Re: [Vo]:Cold vibes NMR
On Aug 25, 2007, at 9:39 PM, thomas malloy wrote: Jones Beene wrote: Horace Too bad there is no way to get that kind of 'official-sounding' crap from Vassilatos off the internet (or reclassified as fiction). And here is the most important message of the thread - with what Richard Hull says about Vassilatos - basically that he is just wrong... Richard personally interviewed the witnesses to the event. I'm wondering when the writers say 15.5 g neutrons, is that g 10^9? It would seem to me that The 10^9 is right, but it is capital G, not g. if they thought this system would work the hot fusioneers would have used it, correct me if you think I'm wrong. Used it for what? The COP is incredibly bad. Here's the calculation again assuming 10 MeV per neutron: Gn/s Watts_in Watts_out COP 1.0 20 0.01608x10^-4 2.6 47500.04179x10^-6 15.5 10500 0.24832x10^-5 That means for each kilo-watt in you get at most 1 extra kilowatt out. BTW, I made a mistake in the table above. It should look like: Gn/s Watts_in NeutronWatts_out COP 1.0 20 0.01601+8x10^-4 2.6 47500.04171+9x10^-6 15.5 10500 0.24831+2x10^-5 assuming 100% efficiency in everything else. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Cold vibes NMR
Jones Beene wrote: Horace Too bad there is no way to get that kind of 'official-sounding' crap from Vassilatos off the internet (or reclassified as fiction). And here is the most important message of the thread - with what Richard Hull says about Vassilatos - basically that he is just wrong... Richard personally interviewed the witnesses to the event. I'm wondering when the writers say 15.5 g neutrons, is that g 10^9? It would seem to me that if they thought this system would work the hot fusioneers would have used it, correct me if you think I'm wrong. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:Cold vibes NMR
Jones Beene wrote: Horace Since fusion reactions get far less out than 100 MeV per two reactions, there is no chance a self sustaining hot fusion reaction was obtained. Yes. It looks like - on second thought, you are correct. There was no probably no real runaway after all . . . Probably, but we cannot be sure. - but there were a number of burnthrough incidents instead, which can be caused by other factors than true ignition. Here are some messages from the old Fusor thread (circa 2004) relating to the events in question: debunking the the bad journalism and urban myth fostered by Vassilatos and others. . . . http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?bn=fusor_historynewskey=1102708965 Urban myth is an overstatement. Farnsworth was a world-class expert, and he thought he had achieved a self-sustaining reaction. That is no myth. It may be a mistake, but we should be careful about disparaging and dismissing someone like Farnsworth. In the link above, Richard Hull concludes the event was probably not what Farnsworth thought, but he agrees there are unexplained aspects to it. In his discussion comment posted at 3:17, he wrote: The blackend dosimeters are the hardest item to explain away. Yes, the pit was incredibly well shielded with special pour borated concrete and block. ITT was frightened enough at Farnsworths claims of what he was PLANNING to do that when the Pit was dug, it was heavily shielded as if a real reactor would be started up underground at Pontiac street! The cave was above ground but used a double layer of borated block. . . . - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold vibes NMR
On Aug 23, 2007, at 8:00 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Jones Beene wrote: Horace Since fusion reactions get far less out than 100 MeV per two reactions, there is no chance a self sustaining hot fusion reaction was obtained. Yes. It looks like - on second thought, you are correct. There was no probably no real runaway after all . . . Probably, but we cannot be sure. We can be absolutely sure it was nowhere near self-sustaining at the neutron numbers given. Aside from the fact the fusor would suddenly have to become 10,000 times more efficient, it would have to miraculously change from an AC driven inertial confinement device to some new undesigned unanticipated and impossible DC confinement device. The fusor is an inertial device. It alternates compaction with expansion, and drives nuclei, at low pressure, in both directions across the central spherical screen. It can not achieve a self-sustaining reaction in the same sense a tokamak can. It can only produce more energy out than in on a pulse by pulse basis, so shutting off the power kills the neutron production. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Cold vibes NMR
Horace Heffner wrote: We can be absolutely sure it was nowhere near self-sustaining at the neutron numbers given. I had in mind that the neutron numbers might be inaccurate, or that some novel and unknown mechanism might be at work. I realize this is unlikely. Even experts such as Farnsworth sometimes imagine that they have observed an inexplicable anomaly, but nearly all of these turn out to be a mistake. I gather Richard Hull concludes that this was almost certainly a mistake but there are some aspects of it which are difficult to explain away. Without taking sides in this debate, my point is that whether this is an anomaly or a mistake, either way it is bad form to call it an urban myth. It is a fragmented, long lost, somewhat puzzling observation, which may or may not mean anything. It is also bad form to demand that an observation that Farnsworth found interesting should be stricken from the Internet to prevent innocent minds from being corrupted. Beene called for debunking the the bad journalism and urban myth of this report. I would not want people to go around debunking the urban myths about my observations of the Griggs device, or Mizuno's 11-day heat after death event. These things actually did happen, beyond the slightest doubt. They may remain unexplained forever, but they did happen, and they raise unanswered questions. There is much to be said for Charles Fort's method of collecting anomalies with an open-minded, non-judgmental attitude. We should not demand that they be promptly explained or debunked -- voted up or down. The Fortean Times carries on his tradition, which is admirable. