an academic career is necessarily skeptical of cold fusion. I was only quibbling with Rothwell's claim that people at the top of an academic career who supported cold fusion would be relegated to warehouse work. Since Duncan is still VP research 2 1/2 years after his cold fusion support, and in the process of setting up a cold fusion lab at Missouri, that kind of contradicts Rothwell's point too. ** ** Oh, well, he must have all of a sudden lost his objective faculties once he was infected with the LENR virus! No one denies that some prestigious academics support cold fusion research. Most don't, of course, but that was not the issue, in this instance. No academic position is immune from making incorrect judgements in either direction; Blondlot claimed N-rays, Planck rejected light quanta, and so on. ** Josh also wrote: “A science writer is a journalist. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's not usually considered academic. Some people, like Sagan, mixed them successfully” ** ** You seem to be unaware of the fact that Mallove was NOT educated as a journalist. He was a graduate of MIT and Harvard with engineering degrees, so he was very well educated in technical disciplines; Most of the better science writers have strong science and technical backgrounds. That still doesn't make them academics, is all I was saying. I think Mallove’s career was very similar to that of Sagan; he just didn’t live long enough to enjoy more journalistic successes. The following is taken from Wikipedia: ** ** “Eugene Mallove held a BS (1969) and MS degree (1970) in aeronautical and astronautical engineering from MIT and a ScD degree (1975) in environmental health sciences from Harvard University. He had worked for technology engineering firms such as Hughes Research Laboratories, the Analytic Science Corporation, and MIT's Lincoln Laboratory, and he consulted in research and development of new energies.” Sagan was a full professor at Cornell, and director of the Laboratory for Planetary Studies there. That's an academic career. Mallove has an impressive cv, but it was not a top academic career.
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Dec 19, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: I didn't invent the name. It was called the Fleischmann-Pons Effect for years. Google it. All I'm suggesting is that we should honour the effect they discovered with their names, even if we don't know how and why it happens. No point in inventing a new name for an effect that already has a very definitive name. It is the Fleischmann-Pons Effect. AG I don't need to check the archives. What do you think I've been doing for the last 20 years? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: Christ man high school students replicated PF with both excess heat and transmutations, in a MIT lab and in front of over 100 ICCF 10 attendees? This reminded me of a Dilbert cartoon (since you seem interested in comic relief): http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2011-03-30/ And don't miss the sequel: http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2011-03-31/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Tiresome accusations like this ought to be banned from this list. Have you ever once seen a paycheck cut for the job of Internet trolling? Really? Really? Because it sounds like an awesome part time job, frankly. On Dec 19, 2011, at 8:10, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: Cude what does this have to do with FP having been replicated in many labs all over the world? You need to accept that the FPE is real and move on to working out why it happens. Oh BTW you just might apologize to FP for the treatment they received by you and your mates. Would you please disclose if your income / pay check depends on you not believing the FPE is real and / or working to trash anyone who does? I ask because all you apparently contribute to this list is trashing the FPE. On 12/19/2011 11:23 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: He sure knew what he was getting into. Fleischmann wrote a lighthearted account of this, quoted in Beaudette's book. It starts off with Arrhenius in 1883. He was one of the most important electrochemists in history, like Faraday. He made a revolutionary discovery. As any student of history would predict, this led the academic authorities to kick him out of the university. He was vilified and ridiculed for years and years. Finally, long after, he won a Nobel prize. You mean like Einstein got kicked out of university? No, because his revolutionary ideas got him kicked *into* university. You mean like Planck's ideas got him kicked out of university? No, because they named one after him. etc. You can't just make shit up to please your audience. I'd like to know of a professor who got kicked out of university for a revolutionary idea. At least one that turned out to be right, and didn't have religious objectors. Because, contrary to your claim, Arrhenius does not provide an example. I admit, my source does not go beyond wikipedia, but according to it, his controversial ideas were presented in his doctoral thesis, so he didn't have a position to be kicked out of. And while there were local skeptics, his degree was granted, if only as 3rd class. Nevertheless, when the dissertation was sent to other European scholars, they came to Sweden trying to recruit him. Doesn't really sound much like cold fusion, does it? The Swedish Academy then awarded him a grant to study with the likes of Boltzmann and van 't Hoff. That doesn't sound like years and years of vilification does it? A few years after his graduation, he was *given* an appointment at the Stockholm university, and was a full professor/chair (rector) about a decade after his PhD. That doesn't sound much like ridicule, does it? It did take almost 20 years to recognize his work with a Nobel prize, but maybe the fact that the prize was not initiated until about 17 years after had something to do with that. He got the 3rd one in chemistry. He was on the Nobel committee from the beginning until his death, and it seems he was not a particularly nice guy himself, arranging awards for his friends, and attempting to deny them to his enemies. He also got involved in racial biology (eugenics) later in his life. That happens so often I am astounded anyone believes the myth that scientists welcome new ideas. Well, you would not be astounded if you actually paid attention to history, instead of twisting it to rationalize your fervent belief in cold fusion. Right about the same time as the CF announcement, high temperature superconductivity was discovered, and the Nobel prize was awarded -- now get this -- one year later. The discovery had no theory to support it, was unexpected, and yet the discoverers were not dismissed from their positions. Amazing, isn't it. Of course, most Nobel prizes (including Einstein's) take much longer, because it usually takes time for the importance to become manifest, but new discoveries are always celebrated in science, by scientists. As I've said before, the most revolutionary ideas in science in centuries, relativity and QM, were accepted almost as quickly as they could be developed. Because they fit the evidence so perfectly. Just about every evaluation of merit in science, from granting of degrees, to awarding academic or industrial positions, to granting awards, to giving funding, to accepting manuscripts for publication, to any degree of fame and glory, has as its first criterion: *** novelty ***. What scientists fear is not new ideas (they crave them), but wrong ideas. Scientists are skeptical; they have to be. Skepticism is a critical filter in guiding research. Without it, they would simply flounder around, like, well, like cold fusion researchers. Of course, that sometimes leads to rejecting good ideas,
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
McKubre believes in the Conservation of Miracles. I agree with him and would add my version: Different dog, same leg action. What is at the heart of the FPE drives all the effects we see. For all the early years the effect was called the Fleischmann-Pons Effect. Why change it now? I say give them the respect and credit they deserve. To hell with avoiding their names like they are poison and calling the effect they discovered a politically nice title of LENR as if not mentioning FP will make that new paper on LENR more politically correct and likely to get published. FP did the hard yards and paid with their careers. They deserve to be remembered and the effect they discovered named after them until the stars burn out and it all goes black. //On 12/19/2011 6:27 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: The use of the term FPE is misleading and confusing. The Wright brothers invented the first controlled flight. It would be nonsensical and misleading to call every kind of winged aircraft a Wright machine, not distinguishing between a 747 and a piper cub. The FP protocol was Pd-D low voltage electrolysis. This differs from Claytor's low pressure gas cells, Storm's glow discharge, Mizuno and Ohmori's HV DC plasma electrolysis, or solid state electrolyte experiments, Piantelli's gaseous Ni-H, Arata and Zhang's double structured spillover cathode using Pd black, Patterson's layered Pd-Ni beads, Szpack's codepositon cells, Les Case's Ni-carbon catalyst in gaseous deuterium, etc. etc. Not all airplanes are the same, not all LENR devices are the same. There are important differences. There is a vocabulary that describes those differences, and which is used by people in the field. Who is going to know what you are talking about if you call every LENR device an FPE? On Dec 18, 2011, at 10:23 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: On 12/19/2011 5:19 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: If it were possible to replicate FP and build on it, there are thousands of people and companies who would have. They have been replicated. In many labs all around the world. Try searching in Jed's archives. Have you not listened to anything Jed has said about the history of the FPE? People lost their jobs and had their careers destroyed for reporting successful replications. Even FP themselves enjoyed new labs and millions of dollars in funds from the Japanese and never came up with definitive proof of their concepts. Amazing statement that. Too bad it is not correct. What they failed to do, as I understand it, is to produce a commercially ready device. Forged or ignored? I don't think there is any good evidence for that. Did you not see the unedited positive for FPE excess heat MIT results versus the edited no FPE excess heat MIT results? Someone in MIT forged the data and the Hot Fusion lab guys had a party. As for ignored, you must be joking? Right? Like the 24 SPAWAR peer reviewed results that were ignored? BTW Mary we are still testing and developing a FPE device. I wish you good luck with that-- I really do. We will get it done. Will I get my hands on a working FPE device? You can bet on it. I am not betting for you if you think you're getting one from Rossi or Defkalion! And if you are wrong? As you know I'm talking to DGT to do a factory visit. Just might talk Leonardo in one as well. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Hello gang, As a friend of Abd Lomax, I am keenly interested in his evolving plans over the last two years to make a cheap do-it-yourself-at-home kit for replicating the detection of neutron tracks in plastic film adjacent to a 50 ml thin wall plastic cell with a palladium chloride and lithium chloride electrolyte and platinum wire anode and cathode -- the prototype SPAWAR experiment, codeposition. Despite the over 20 reports by SPAWAR for about a decade, there is, as far as I know, no such simple device that anyone can buy and run. How about some dedicated collaboration to aid Lomax? within mutual service, Rich
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Gene went from a top academic career to working in a warehouse at night to feed his family. He was a science writer. Respectable, yes. Top academic career, no. Fleischmann and Pons had a terrible time. Too much money? They had better funding after the CF announcement than at any previous time in their careers. I think it traumatized Pons. It did not bother Fleischmann as much because he is a tough, cynical person who had nightmare experiences during WWII. The Gestapo beat his father to death, and he himself barely escaped. Your arguments for cold fusion are aiming for the gut, not the mind... He told me that he knew calling that press conference would mean the end of his career. It would seem the reports on the sociology of CF are about as reliable as those on the science. It was not the end of his career. He was already resigned from his academic position at Southampton, so he had no job to lose. As it happens, he worked in a well funded lab in France until 1995, when he retired. France is not Siberia. How is that the end of his career? He knew he would be vilified and ridiculed for the rest of his life. So he says now, but his self-satisfied grinning during the press conferences after the announcement tell a different story. He went into it knowing what would happen. Right. That his research would be well funded until retirement. Until the announcement, PF were funding the experiments themselves. That was an act of courage. It was an act of fear. Fear that someone else would get priority.
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: He sure knew what he was getting into. Fleischmann wrote a lighthearted account of this, quoted in Beaudette's book. It starts off with Arrhenius in 1883. He was one of the most important electrochemists in history, like Faraday. He made a revolutionary discovery. As any student of history would predict, this led the academic authorities to kick him out of the university. He was vilified and ridiculed for years and years. Finally, long after, he won a Nobel prize. You mean like Einstein got kicked out of university? No, because his revolutionary ideas got him kicked *into* university. You mean like Planck's ideas got him kicked out of university? No, because they named one after him. etc. You can't just make shit up to please your audience. I'd like to know of a professor who got kicked out of university for a revolutionary idea. At least one that turned out to be right, and didn't have religious objectors. Because, contrary to your claim, Arrhenius does not provide an example. I admit, my source does not go beyond wikipedia, but according to it, his controversial ideas were presented in his doctoral thesis, so he didn't have a position to be kicked out of. And while there were local skeptics, his degree was granted, if only as 3rd class. Nevertheless, when the dissertation was sent to other European scholars, they came to Sweden trying to recruit him. Doesn't really sound much like cold fusion, does it? The Swedish Academy then awarded him a grant to study with the likes of Boltzmann and van 't Hoff. That doesn't sound like years and years of vilification does it? A few years after his graduation, he was *given* an appointment at the Stockholm university, and was a full professor/chair (rector) about a decade after his PhD. That doesn't sound much like ridicule, does it? It did take almost 20 years to recognize his work with a Nobel prize, but maybe the fact that the prize was not initiated until about 17 years after had something to do with that. He got the 3rd one in chemistry. He was on the Nobel committee from the beginning until his death, and it seems he was not a particularly nice guy himself, arranging awards for his friends, and attempting to deny them to his enemies. He also got involved in racial biology (eugenics) later in his life. That happens so often I am astounded anyone believes the myth that scientists welcome new ideas. Well, you would not be astounded if you actually paid attention to history, instead of twisting it to rationalize your fervent belief in cold fusion. Right about the same time as the CF announcement, high temperature superconductivity was discovered, and the Nobel prize was awarded -- now get this -- one year later. The discovery had no theory to support it, was unexpected, and yet the discoverers were not dismissed from their positions. Amazing, isn't it. Of course, most Nobel prizes (including Einstein's) take much longer, because it usually takes time for the importance to become manifest, but new discoveries are always celebrated in science, by scientists. As I've said before, the most revolutionary ideas in science in centuries, relativity and QM, were accepted almost as quickly as they could be developed. Because they fit the evidence so perfectly. Just about every evaluation of merit in science, from granting of degrees, to awarding academic or industrial positions, to granting awards, to giving funding, to accepting manuscripts for publication, to any degree of fame and glory, has as its first criterion: *** novelty ***. What scientists fear is not new ideas (they crave them), but wrong ideas. Scientists are skeptical; they have to be. Skepticism is a critical filter in guiding research. Without it, they would simply flounder around, like, well, like cold fusion researchers. Of course, that sometimes leads to rejecting good ideas, and finding the right balance is the most important quality a scientist can strive for. Linus Pauling was clever enough to win 2 Nobel prizes, and yet he ridiculed quasi-crystals. At the other end is perhaps Josephson, who got a Nobel prize for work done as a graduate student, when skeptical guidance was still provided by others. On his own, his lack of skepticism has led him to dabble in the paranormal, and to a life's work wholly unworthy of his brilliant beginning. After the press conference, Dr. Caldwell came up to us and said, Well, when my grandfather proposed electrolytic disassociation, he was dismissed from the University. At least that won’t happen to you. I said to her, “But you are entirely mistaken. We shall be dismissed as well. Their ideas were dismissed, but they were not fired from academic positions. Fleischmann was already retired, and continued to list his affiliation with Southampton until at least 1994. Pons was tenured, and left voluntarily for greener pastures and more money in France.
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Gene went from a top academic career to working in a warehouse at night to feed his family. He was a science writer. Respectable, yes. Top academic career, no. Fleischmann and Pons had a terrible time. Too much money? They had better funding after the CF announcement than at any previous time in their careers. I think it traumatized Pons. It did not bother Fleischmann as much because he is a tough, cynical person who had nightmare experiences during WWII. The Gestapo beat his father to death, and he himself barely escaped. Your arguments for cold fusion are aiming for the gut, not the mind... He told me that he knew calling that press conference would mean the end of his career. It would seem the reports on the sociology of CF are about as reliable as those on the science. It was not the end of his career. He was already resigned from his academic position at Southampton, so he had no job to lose. As it happens, he worked in a well funded lab in France until 1995, when he retired. France is not Siberia. How is that the end of his career? He knew he would be vilified and ridiculed for the rest of his life. So he says now, but his self-satisfied grinning during the press conferences after the announcement tell a different story. He went into it knowing what would happen. Right. That his research would be well funded until retirement. Until the announcement, PF were funding the experiments themselves. That was an act of courage. It was an act of fear. Fear that someone else would get priority. It is good some debunking of Rothwell's fantastic history.
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: This is so wrong as to make me very upset. I'll do anything I can to get hold of a FPE device from Leonardo or Defkalion or who ever and shove it up some FPE deniers back side so far the sun will never shine on it again. And you wonder why I have no time for most university chalk heads. Ah, yes. Is this how cool, rational minds prevail? Rothwell knows how to get people's blood to boil. Would that he could do the same for their intellect.
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Cude what does this have to do with FP having been replicated in many labs all over the world? You need to accept that the FPE is real and move on to working out why it happens. Oh BTW you just might apologize to FP for the treatment they received by you and your mates. Would you please disclose if your income / pay check depends on you not believing the FPE is real and / or working to trash anyone who does? I ask because all you apparently contribute to this list is trashing the FPE. On 12/19/2011 11:23 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: He sure knew what he was getting into. Fleischmann wrote a lighthearted account of this, quoted in Beaudette's book. It starts off with Arrhenius in 1883. He was one of the most important electrochemists in history, like Faraday. He made a revolutionary discovery. As any student of history would predict, this led the academic authorities to kick him out of the university. He was vilified and ridiculed for years and years. Finally, long after, he won a Nobel prize. You mean like Einstein got kicked out of university? No, because his revolutionary ideas got him kicked *into* university. You mean like Planck's ideas got him kicked out of university? No, because they named one after him. etc. You can't just make shit up to please your audience. I'd like to know of a professor who got kicked out of university for a revolutionary idea. At least one that turned out to be right, and didn't have religious objectors. Because, contrary to your claim, Arrhenius does not provide an example. I admit, my source does not go beyond wikipedia, but according to it, his controversial ideas were presented in his doctoral thesis, so he didn't have a position to be kicked out of. And while there were local skeptics, his degree was granted, if only as 3rd class. Nevertheless, when the dissertation was sent to other European scholars, they came to Sweden trying to recruit him. Doesn't really sound much like cold fusion, does it? The Swedish Academy then awarded him a grant to study with the likes of Boltzmann and van 't Hoff. That doesn't sound like years and years of vilification does it? A few years after his graduation, he was *given* an appointment at the Stockholm university, and was a full professor/chair (rector) about a decade after his PhD. That doesn't sound much like ridicule, does it? It did take almost 20 years to recognize his work with a Nobel prize, but maybe the fact that the prize was not initiated until about 17 years after had something to do with that. He got the 3rd one in chemistry. He was on the Nobel committee from the beginning until his death, and it seems he was not a particularly nice guy himself, arranging awards for his friends, and attempting to deny them to his enemies. He also got involved in racial biology (eugenics) later in his life. That happens so often I am astounded anyone believes the myth that scientists welcome new ideas. Well, you would not be astounded if you actually paid attention to history, instead of twisting it to rationalize your fervent belief in cold fusion. Right about the same time as the CF announcement, high temperature superconductivity was discovered, and the Nobel prize was awarded -- now get this -- one year later. The discovery had no theory to support it, was unexpected, and yet the discoverers were not dismissed from their positions. Amazing, isn't it. Of course, most Nobel prizes (including Einstein's) take much longer, because it usually takes time for the importance to become manifest, but new discoveries are always celebrated in science, by scientists. As I've said before, the most revolutionary ideas in science in centuries, relativity and QM, were accepted almost as quickly as they could be developed. Because they fit the evidence so perfectly. Just about every evaluation of merit in science, from granting of degrees, to awarding academic or industrial positions, to granting awards, to giving funding, to accepting manuscripts for publication, to any degree of fame and glory, has as its first criterion: *** novelty ***. What scientists fear is not new ideas (they crave them), but wrong ideas. Scientists are skeptical; they have to be. Skepticism is a critical filter in guiding research. Without it, they would simply flounder around, like, well, like cold fusion researchers. Of course, that sometimes leads to rejecting good ideas, and finding the right balance is the most important quality a scientist can strive for. Linus Pauling was clever enough to win 2 Nobel prizes, and yet he ridiculed quasi-crystals. At the other end is perhaps Josephson, who got a Nobel prize for work done as a graduate student, when skeptical guidance was still provided by others. On his own, his lack of skepticism has
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
I state again. 1 professor, 1 grad and 2 high school students replicated FP in a MIT lab in front of over 100 ICCF 10 participants in 2002 and 2003. The observed excess heat and transmutations. The FPE is real and can be easily replicated. Sorry but I have a Royal Flush and you have a pair of 2s. On 12/19/2011 11:22 PM, Vorl Bek wrote: On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Gene went from a top academic career to working in a warehouse at night to feed his family. He was a science writer. Respectable, yes. Top academic career, no. Fleischmann and Pons had a terrible time. Too much money? They had better funding after the CF announcement than at any previous time in their careers. I think it traumatized Pons. It did not bother Fleischmann as much because he is a tough, cynical person who had nightmare experiences during WWII. The Gestapo beat his father to death, and he himself barely escaped. Your arguments for cold fusion are aiming for the gut, not the mind... He told me that he knew calling that press conference would mean the end of his career. It would seem the reports on the sociology of CF are about as reliable as those on the science. It was not the end of his career. He was already resigned from his academic position at Southampton, so he had no job to lose. As it happens, he worked in a well funded lab in France until 1995, when he retired. France is not Siberia. How is that the end of his career? He knew he would be vilified and ridiculed for the rest of his life. So he says now, but his self-satisfied grinning during the press conferences after the announcement tell a different story. He went into it knowing what would happen. Right. That his research would be well funded until retirement. Until the announcement, PF were funding the experiments themselves. That was an act of courage. It was an act of fear. Fear that someone else would get priority. It is good some debunking of Rothwell's fantastic history.
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Dec 18, 2011, at 11:18 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: McKubre believes in the Conservation of Miracles. I agree with him and would add my version: Different dog, same leg action. What is at the heart of the FPE drives all the effects we see. For all the early years the effect was called the Fleischmann-Pons Effect. Why change it now? The effect initially was the ability of a palladium cathode sufficiently loaded with D, by electrolysis, to produce excess enthalpy excess heat without the corresponding tritium or neutrons expected using hot fusion branching ratios. It was later discovered, by Bockris and others, that Pd transmutation occurred also, as a byproduct of the FP effect, that different regimes produced different products. This might have some justification being called part of the FP effect, because it was still palladium Many other discoveries followed which were not by FP, and not in their regime of research. Claytor's low pressure gas cells, Storm's glow discharge, Mizuno and Ohmori's HV DC plasma electrolysis, or Mizuno's solid state electrolyte experiments, Piantelli's gaseous Ni- H, Arata and Zhang's double structured spillover cathode using Pd black, Patterson's layered Pd-Ni beads, Szpack's codepositon cells, Les Case's Ni-carbon catalyst in gaseous deuterium, etc., are not called the called FP effect. Cold fusion itself is not even entirely the domain of FP. Muon- catalyzed fusion was called this also. This muon catalysis effect was predicted by Andrei Sakharov, and first observed by Luis Alarez. Steve Jones et al. were preparing to make a cold fusion announcement regarding achieving 150 d-t fusion per muon, not enough for energy break-even. The FP effect, initially called by some (mostly Americans) the PF effect, was called that to distinguish it from muon catalyzed fusion, the other kind of cold fusion. Muon catalyzed fusion obeys conventional hot fusion branching ratios. The FP effect does not. Other forms of cold fusion can have differing branch ratios, especially very different T/n ratios, and differing triggering conditions. However, to call every such discovered effect a Fleischmann and Pons effect is to greatly diminish the work of others. The general field has been called LENR, CANR, LANR, and finally CMNS, for a reason. We owe Fleischmann and Pons a great debt for discovering the general field of research, this part of cold fusion which shows such great promise, unlike muon catalyzed fusion at this time. Still it is inappropriate to stamp their name on every effect discovered by everyone in the field, just a it would be inappropriate to include their names on every patent that will eventually be issued in the field. This is disrespectful to the contributions of those who have followed. It also brings confusion to the terminology that has developed over 20 years. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: Cude what does this have to do with FP having been replicated in many labs all over the world? They haven't been. McKubre himself has said that no one has achieved quantitative reproducibility. And interlay reproducibility always requires the interchange of personnel. Doesn't say much for the robustness of the effect. What cf researchers call replication is not what is considered replication in the rest of science. Which is why the expert panels in 1989 and 2004 judged the evidence to be inconclusive. Would you please disclose if your income / pay check depends on you not believing the FPE is real and / or working to trash anyone who does? No, like just about everyone else on the planet (probably everyone), I would benefit immensely if cold fusion were real. Like the the industrial revolution, everyone's standard of living would improve. What's not to like about that? That's why these arguments about political opposition and conspiracies are just rationalizations for people who are heavily invested, emotionally and otherwise, in the cold fusion delusion. I ask because all you apparently contribute to this list is trashing the FPE. On 12/19/2011 11:23 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.commailto: jedrothw...@gmail.com** wrote: He sure knew what he was getting into. Fleischmann wrote a lighthearted account of this, quoted in Beaudette's book. It starts off with Arrhenius in 1883. He was one of the most important electrochemists in history, like Faraday. He made a revolutionary discovery. As any student of history would predict, this led the academic authorities to kick him out of the university. He was vilified and ridiculed for years and years. Finally, long after, he won a Nobel prize. You mean like Einstein got kicked out of university? No, because his revolutionary ideas got him kicked *into* university. You mean like Planck's ideas got him kicked out of university? No, because they named one after him. etc. You can't just make shit up to please your audience. I'd like to know of a professor who got kicked out of university for a revolutionary idea. At least one that turned out to be right, and didn't have religious objectors. Because, contrary to your claim, Arrhenius does not provide an example. I admit, my source does not go beyond wikipedia, but according to it, his controversial ideas were presented in his doctoral thesis, so he didn't have a position to be kicked out of. And while there were local skeptics, his degree was granted, if only as 3rd class. Nevertheless, when the dissertation was sent to other European scholars, they came to Sweden trying to recruit him. Doesn't really sound much like cold fusion, does it? The Swedish Academy then awarded him a grant to study with the likes of Boltzmann and van 't Hoff. That doesn't sound like years and years of vilification does it? A few years after his graduation, he was *given* an appointment at the Stockholm university, and was a full professor/chair (rector) about a decade after his PhD. That doesn't sound much like ridicule, does it? It did take almost 20 years to recognize his work with a Nobel prize, but maybe the fact that the prize was not initiated until about 17 years after had something to do with that. He got the 3rd one in chemistry. He was on the Nobel committee from the beginning until his death, and it seems he was not a particularly nice guy himself, arranging awards for his friends, and attempting to deny them to his enemies. He also got involved in racial biology (eugenics) later in his life. That happens so often I am astounded anyone believes the myth that scientists welcome new ideas. Well, you would not be astounded if you actually paid attention to history, instead of twisting it to rationalize your fervent belief in cold fusion. Right about the same time as the CF announcement, high temperature superconductivity was discovered, and the Nobel prize was awarded -- now get this -- one year later. The discovery had no theory to support it, was unexpected, and yet the discoverers were not dismissed from their positions. Amazing, isn't it. Of course, most Nobel prizes (including Einstein's) take much longer, because it usually takes time for the importance to become manifest, but new discoveries are always celebrated in science, by scientists. As I've said before, the most revolutionary ideas in science in centuries, relativity and QM, were accepted almost as quickly as they could be developed. Because they fit the evidence so perfectly. Just about every evaluation of merit in science, from granting of degrees, to awarding academic or industrial positions, to granting awards, to giving funding, to accepting manuscripts for publication, to any degree of fame and
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: I state again. 1 professor, 1 grad and 2 high school students replicated FP in a MIT lab in front of over 100 ICCF 10 participants in 2002 and 2003. The observed excess heat and transmutations. It wasn't enough to convince the DOE in 2004. And why would they suppress it if they actually believed it? The prospect of other countries -- unfriendly countries -- getting the technology first would surely scare them shitless. The FPE is real and can be easily replicated. That's not what the researchers say. They always talk about how erratic the results are, how quantitative results are elusive. And if tens (or hundreds or thousands) of watts are being produced by nuclear reactions, why can no one set up an isolated device with no input energy and persistent output energy? You know, like an RTG.
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Horace I suggest that call should be made when we have nailed the exact process that caused Effect A and Effect B to have a different pathway. Until that time, if it ever occurs, I feel Different Dog, Same Leg Action is the road to follow. I have no problem if say WL is proven to be the correct pathway. It is still the FPE effect produced by a WL pathway. It will never be the WL effect as they did not discover it. History always records the initial discover and that is what should happen with the FPE effect. If it so happens that the H. Heffner theory is the correct pathway, it becomes the FPE effect produced by the HH pathway. Then both the effect discover and the pathway discover are recorded in history. Each then gets a fair go. On 12/19/2011 11:45 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Dec 18, 2011, at 11:18 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: McKubre believes in the Conservation of Miracles. I agree with him and would add my version: Different dog, same leg action. What is at the heart of the FPE drives all the effects we see. For all the early years the effect was called the Fleischmann-Pons Effect. Why change it now? The effect initially was the ability of a palladium cathode sufficiently loaded with D, by electrolysis, to produce excess enthalpy excess heat without the corresponding tritium or neutrons expected using hot fusion branching ratios. It was later discovered, by Bockris and others, that Pd transmutation occurred also, as a byproduct of the FP effect, that different regimes produced different products. This might have some justification being called part of the FP effect, because it was still palladium Many other discoveries followed which were not by FP, and not in their regime of research. Claytor's low pressure gas cells, Storm's glow discharge, Mizuno and Ohmori's HV DC plasma electrolysis, or Mizuno's solid state electrolyte experiments, Piantelli's gaseous Ni-H, Arata and Zhang's double structured spillover cathode using Pd black, Patterson's layered Pd-Ni beads, Szpack's codepositon cells, Les Case's Ni-carbon catalyst in gaseous deuterium, etc., are not called the called FP effect. Cold fusion itself is not even entirely the domain of FP. Muon-catalyzed fusion was called this also. This muon catalysis effect was predicted by Andrei Sakharov, and first observed by Luis Alarez. Steve Jones et al. were preparing to make a cold fusion announcement regarding achieving 150 d-t fusion per muon, not enough for energy break-even. The FP effect, initially called by some (mostly Americans) the PF effect, was called that to distinguish it from muon catalyzed fusion, the other kind of cold fusion. Muon catalyzed fusion obeys conventional hot fusion branching ratios. The FP effect does not. Other forms of cold fusion can have differing branch ratios, especially very different T/n ratios, and differing triggering conditions. However, to call every such discovered effect a Fleischmann and Pons effect is to greatly diminish the work of others. The general field has been called LENR, CANR, LANR, and finally CMNS, for a reason. We owe Fleischmann and Pons a great debt for discovering the general field of research, this part of cold fusion which shows such great promise, unlike muon catalyzed fusion at this time. Still it is inappropriate to stamp their name on every effect discovered by everyone in the field, just a it would be inappropriate to include their names on every patent that will eventually be issued in the field. This is disrespectful to the contributions of those who have followed. It also brings confusion to the terminology that has developed over 20 years. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
I can't believe you really think that is a correct assessment. FP have been replicated. Just have a read through Jed's archives. Christ man high school students replicated PF with both excess heat and transmutations, in a MIT lab and in front of over 100 ICCF 10 attendees? Where you there? Have you seen their data? How can you make such statements that are just not correct. On 12/19/2011 11:49 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: Cude what does this have to do with FP having been replicated in many labs all over the world? They haven't been. McKubre himself has said that no one has achieved quantitative reproducibility. And interlay reproducibility always requires the interchange of personnel. Doesn't say much for the robustness of the effect. What cf researchers call replication is not what is considered replication in the rest of science. Which is why the expert panels in 1989 and 2004 judged the evidence to be inconclusive.
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Dec 18, 2011, at 11:18 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: McKubre believes in the Conservation of Miracles. I agree with him and would add my version: Different dog, same leg action. What is at the heart of the FPE drives all the effects we see. For all the early years the effect was called the Fleischmann-Pons Effect. Why change it now? I say give them the respect and credit they deserve. To hell with avoiding their names like they are poison and calling the effect they discovered a politically nice title of LENR as if not mentioning FP will make that new paper on LENR more politically correct and likely to get published. FP did the hard yards and paid with their careers. They deserve to be remembered and the effect they discovered named after them until the stars burn out and it all goes black. George Washington is regarded as the father of the United States just as Fleischmann and Pons are regarded by many as the fathers of LENR, or CMNS. A single individual deciding after these many years to call the entire United States George Washington or Washington would be inappropriate on their part, and confusing to others, to say the least. It is just as inappropriate now to call the field PFE. Cold fusion, LENR, LANR, CANR, and CMNS, these are all terms that have established, distinct, and useful meanings, just as the US, or United States, does. It is confusing for someone from Utah to say they are a citizen of Washington if they have never even been there. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Did the DOE visit the students results? I suggest not. Did they sit in front of a SEM and see the transmutated products? I suggest they did not and never left their office. Sorry but real word results trumps DOE theory anytime. As far as replicating PF, did you actually read the test results the students did? I think the DOE would be severely embarrassed by 1 prof, 1 grad student and 2 high school students blowing up their negative FPE spin job. We will replicate the students results. It should be very low cost and simple to do. Something that any lab could do and for less than pocket change. If the students results in 2002 and 2003 did not convince the DOE, then then the DOE needs to be torn apart as it is non functional. On 12/19/2011 11:56 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: I state again. 1 professor, 1 grad and 2 high school students replicated FP in a MIT lab in front of over 100 ICCF 10 participants in 2002 and 2003. The observed excess heat and transmutations. It wasn't enough to convince the DOE in 2004. And why would they suppress it if they actually believed it? The prospect of other countries -- unfriendly countries -- getting the technology first would surely scare them shitless. The FPE is real and can be easily replicated. That's not what the researchers say. They always talk about how erratic the results are, how quantitative results are elusive. And if tens (or hundreds or thousands) of watts are being produced by nuclear reactions, why can no one set up an isolated device with no input energy and persistent output energy? You know, like an RTG.
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Dec 19, 2011, at 4:29 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: Horace I suggest that call should be made when we have nailed the exact process that caused Effect A and Effect B to have a different pathway. Until that time, if it ever occurs, I feel Different Dog, Same Leg Action is the road to follow. I have no problem if say WL is proven to be the correct pathway. It is still the FPE effect produced by a WL pathway. It will never be the WL effect as they did not discover it. History always records the initial discover and that is what should happen with the FPE effect. If it so happens that the H. Heffner theory is the correct pathway, it becomes the FPE effect produced by the HH pathway. Then both the effect discover and the pathway discover are recorded in history. Each then gets a fair go. It is hubris to think you or I or the members of this list combined should or could make such a determination. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: Gene went from a top academic career to working in a warehouse at night to feed his family. He was a science writer. Respectable, yes. Top academic career, no. In my opinion, being the science writer at MIT puts you at the top of your career. Gene knew every major science writer in the U.S., many other writers such as Arthur Clarke, and hundreds of scientists worldwide. This was before the Internet. He had hundreds of important people in his Rolodex, and file cabinets full of correspondence from them. I spent a lot of time in his office wading through old correspondence. You did not know him. You did not spend weeks at his house, as I did. You do know what he accomplished, or what difficulties he faced. So I suggest you stop making ignorant assertions about him. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Jed Rothwell wrote: You did not know him. You did not spend weeks at his house, as I did. You do know what he accomplished, or what difficulties he faced. So I suggest you stop making ignorant assertions about him. I think you have Cude killfiled, or you would know that he wrote what you are replying to.
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: You have seen the high school students doing FPE excess heat experiments at MIT during ICCF-10? I loved those kids! They know more chemistry than I'll ever master. But the experiment was far from definitive. I would call it suggestive, and worthy of further attention. I would given them all As. But it was not up the standard of a professional experiment. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: faced. So I suggest you stop making ignorant assertions about him. I think you have Cude killfiled, or you would know that he wrote what you are replying to. I do have him killfiled. For my peace of mind. I apologize if I mixed you up with him. I wasn't paying much attention to the top of the message, or who wrote it. Sorry about that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Jed Rothwell wrote: I do have him killfiled. For my peace of mind. I apologize if I mixed you up with him. I wasn't paying much attention to the top of the message, or who wrote it. Sorry about that. That's OK. To the degree I can follow this, I agree with him rather than you or the other optimists here.
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: That's OK. To the degree I can follow this, I agree with him rather than you or the other optimists here. Then what is the reason for your presence on this list? To turn optimism into pessimism? To fix those optimists? T
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: That's OK. To the degree I can follow this, I agree with him rather than you or the other optimists here. Then what is the reason for your presence on this list? To turn optimism into pessimism? To fix those optimists? I was being polite by calling Jed and the other 'believers' optimists; in reality, I think they are believing in something for which there are no rational grounds to believe. Although I am fairly ignorant, I can steer by the old saying that extraordinary claims require solid proof - lots of independent replications. Rossi hasn't done even one. He acts like a con man. I don't expect Jed or any of the other believers in this nonsense to change their minds until Rossi confesses. If he is jailed without admitting he is a phony, the believers will add him to their roll of martyrs in the CF cause. Even if he confesses they will probably say that he lost his mind due to the tortures inflicted by the servants of Big Oil. To answer your question, my presence on the list is to be entertained, and, if possible, to provide entertainment.
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Mary Yugo wrote: By the way, why don't you contact Jed personally about his experience with Defkalion and trying to arrange a visit with them. There is nothing to be said about that. It was delayed and delayed, and it appears to have petered out. Delays, confusion and cancellations are not unusual with start-up companies. You cannot draw any conclusions from that sort of thing. No doubt they have more pressing matters to deal with, and higher priorities than a visit by me. What is disturbing about Defkalion is their dispute with Stremmenos. I do not know what to make of that. It is a public relations disaster. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
What the heck is stopping someone from taking private money and doing research in their basement? From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 2:14 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources Mary Yugo wrote: By the way, why don't you contact Jed personally about his experience with Defkalion and trying to arrange a visit with them. There is nothing to be said about that. It was delayed and delayed, and it appears to have petered out. Delays, confusion and cancellations are not unusual with start-up companies. You cannot draw any conclusions from that sort of thing. No doubt they have more pressing matters to deal with, and higher priorities than a visit by me. What is disturbing about Defkalion is their dispute with Stremmenos. I do not know what to make of that. It is a public relations disaster. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Horace it was known as the Fleischmann-Pons Effect for years. Check Jed's archives. AG On 12/20/2011 12:14 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Dec 19, 2011, at 4:29 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: Horace I suggest that call should be made when we have nailed the exact process that caused Effect A and Effect B to have a different pathway. Until that time, if it ever occurs, I feel Different Dog, Same Leg Action is the road to follow. I have no problem if say WL is proven to be the correct pathway. It is still the FPE effect produced by a WL pathway. It will never be the WL effect as they did not discover it. History always records the initial discover and that is what should happen with the FPE effect. If it so happens that the H. Heffner theory is the correct pathway, it becomes the FPE effect produced by the HH pathway. Then both the effect discover and the pathway discover are recorded in history. Each then gets a fair go. It is hubris to think you or I or the members of this list combined should or could make such a determination. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
I didn't invent the name. It was called the Fleischmann-Pons Effect for years. Google it. All I'm suggesting is that we should honour the effect they discovered with their names, even if we don't know how and why it happens. No point in inventing a new name for an effect that already has a very definitive name. It is the Fleischmann-Pons Effect. AG On 12/20/2011 12:05 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Dec 18, 2011, at 11:18 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: McKubre believes in the Conservation of Miracles. I agree with him and would add my version: Different dog, same leg action. What is at the heart of the FPE drives all the effects we see. For all the early years the effect was called the Fleischmann-Pons Effect. Why change it now? I say give them the respect and credit they deserve. To hell with avoiding their names like they are poison and calling the effect they discovered a politically nice title of LENR as if not mentioning FP will make that new paper on LENR more politically correct and likely to get published. FP did the hard yards and paid with their careers. They deserve to be remembered and the effect they discovered named after them until the stars burn out and it all goes black. George Washington is regarded as the father of the United States just as Fleischmann and Pons are regarded by many as the fathers of LENR, or CMNS. A single individual deciding after these many years to call the entire United States George Washington or Washington would be inappropriate on their part, and confusing to others, to say the least. It is just as inappropriate now to call the field PFE. Cold fusion, LENR, LANR, CANR, and CMNS, these are all terms that have established, distinct, and useful meanings, just as the US, or United States, does. It is confusing for someone from Utah to say they are a citizen of Washington if they have never even been there. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: Christ man high school students replicated PF with both excess heat and transmutations, in a MIT lab and in front of over 100 ICCF 10 attendees? And what did those 100 people see? A power supply pumping 3 A into a cell, and a mercury thermometer. How is that supposed to be evidence of nuclear reactions producing heat? It would be possible to make a visual demo of cold fusion, if it were real. Rothwell has described it: an isolated device palpably warmer than the surroundings for a sufficiently long time.
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: Did the DOE visit the students results? I suggest not. Did they sit in front of a SEM and see the transmutated products? I suggest they did not and never left their office. I suggest you didn't either. Sorry but real word results trumps DOE theory anytime. But not the DOE's judgement on real world results as presented by the best cold fusion could put forward. I think the DOE would be severely embarrassed by 1 prof, 1 grad student and 2 high school students blowing up their negative FPE spin job. True. But it'd be much worse if they called it bogus and then Japan executed a cold fusion Pearl Harbor on them, even if it were a peaceful equivalent of it. That would be career ending. And they could not have possibly expected something like cold fusion to remain dormant if it were real. So, their judgement had to be based on their belief that the field had no merit, rather than any kind of a desire to suppress it. We will replicate the students results. It should be very low cost and simple to do. Something that any lab could do and for less than pocket change. I wonder why they are always using the lack of funding as an excuse for not producing definitive evidence. If the students results in 2002 and 2003 did not convince the DOE, then then the DOE needs to be torn apart as it is non functional. Well, it's not just the DOE, but the entire scientific establishment that should be torn apart then. But in the last 20 years, progress in all branches of science has continued apace. But you're planning to repeat a 10-year old cold fusion experiment, which is a repeat of a 20-year old experiment, because basically there hasn't been much new to celebrate in the field. We know from the reaction in 1989 that the establishment would love nothing more than to see a working cold fusion experiment, so once again, they can cheer the rebellious chemists on at ACS meetings. But this time, it'll take more than a dubious electrolysis experiment with questionable calorimetry. Give us an isolated thing that stays persistently hot, and the world will beat a path to your door.
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
You skipped over the bit about the up and down transmutations they found on the cathodes. As for the temperature, you need to read the reports and see the photographs. It is not what you said. On 12/20/2011 10:15 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: Christ man high school students replicated PF with both excess heat and transmutations, in a MIT lab and in front of over 100 ICCF 10 attendees? And what did those 100 people see? A power supply pumping 3 A into a cell, and a mercury thermometer. How is that supposed to be evidence of nuclear reactions producing heat? It would be possible to make a visual demo of cold fusion, if it were real. Rothwell has described it: an isolated device palpably warmer than the surroundings for a sufficiently long time.
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: Gene went from a top academic career to working in a warehouse at night to feed his family. He was a science writer. Respectable, yes. Top academic career, no. In my opinion, being the science writer at MIT puts you at the top of your career. Maybe I'm quibbling, but it's not an academic career was the point. An academic career, to me, involves primarily research. And a top academic career would be a chair at a university or director of a research institute. A science writer is a journalist. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's not usually considered academic. Some people, like Sagan, mixed them successfully, Gene knew every major science writer in the U.S., many other writers such as Arthur Clarke, and hundreds of scientists worldwide. This was before the Internet. He had hundreds of important people in his Rolodex, and file cabinets full of correspondence from them. I spent a lot of time in his office wading through old correspondence. You did not know him. You did not spend weeks at his house, as I did. You do know what he accomplished, or what difficulties he faced. Completely irrelevant. I didn't know Feynman, but I know he had a top academic career. I didn't know Clarke, but I know he didn't. I don't know Gary Taubes, but I know he doesn't either.
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I do have him killfiled. For my peace of mind. What a coincidence. Your posts all go to a special file too: my must-reply-to file. In a way, it's a kill file, too. Unfortunately, I can't always keep up with your verbosity, and sometimes I have to delete posts that are crying out for rebuttal. The DOE and oil companies don't pay me enough, and I have to moonlight at a real job.
RE: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Joshua wrote: . And a top academic career would be a chair at a university or director of a research institute. Well, Josh, by your own definition, Dr. Robert Duncan, Vice Chancellor of Research at Univ of Missouri, would then most definitely qualify as top academic career, and he was skeptical when CBS 60-Minutes asked him to be their expert on the Cold Fusion piece done in 2009. His conclusions are reasonable and in-line with the evidence: that something interesting seems to be going on and deserves a dedicated effort; which is CONTRARY to your position. Oh, well, he must have all of a sudden lost his objective faculties once he was infected with the LENR virus! Could be worse. At least he isn't infected with the pathological skeptics virus which would only keep us in the dark (or fossil fuel) age. Josh also wrote: A science writer is a journalist. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's not usually considered academic. Some people, like Sagan, mixed them successfully You seem to be unaware of the fact that Mallove was NOT educated as a journalist. He was a graduate of MIT and Harvard with engineering degrees, so he was very well educated in technical disciplines; enough to know when raw data was deliberately manipulated. I think Mallove's career was very similar to that of Sagan; he just didn't live long enough to enjoy more journalistic successes. The following is taken from Wikipedia: Eugene Mallove held a BS (1969) and MS degree (1970) in aeronautical and astronautical engineering from MIT and a ScD degree (1975) in environmental health sciences from Harvard University. He had worked for technology engineering firms such as Hughes Research Laboratories, the Analytic Science Corporation, and MIT's Lincoln Laboratory, and he consulted in research and development of new energies. -Mark
[Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Two or three people have contacted me suggesting we raise funds for Miley. I appreciate the sentiments, and I am sure George would too, but as far as I know universities only accept money from official sources such as corporations, philanthropic organizations, government agencies, etc. They cannot just take money from private individuals. There has to a formal agreement, which is a complicated multi-page legal document. There is 40% to 60% overhead for the university itself. I have been involved in a few of these arrangements. That's how it works as far as I know. It is not that big a hurdle. If you know a corporation that has money, I expect the university would happy to arrange something. But you cannot walk in off the street as a private individual with a suitcase full of money. (I'll take it!) I believe the other problem is that the grad students who were doing this as an after-hours labor of love have moved on in life. Even grad students graduate eventually. It may be difficult to find some young person bold enough to do this. (Reckless enough.) Miley himself is too old, I believe. He can assist. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: It is not that big a hurdle. If you know a corporation that has money, I expect the university would happy to arrange something. It wouldn't hurt to fill out this form: http://www.shell.com/home/content/innovation/innovative_thinking/game_changer/submit_idea/ T
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On 2011-12-18 17:18, Terry Blanton wrote: It wouldn't hurt to fill out this form: http://www.shell.com/home/content/innovation/innovative_thinking/game_changer/submit_idea/ This might actually be a good idea. By the way, until Krivit leaked that email from the ISCMNS mailing list, I've never heard of this GameChanger program by Shell. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Jed, among LENR researchers, who is not old, or very old? 2011/12/18 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Two or three people have contacted me suggesting we raise funds for Miley. I appreciate the sentiments, and I am sure George would too, but as far as I know universities only accept money from official sources such as corporations, philanthropic organizations, government agencies, etc. They cannot just take money from private individuals. There has to a formal agreement, which is a complicated multi-page legal document. There is 40% to 60% overhead for the university itself. I have been involved in a few of these arrangements. That's how it works as far as I know. It is not that big a hurdle. If you know a corporation that has money, I expect the university would happy to arrange something. But you cannot walk in off the street as a private individual with a suitcase full of money. (I'll take it!) I believe the other problem is that the grad students who were doing this as an after-hours labor of love have moved on in life. Even grad students graduate eventually. It may be difficult to find some young person bold enough to do this. (Reckless enough.) Miley himself is too old, I believe. He can assist. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Sun, 2011-12-18 at 11:09 -0500, Jed Rothwell wrote: Two or three people have contacted me suggesting we raise funds for Miley. I appreciate the sentiments, and I am sure George would too, but as far as I know universities only accept money from official sources such as corporations, philanthropic organizations, government agencies, etc. They cannot just take money from private individuals. There has to a formal agreement, which is a complicated multi-page legal document. There is 40% to 60% overhead for the university itself. Miley was pushing this company during his Oct talk. http://www.cfeis.com/ I was under the impression that he was involved in this company and was trying to develop a commercial product. If this is true then I'm sure you can deliver money to him through this company. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, among LENR researchers, who is not old, or very old? The ones who are dead. Only old people can do this. For a young researcher cold fusion would be career suicide. Even talking about it. She would be fired and would never get another job. Even Bockris was nearly fired. Miles -- a distinguished fellow of the institute -- was reassigned as a stock room clerk. Mizuno was told he would never be promoted unless he renounced it. He never was. Nearly every researcher I know has been subjected to harassment, bullying, threats, sabotage, and so on. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Wow that's a pretty bleak and discouraging assessment Jed, you must be tremendously frustrated. I am just thankful that I am such a LENR neophyte. Fingers crossed it appears the genie is now out of the bottle and someone (Celani, Miley, Piantelli, Arata, McKubre, Ahern, Rossi, Brillouin, Dekaflion ) will do an unimpeachable demo in the next few months (as Rossi could have done if he cared, his fat-cat demos were a step backwards). I think the breakthrough demo is now most likely to come from one of the older hands as they seem to care more for the science than the pursuit of financial gain, the only explanation I can see for the other researchers in the game going into stealth mode of late. A well executed demo will change everything, and should then give you license to go around for the rest of your life wearing an I told you so t-shirt. On 18 December 2011 17:22, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, among LENR researchers, who is not old, or very old? The ones who are dead. Only old people can do this. For a young researcher cold fusion would be career suicide. Even talking about it. She would be fired and would never get another job. Even Bockris was nearly fired. Miles -- a distinguished fellow of the institute -- was reassigned as a stock room clerk. Mizuno was told he would never be promoted unless he renounced it. He never was. Nearly every researcher I know has been subjected to harassment, bullying, threats, sabotage, and so on. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
I wrote: Even Bockris was nearly fired. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BockrisJaccountabi.pdf Some outlandish research, but someone's gotta try it: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BockrisJthehistory.pdf Miles -- a distinguished fellow of the institute -- was reassigned as a stock room clerk. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMisoperibol.pdf p. 19, quote: With the loss of the ONR funding, management at China Lake dictated that no further work on the F-P effect was to be done. Dr. Johnson moved on to a position in Idaho, and Dr. Miles was assigned by the Head of the Chemistry Department at China Lake (Dr. Robin A. Nissan) to report to the stockroom clerk for the inventory of chemicals [24]. No further studies of the F-P effect were made at China Lake after 1995. There is no conspiracy against cold fusion but there are sure are a lot of nasty people trying to crush it, aren't there? As Bill Beaty pointed out, there was no conspiracy against women in the 1950s but sexism was everywhere. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
I agree with your analysis. stupidity, selfishness, greed, conformism, is the main result of applying Occam razor 2011/12/18 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com There is no conspiracy against cold fusion but there are sure are a lot of nasty people trying to crush it, aren't there? As Bill Beaty pointed out, there was no conspiracy against women in the 1950s but sexism was everywhere.
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Dec 18, 2011, at 8:22 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, among LENR researchers, who is not old, or very old? The ones who are dead. Only old people can do this. For a young researcher cold fusion would be career suicide. Even talking about it. She would be fired and would never get another job. Even Bockris was nearly fired. Miles -- a distinguished fellow of the institute -- was reassigned as a stock room clerk. Mizuno was told he would never be promoted unless he renounced it. He never was. Nearly every researcher I know has been subjected to harassment, bullying, threats, sabotage, and so on. - Jed One lasting achievement of Rossi's genius at generating free publicity may have been to bring young people into the field. Once it becomes clear in the mind that nuclear reactions triggered by chemical potentials, without nuclear waste, is a reality, however impractical at this point, and the desperately needed benefit to society such a process can have, if successfully optimized and engineered, the field has more lure than sirens singing and combing their hair sitting on a rock. The timing of all this is unfortunate. Should an ignominious failure of Rossi' s venture occur, following the Solyndra, Inc. bankruptcy and scandal, that will likely result in the ferreting out and dismantling, unfunding, of any LENR work in the government or academia whatsoever. Perhaps that is already underway. Despite the lure, if no proven major practical development occurs, the field will be once again be left to old retired folks, self funded personal time efforts, wildcat businesses, dilettantes, hobbyists, and frauds. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Dec 18, 2011, at 8:22 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, among LENR researchers, who is not old, or very old? The ones who are dead. Only old people can do this. For a young researcher cold fusion would be career suicide. Even talking about it. She would be fired and would never get another job. Even Bockris was nearly fired. Miles -- a distinguished fellow of the institute -- was reassigned as a stock room clerk. Mizuno was told he would never be promoted unless he renounced it. He never was. Nearly every researcher I know has been subjected to harassment, bullying, threats, sabotage, and so on. - Jed One lasting achievement of Rossi's genius at generating free publicity may have been to bring young people into the field. Once it becomes clear in the mind that nuclear reactions triggered by chemical potentials, without nuclear waste, is a reality, however impractical at this point, and the desperately needed benefit to society such a process can have, if successfully optimized and engineered, the field has more lure than sirens singing and combing their hair sitting on a rock. The timing of all this is unfortunate. Should an ignominious failure of Rossi' s venture occur, following the Solyndra, Inc. bankruptcy and scandal, that will likely result in the ferreting out and dismantling, unfunding, of any LENR work in the government or academia whatsoever. Perhaps that is already underway. Despite the lure, if no proven major practical development occurs, the field will be once again be left to old retired folks, self funded personal time efforts, wildcat businesses, dilettantes, hobbyists, and frauds. If LENR research is suppressed in the US then the US will be the worse off for it. The opposite approach is justified. As I wrote on page 36 of: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf There are clearly extensive possibilities for the exploration of LENR. The best way to do so is through use of an interdisciplinary team, backed by extensive laboratory and computing facilities. Expertise in electrochemistry, nanotechnology, materials science, particle physics, supercomputer simulation, and a wide variety of engineering fields is required. The best lattices and operating conditions are not likely to be found by Edisonian search, but through a combined computational experimental approach which is team directed. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
How about creating a foundation for distributing grants to researchers in the field of LENR? Of course the founding would come from private individuals and institutions. Would that make sense? mic 2011/12/18 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: On Dec 18, 2011, at 8:22 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, among LENR researchers, who is not old, or very old? The ones who are dead. Only old people can do this. For a young researcher cold fusion would be career suicide. Even talking about it. She would be fired and would never get another job. Even Bockris was nearly fired. Miles -- a distinguished fellow of the institute -- was reassigned as a stock room clerk. Mizuno was told he would never be promoted unless he renounced it. He never was. Nearly every researcher I know has been subjected to harassment, bullying, threats, sabotage, and so on. - Jed One lasting achievement of Rossi's genius at generating free publicity may have been to bring young people into the field. Once it becomes clear in the mind that nuclear reactions triggered by chemical potentials, without nuclear waste, is a reality, however impractical at this point, and the desperately needed benefit to society such a process can have, if successfully optimized and engineered, the field has more lure than sirens singing and combing their hair sitting on a rock. The timing of all this is unfortunate. Should an ignominious failure of Rossi' s venture occur, following the Solyndra, Inc. bankruptcy and scandal, that will likely result in the ferreting out and dismantling, unfunding, of any LENR work in the government or academia whatsoever. Perhaps that is already underway. Despite the lure, if no proven major practical development occurs, the field will be once again be left to old retired folks, self funded personal time efforts, wildcat businesses, dilettantes, hobbyists, and frauds. If LENR research is suppressed in the US then the US will be the worse off for it. The opposite approach is justified. As I wrote on page 36 of: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf There are clearly extensive possibilities for the exploration of LENR. The best way to do so is through use of an interdisciplinary team, backed by extensive laboratory and computing facilities. Expertise in electrochemistry, nanotechnology, materials science, particle physics, supercomputer simulation, and a wide variety of engineering fields is required. The best lattices and operating conditions are not likely to be found by Edisonian search, but through a combined computational experimental approach which is team directed. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: One lasting achievement of Rossi's genius at generating free publicity may have been to bring young people into the field. I hope that will be the outcome. It hasn't happened yet. The timing of all this is unfortunate. Should an ignominious failure of Rossi' s venture occur, following the Solyndra, Inc. bankruptcy and scandal, that will likely result in the ferreting out and dismantling, unfunding, of any LENR work in the government or academia whatsoever. In the U.S. LENR work in the government was dismantled and unfunded between 1992 and 1995. The field is dead as a doornail. Things can't get any worse. I am not kidding. I am not worried about the fallout from Rossi being revealed as a fake. Even if that happens he has done more good than harm. Incidentally, as far as I know, the only fake in the history of the field was from MIT in 1989. It upset Gene. I thought it was silly. It was unimportant. I doubt the original was a genuine positive, so who cares if they lied about it? I think Ed Storms concluded the original was just noise. There may be other fakes, but I have not discovered them. There may be some fake positives, but I doubt it. Why there would be? Publishing positive data gets you into a world of trouble. It is like holding up a dead skunk at a picnic. People do not flock to your side to congratulate you. I know of about a dozen compelling results such as the ones Beene and Stolper described at MIT that were never published because -- as one of the authors said to me -- I want to keep my job. Very reasonable. People who have families and responsibilities do not wish to martyr themselves to the cause of academic freedom. Especially when you are sure to lose, and you will accomplish nothing. I wouldn't do that! I have no great moral courage. If I were an academic researcher, dependent on the good well of the establishment, there would be no LENR-CANR.org. I can do it because I am not a member of that congregation. It is odd that someone wrote to me recently saying I am a leader in supporting and promoting LENR and I have position of authority. That's absurd. Imagine a grad student asking for a letter of recommendation from me! It would be the kiss of death. It would be applying for a job at Republican National Committee with a letter of recommendation from David Plouffe (Obama's campaign manager). - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Jed you underestimate the contribution you have made. You have invested a lot of time, effort and skin in creating LENR-CANR.org You kept the LENR flame visible and alive when many others worked to put out the flame and to bury it in an unmarked grave that would never be found. On 12/19/2011 9:38 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: One lasting achievement of Rossi's genius at generating free publicity may have been to bring young people into the field. I hope that will be the outcome. It hasn't happened yet. The timing of all this is unfortunate. Should an ignominious failure of Rossi' s venture occur, following the Solyndra, Inc. bankruptcy and scandal, that will likely result in the ferreting out and dismantling, unfunding, of any LENR work in the government or academia whatsoever. In the U.S. LENR work in the government was dismantled and unfunded between 1992 and 1995. The field is dead as a doornail. Things can't get any worse. I am not kidding. I am not worried about the fallout from Rossi being revealed as a fake. Even if that happens he has done more good than harm. Incidentally, as far as I know, the only fake in the history of the field was from MIT in 1989. It upset Gene. I thought it was silly. It was unimportant. I doubt the original was a genuine positive, so who cares if they lied about it? I think Ed Storms concluded the original was just noise. There may be other fakes, but I have not discovered them. There may be some fake positives, but I doubt it. Why there would be? Publishing positive data gets you into a world of trouble. It is like holding up a dead skunk at a picnic. People do not flock to your side to congratulate you. I know of about a dozen compelling results such as the ones Beene and Stolper described at MIT that were never published because -- as one of the authors said to me -- I want to keep my job. Very reasonable. People who have families and responsibilities do not wish to martyr themselves to the cause of academic freedom. Especially when you are sure to lose, and you will accomplish nothing. I wouldn't do that! I have no great moral courage. If I were an academic researcher, dependent on the good well of the establishment, there would be no LENR-CANR.org. I can do it because I am not a member of that congregation. It is odd that someone wrote to me recently saying I am a leader in supporting and promoting LENR and I have position of authority. That's absurd. Imagine a grad student asking for a letter of recommendation from me! It would be the kiss of death. It would be applying for a job at Republican National Committee with a letter of recommendation from David Plouffe (Obama's campaign manager). - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Dec 18, 2011, at 2:02 PM, Michele Comitini wrote: How about creating a foundation for distributing grants to researchers in the field of LENR? Of course the founding would come from private individuals and institutions. Would that make sense? mic I think this is a good idea. The problem is in the methodology used to determine who gets the money. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Dec 18, 2011, at 2:30 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: Jed you underestimate the contribution you have made. You have invested a lot of time, effort and skin in creating LENR-CANR.org You kept the LENR flame visible and alive when many others worked to put out the flame and to bury it in an unmarked grave that would never be found. Many others have made efforts of similar magnitude, even risking their lives and health. However, when all is said and done, I expect the creation and maintenance of LENR-CANR.org will prove to be the most important contribution to the field. If not sufficient for success of the field, it certainly is necessary for that success. I think it is worthy of a Preperata medal even now. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: If LENR research is suppressed in the US then the US will be the worse off for it. If?!? What do you mean if? It is already as suppressed as anything can be! There are not more than a 6 or 8 researchers in the U.S., and they are all being paid for from private money or DARPA. DARPA does not answer to the DoE. If it did, there would not be a penny from Uncle Sam. Okay, there may be a few others keeping a low profile. Don't ask me. By the way, there has been a discussion here about of CMNS and the Beardsworth letter. I would like to address that -- I am the polar opposite of Steve Krivit. I *never* upload a paper without permission. I never discuss a paper without permission. I have edited or translated many that I never discuss. I never ask nosy questions or try to dig up information on people who ask to be left alone. I supply information. I do not want to hear secrets. If someone asks me to delete a paper or information sent previously, I delete it at once, no questions asked. Krivit kept the letter from Beardsworth of Royal Dutch Shell, even though Beardsworth asked him to remove it: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/16/shells-interest-indicates-major-shift-for-lenr/ If Beardsworth had sent me that, I would probably have copied it here without thinking about it. I would assume he wants me to disseminate it, to find applicants. Why else would he send it to me? I might put it in the News section at LENR-CANR.org. If Beardsworth were then to contact me and said that was confidential I would be acutely embarrassed. I would apologize. I never intend to make things public that the author wants to keep secret. That is why I am not a member of CMNS. (Krivit is not a member either. Someone leaks to him, I suppose.) I have no objection to those people at CMNS carrying on confidential discussions. None! There was some confusion about that. People thought I left the place in hissy fit because I oppose secrecy. Secrecy is great. Ducky. But I personally do not want to hear any technical secrets about cold fusion. I do not wish to hear anything you would not say at an ICCF conference. I am happy to hear other secrets: personal, business, financial, sexual . . . bring it on! *Tell me all you know, dahling.* Just nothing technical relating to cold fusion. Arthur Clarke told me that was his policy. I liked it, so I adapted it. I want no adversarial relationship with anyone in this field. I have never turned down a submission to LENR-CANR because I disagreed with the content. It is a library, not a journal. I have turned down ~5 submissions, because they were off-topic, handwritten, or never published elsewhere. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
The problem is in the methodology used to determine who gets the money. As many other foundations do. If someone does not agree with a foundation politics, then he can make a better one. The good thing of LENR is that however expensive the research is, it is to a level that it can avoid state/national funding, and that is Rossi's lesson. Having competition on how to manage funding? would happen for sure, but that would be a positive thing, as always when there is fair competition. The important thing is to get started at some point, since the existing public institutions fail to see the benefits and since we know that it is something that if realized would benefit all, we must take our responsibilities at some point. mic
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Dec 18, 2011, at 3:06 PM, Michele Comitini wrote: The problem is in the methodology used to determine who gets the money. As many other foundations do. If someone does not agree with a foundation politics, then he can make a better one. The good thing of LENR is that however expensive the research is, it is to a level that it can avoid state/national funding, and that is Rossi's lesson. Having competition on how to manage funding? would happen for sure, but that would be a positive thing, as always when there is fair competition. The important thing is to get started at some point, since the existing public institutions fail to see the benefits and since we know that it is something that if realized would benefit all, we must take our responsibilities at some point. mic Still some guidelines are required, and money needs to be compartmentalised. Such an institution should not give all its money to one person or group, for example. Grants should not all be in the same size range - many should be small, some large. Larger grants should be for follow-on work based on successful work. Considerations need to be made for fund investing. Here is a funding plan I put together for more commercially oriented research and development of renewable energy in general: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/LegacyPlan.pdf This is not appropriate for LENR work only, but provides some ideas about what kinds of considerations need to be made. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Horace, Your plan has a much broader scope IMHO, would be nice some politician were able to understand it and apply it... mic 2011/12/19 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: On Dec 18, 2011, at 3:06 PM, Michele Comitini wrote: The problem is in the methodology used to determine who gets the money. As many other foundations do. If someone does not agree with a foundation politics, then he can make a better one. The good thing of LENR is that however expensive the research is, it is to a level that it can avoid state/national funding, and that is Rossi's lesson. Having competition on how to manage funding? would happen for sure, but that would be a positive thing, as always when there is fair competition. The important thing is to get started at some point, since the existing public institutions fail to see the benefits and since we know that it is something that if realized would benefit all, we must take our responsibilities at some point. mic Still some guidelines are required, and money needs to be compartmentalised. Such an institution should not give all its money to one person or group, for example. Grants should not all be in the same size range - many should be small, some large. Larger grants should be for follow-on work based on successful work. Considerations need to be made for fund investing. Here is a funding plan I put together for more commercially oriented research and development of renewable energy in general: http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/LegacyPlan.pdf This is not appropriate for LENR work only, but provides some ideas about what kinds of considerations need to be made. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: You kept the LENR flame visible and alive when many others worked to put out the flame and to bury it in an unmarked grave that would never be found. Many others have made efforts of similar magnitude, even risking their lives and health. However, when all is said and done, I expect the creation and maintenance of LENR-CANR.org will prove to be the most important contribution to the field. Perhaps. I hope so. But the point is, it did not call for any moral courage. I have no standing in academia and nothing to lose. I sacrificed nothing, other than money. Okay, lots of money. Other than that, it was tedious work and some rudimentary programming. People like Mallove and Mizuno made tremendous personal sacrifices. I would not want to be compared to them. Gene went from a top academic career to working in a warehouse at night to feed his family. Mizuno spent every yen he ever earned on equipment. (He has the Japanese equivalent to Social Security, and they have national health insurance.) He went without a promotion for 20 years, and was still doing junior professor assignments at the end. Fleischmann and Pons had a terrible time. I think it traumatized Pons. It did not bother Fleischmann as much because he is a tough, cynical person who had nightmare experiences during WWII. The Gestapo beat his father to death, and he himself barely escaped. He told me that he knew calling that press conference would mean the end of his career. He knew he would be vilified and ridiculed for the rest of his life. He went into it knowing what would happen. That was an act of courage. But as he said, it was nothing like running for you life at age 13. Mind you, it gets his goat. Sheila Fleischmann told me he complains for hours. Who wouldn't? - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
From Jed ... Fleischmann and Pons had a terrible time. I think it traumatized Pons. It did not bother Fleischmann as much because he is a tough, cynical person who had nightmare experiences during WWII. The Gestapo beat his father to death, and he himself barely escaped. He told me that he knew calling that press conference would mean the end of his career. He knew he would be vilified and ridiculed for the rest of his life. He went into it knowing what would happen. That was an act of courage. But as he said, it was nothing like running for you life at age 13. Mind you, it gets his goat. Sheila Fleischmann told me he complains for hours. Who wouldn't? This is one of the most revealing things I've read about Fleishman in a very long time. Thanks for posting it, Jed. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.orionworks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Wow! Can't we start an open source development of CF? 2011/12/18 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net From Jed ... Fleischmann and Pons had a terrible time. I think it traumatized Pons. It did not bother Fleischmann as much because he is a tough, cynical person who had nightmare experiences during WWII. The Gestapo beat his father to death, and he himself barely escaped. He told me that he knew calling that press conference would mean the end of his career. He knew he would be vilified and ridiculed for the rest of his life. He went into it knowing what would happen. That was an act of courage. But as he said, it was nothing like running for you life at age 13. Mind you, it gets his goat. Sheila Fleischmann told me he complains for hours. Who wouldn't? This is one of the most revealing things I've read about Fleishman in a very long time. Thanks for posting it, Jed. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.orionworks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
One way to remember their achievement would be to rename LENR to the Fleischmann-Pons Effect (FPE). ALL FPE devices should include it in their name. Leonardo's E-Cat then becomes the Leonardo FPE E-Cat device. Defkalion's Hyperion then becomes the Defkalion FPE Hyperion device. Jed's web site would become FPE.CANR.org. Easy to redirect hits using old links. LENR is not correct as we really don't have a solid theory. However FPE does describe the effect and honours the men and their contribution. So what do you think Jed? Move away from LENR as Cold Fusion was moved away from. FPE describes the effect we all know, honours Fleischmann and Pons, removes Nuclear (as we know it) and raises the middle finger to those who are working to put out the FPE flame. While they may never get the Noble they deserve, at least we can ensure the effect they discovered, lives on with their name given to the effect. I like the Fleischmann and Ponds Effect. Anyone else like it? On 12/19/2011 11:31 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: You kept the LENR flame visible and alive when many others worked to put out the flame and to bury it in an unmarked grave that would never be found. Many others have made efforts of similar magnitude, even risking their lives and health. However, when all is said and done, I expect the creation and maintenance of LENR-CANR.org will prove to be the most important contribution to the field. Perhaps. I hope so. But the point is, it did not call for any moral courage. I have no standing in academia and nothing to lose. I sacrificed nothing, other than money. Okay, lots of money. Other than that, it was tedious work and some rudimentary programming. People like Mallove and Mizuno made tremendous personal sacrifices. I would not want to be compared to them. Gene went from a top academic career to working in a warehouse at night to feed his family. Mizuno spent every yen he ever earned on equipment. (He has the Japanese equivalent to Social Security, and they have national health insurance.) He went without a promotion for 20 years, and was still doing junior professor assignments at the end. Fleischmann and Pons had a terrible time. I think it traumatized Pons. It did not bother Fleischmann as much because he is a tough, cynical person who had nightmare experiences during WWII. The Gestapo beat his father to death, and he himself barely escaped. He told me that he knew calling that press conference would mean the end of his career. He knew he would be vilified and ridiculed for the rest of his life. He went into it knowing what would happen. That was an act of courage. But as he said, it was nothing like running for you life at age 13. Mind you, it gets his goat. Sheila Fleischmann told me he complains for hours. Who wouldn't? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Dec 18, 2011, at 3:31 PM, Michele Comitini wrote: Horace, Your plan has a much broader scope IMHO, would be nice some politician were able to understand it and apply it... mic Yes it would have been nice. I think Hillary Clinton had some similar plans , but was not elected. She certainly understood the issues I think. It would have worked far better than estimated, due to the extremely cheap solar cells now on the market. The fund would have made a lot of money, and would have completely removed itself from the political vagaries of annual national budget cycles. This could be an advantage to a private fund, provided the fund has a mechanism other than donations, to self sustain through partial vested financial interest in patents, stock, etc. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: He knew he would be vilified and ridiculed for the rest of his life. He went into it knowing what would happen. That was an act of courage. But as he said, it was nothing like running for you life at age 13. Mind you, it gets his goat. Sheila Fleischmann told me he complains for hours. Who wouldn't? This is one of the most revealing things I've read about Fleishman in a very long time. He sure knew what he was getting into. Fleischmann wrote a lighthearted account of this, quoted in Beaudette's book. It starts off with Arrhenius in 1883. He was one of the most important electrochemists in history, like Faraday. He made a revolutionary discovery. As any student of history would predict, this led the academic authorities to kick him out of the university. He was vilified and ridiculed for years and years. Finally, long after, he won a Nobel prize. That happens so often I am astounded anyone believes the myth that scientists welcome new ideas. ANYWAY, flash forward to 1989. Arrhenius' granddaughter, Dr. Karen Caldwell, was director of the Center for Biopolymers at Interfaces at the University of Utah, and a friend of FP. Quoting Beaudette, p. 149, Fleischmann recounted: After the press conference, Dr. Caldwell came up to us and said, Well, when my grandfather proposed electrolytic disassociation, he was dismissed from the University. At least that won’t happen to you. I said to her, “But you are entirely mistaken. We shall be dismissed as well. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
This is so wrong as to make me very upset. I'll do anything I can to get hold of a FPE device from Leonardo or Defkalion or who ever and shove it up some FPE deniers back side so far the sun will never shine on it again. And you wonder why I have no time for most university chalk heads. On 12/19/2011 1:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: ANYWAY, flash forward to 1989. Arrhenius' granddaughter, Dr. Karen Caldwell, was director of the Center for Biopolymers at Interfaces at the University of Utah, and a friend of FP. Quoting Beaudette, p. 149, Fleischmann recounted: After the press conference, Dr. Caldwell came up to us and said, Well, when my grandfather proposed electrolytic disassociation, he was dismissed from the University. At least that won’t happen to you. I said to her, “But you are entirely mistaken. We shall be dismissed as well. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Here is a bit of comic relief: http://www.cfeis.com/images/pseudoscepsticks_cartoon.jpg On 12/19/2011 10:13 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Dec 18, 2011, at 2:30 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: Jed you underestimate the contribution you have made. You have invested a lot of time, effort and skin in creating LENR-CANR.org You kept the LENR flame visible and alive when many others worked to put out the flame and to bury it in an unmarked grave that would never be found. Many others have made efforts of similar magnitude, even risking their lives and health. However, when all is said and done, I expect the creation and maintenance of LENR-CANR.org will prove to be the most important contribution to the field. If not sufficient for success of the field, it certainly is necessary for that success. I think it is worthy of a Preperata medal even now. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: This is so wrong as to make me very upset. I'll do anything I can to get hold of a FPE device from Leonardo or Defkalion or who ever and shove it up some FPE deniers back side so far the sun will never shine on it again. The good news is that revenge is a dish best eaten cold. I think it is better to focus on the promise of cold fusion. The benefits it will bring, if someone can make it work. What happened to the researchers was inevitable. It happens to nearly everyone who tries to bring something valuable to humanity. That's human nature. I hope that this history is not forgotten quickly, and that people learn some caution for a generation. They learn not to jump to conclusions. Not to let ignorant naysayers dominate society. This lesson has been learned and forgotten, learned and forgotten, countless times throughout history. I hope that people wake up, and allow 10 or 20 years of academic freedom and progress again, before drifting back to sleep . . . back to their old bad habits. And you wonder why I have no time for most university chalk heads. I get it. But Fleischmann, Pons, Bockris and most of the others are professors. You can't live with 'em and you can't live without 'em. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: This is so wrong as to make me very upset. I'll do anything I can to get hold of a FPE device from Leonardo or Defkalion or who ever and shove it up some FPE deniers back side so far the sun will never shine on it again. And you wonder why I have no time for most university chalk heads. Get one first and *then* brag obscenely all you want to about what you plan to do with it. It seems the most difficult part of your plan is to get your hands on a device. Until you do, if you ever can, I find your rants tiresome and the cartoon from Craig Brown is trite and ridiculous as is his web site.
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
So you don't think the way FP were treated and the fact that replication results were either forged or ignored was OK? BTW Mary we are still testing and developing a FPE device. Many have given us encouragement and assistance. Jed's archives are a Aladdin's Cave of FPE wonders. Will I get my hands on a working FPE device? You can bet on it. On 12/19/2011 2:07 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: This is so wrong as to make me very upset. I'll do anything I can to get hold of a FPE device from Leonardo or Defkalion or who ever and shove it up some FPE deniers back side so far the sun will never shine on it again. And you wonder why I have no time for most university chalk heads. Get one first and *then* brag obscenely all you want to about what you plan to do with it. It seems the most difficult part of your plan is to get your hands on a device. Until you do, if you ever can, I find your rants tiresome and the cartoon from Craig Brown is trite and ridiculous as is his web site.
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: So you don't think the way FP were treated and the fact that replication results were either forged or ignored was OK? But that makes no sense. If it were possible to replicate FP and build on it, there are thousands of people and companies who would have. Even FP themselves enjoyed new labs and millions of dollars in funds from the Japanese and never came up with definitive proof of their concepts. Forged or ignored? I don't think there is any good evidence for that. BTW Mary we are still testing and developing a FPE device. I wish you good luck with that-- I really do. Will I get my hands on a working FPE device? You can bet on it. I am not betting for you if you think you're getting one from Rossi or Defkalion!
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On Dec 18, 2011, at 4:01 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: You kept the LENR flame visible and alive when many others worked to put out the flame and to bury it in an unmarked grave that would never be found. Many others have made efforts of similar magnitude, even risking their lives and health. However, when all is said and done, I expect the creation and maintenance of LENR-CANR.org will prove to be the most important contribution to the field. Perhaps. I hope so. But the point is, it did not call for any moral courage. I have no standing in academia and nothing to lose. I sacrificed nothing, other than money. Okay, lots of money. Other than that, it was tedious work and some rudimentary programming. People like Mallove and Mizuno made tremendous personal sacrifices. I would not want to be compared to them. Gene went from a top academic career to working in a warehouse at night to feed his family. Mizuno spent every yen he ever earned on equipment. (He has the Japanese equivalent to Social Security, and they have national health insurance.) He went without a promotion for 20 years, and was still doing junior professor assignments at the end. Fleischmann and Pons had a terrible time. I think it traumatized Pons. It did not bother Fleischmann as much because he is a tough, cynical person who had nightmare experiences during WWII. The Gestapo beat his father to death, and he himself barely escaped. He told me that he knew calling that press conference would mean the end of his career. He knew he would be vilified and ridiculed for the rest of his life. He went into it knowing what would happen. That was an act of courage. But as he said, it was nothing like running for you life at age 13. Mind you, it gets his goat. Sheila Fleischmann told me he complains for hours. Who wouldn't? - Jed I should have said: However, when all is said and done, I expect the creation and maintenance of LENR-CANR.org will prove to be the most important contribution to the field, with the exception of those of the founding fathers Fleischmann and Pons. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
On 12/19/2011 5:19 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: If it were possible to replicate FP and build on it, there are thousands of people and companies who would have. They have been replicated. In many labs all around the world. Try searching in Jed's archives. Have you not listened to anything Jed has said about the history of the FPE? People lost their jobs and had their careers destroyed for reporting successful replications. Even FP themselves enjoyed new labs and millions of dollars in funds from the Japanese and never came up with definitive proof of their concepts. Amazing statement that. Too bad it is not correct. What they failed to do, as I understand it, is to produce a commercially ready device. Forged or ignored? I don't think there is any good evidence for that. Did you not see the unedited positive for FPE excess heat MIT results versus the edited no FPE excess heat MIT results? Someone in MIT forged the data and the Hot Fusion lab guys had a party. As for ignored, you must be joking? Right? Like the 24 SPAWAR peer reviewed results that were ignored? BTW Mary we are still testing and developing a FPE device. I wish you good luck with that-- I really do. We will get it done. Will I get my hands on a working FPE device? You can bet on it. I am not betting for you if you think you're getting one from Rossi or Defkalion! And if you are wrong? As you know I'm talking to DGT to do a factory visit. Just might talk Leonardo in one as well.
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
Well said Horace, well said. On 12/19/2011 5:46 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: I should have said: However, when all is said and done, I expect the creation and maintenance of LENR-CANR.org will prove to be the most important contribution to the field, with the exception of those of the founding fathers Fleischmann and Pons.
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
I am not betting for you if you think you're getting one from Rossi or Defkalion! And if you are wrong? As you know I'm talking to DGT to do a factory visit. Just might talk Leonardo in one as well. I would be delighted to be wrong about Rossi, Defkalion and your plans to visit them and to buy stuff from them. If it happens, I will be very pleased. Until it happens and is properly documented, I will doubt it to the extreme. Neither Rossi nor Defkalion have done the slightest thing thus far to inspire the most minimal amount of confidence. You persist in confusing talk, promises and claims for action. They're not action. By the way, why don't you contact Jed personally about his experience with Defkalion and trying to arrange a visit with them. Ask him his experiences in trying to get Rossi to get independent tests or better tests. It may be an eye opener ... and then again, for you, it may not.
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
You have seen the high school students doing FPE excess heat experiments at MIT during ICCF-10? They also found transmutated Silver: http://www.lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm (bout 60% of the way down) and here: http://www.lenr-canr.org/Collections/ICCF10.htm#Photos (Picture of our Jed is 2nd from the top) If they can do it, so will we. Maybe you should ask that as excess heat and transmutations were observed at MIT in Aug 2003 in very simple to replicate experiments conducted by high school students, why did not the scientific world shout about their achievements? On 12/19/2011 6:07 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: I am not betting for you if you think you're getting one from Rossi or Defkalion! And if you are wrong? As you know I'm talking to DGT to do a factory visit. Just might talk Leonardo in one as well. I would be delighted to be wrong about Rossi, Defkalion and your plans to visit them and to buy stuff from them. If it happens, I will be very pleased. Until it happens and is properly documented, I will doubt it to the extreme. Neither Rossi nor Defkalion have done the slightest thing thus far to inspire the most minimal amount of confidence. You persist in confusing talk, promises and claims for action. They're not action. By the way, why don't you contact Jed personally about his experience with Defkalion and trying to arrange a visit with them. Ask him his experiences in trying to get Rossi to get independent tests or better tests. It may be an eye opener ... and then again, for you, it may not.
Re: [Vo]:Miley and other professors can only take money from official sources
The use of the term FPE is misleading and confusing. The Wright brothers invented the first controlled flight. It would be nonsensical and misleading to call every kind of winged aircraft a Wright machine, not distinguishing between a 747 and a piper cub. The FP protocol was Pd-D low voltage electrolysis. This differs from Claytor's low pressure gas cells, Storm's glow discharge, Mizuno and Ohmori's HV DC plasma electrolysis, or solid state electrolyte experiments, Piantelli's gaseous Ni-H, Arata and Zhang's double structured spillover cathode using Pd black, Patterson's layered Pd- Ni beads, Szpack's codepositon cells, Les Case's Ni-carbon catalyst in gaseous deuterium, etc. etc. Not all airplanes are the same, not all LENR devices are the same. There are important differences. There is a vocabulary that describes those differences, and which is used by people in the field. Who is going to know what you are talking about if you call every LENR device an FPE? On Dec 18, 2011, at 10:23 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: On 12/19/2011 5:19 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: If it were possible to replicate FP and build on it, there are thousands of people and companies who would have. They have been replicated. In many labs all around the world. Try searching in Jed's archives. Have you not listened to anything Jed has said about the history of the FPE? People lost their jobs and had their careers destroyed for reporting successful replications. Even FP themselves enjoyed new labs and millions of dollars in funds from the Japanese and never came up with definitive proof of their concepts. Amazing statement that. Too bad it is not correct. What they failed to do, as I understand it, is to produce a commercially ready device. Forged or ignored? I don't think there is any good evidence for that. Did you not see the unedited positive for FPE excess heat MIT results versus the edited no FPE excess heat MIT results? Someone in MIT forged the data and the Hot Fusion lab guys had a party. As for ignored, you must be joking? Right? Like the 24 SPAWAR peer reviewed results that were ignored? BTW Mary we are still testing and developing a FPE device. I wish you good luck with that-- I really do. We will get it done. Will I get my hands on a working FPE device? You can bet on it. I am not betting for you if you think you're getting one from Rossi or Defkalion! And if you are wrong? As you know I'm talking to DGT to do a factory visit. Just might talk Leonardo in one as well. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