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold vibes NMR
On Aug 23, 2007, at 9:01 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: There is much to be said for Charles Fort's method of collecting anomalies with an open-minded, non-judgmental attitude. We should not demand that they be promptly explained or debunked -- voted up or down. The Fortean Times carries on his tradition, which is admirable. Yes, indeed. I tend to fall into debunk mode pretty fast. It's so easy. Also, if it isn't useable, quantifiable or subject to experiment I tend to lose interest fast, unlike the Fortean Times. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Cold vibes NMR
Jed Rothwell wrote: I would not want people to go around debunking the urban myths about my observations of the Griggs device, or Mizuno's 11-day heat after death event. Did you make up that statistics, or invent the data? If so, then your observations should be debunked. These things actually did happen, beyond the slightest doubt. Then that is the difference between them and the Farnsworth claim of ignition - which did NOT happen, and which even his close associates have admitted - Farnsworth falsified evidence for. Huge difference. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Cold vibes NMR
Jones Beene wrote: Then that is the difference between them and the Farnsworth claim of ignition - which did NOT happen, and which even his close associates have admitted - Farnsworth falsified evidence for. They did not admit that. Some of them accused him, others did not. From Richard Hull's description: As to Farnsworth's claims.. Two people on the team were actually present when Farnsworth was taking notes on several different occassions. Both claimed to see him enter numbers that were just not supported by the data that they were physically reporting to Farnsworth at that very moment in time!!! One even mentioned it to him and said Farnsworth just smiled, closed the note book, picked it up and left the room. That's a serious accusation but I would not say it is proved by this one account. People accuse Mizuno and other cold fusion scientists of all kinds of bad behavior. Should we automatically believe the two team members? Hull's description continues: I asked several of the members of the team why on earth Phil might make up numbers. The most kind and generous said that Phil might have to do that in the notebooks to keep funding, make the Admiral happy, etc. . . . Were they speculating about why he might hypothetically change numbers, or did they know for a fact that he did? . . . Again, these general comments along with a lot of eyes rolling around in the head and broad smiles, gave me the impression that even with notebooks in hand, some of the data couldn't be trusted. All the while and to the man, every one on the team adored Phil and thought him the finest of people to be associated with. This is highly inconsistent. These people think Farnsworth was the finest of people and yet they accuse him of cheating. Which is it?!? I cannot imagine hero-worshipping someone I had caught fudging the data. Perhaps this account is accurate, or perhaps the story is distorted, memories are corrupted, there is more to it than we realize, or some important detail has been left out or lost. As I said, Hull says that parts of this story are hard to explain away. Even if Farnsworth was a lying scoundrel, these parts remain hard to explain away Some of the cold fusion scientists I have known are less than heroic, and less than forthcoming about their work. Some of the over-unity inventors I have come in contact with have ranged from squirelly to out-and-out crazy. They often plagiarize one-another. I know for a fact that some of them have boldly lied to me about their own backgrounds and the origin of their inventions. Obviously that calls into question their claims! But just because the author is a weird person, and just because he lies about his own academic background (for example), that does not mean we should not automatically dismiss the claim. When there is independent, objective evidence supporting the claims -- such as black dosimeters -- we should leave the door open. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold vibes NMR
I stand by the assertion that Gerry Vassilatos is not just wrong, but guilty of terrible journalism in this instance, and this calls for the debunking the the bad journalism and urban myth of his oft-guote disinformation. It is very likely that Farnsworth, despite all the good things he did earlier in his career (not the least of which was inventing television) was so emotionally involved, and self-deceived in this project, and possibly suffering the effects of ill-health - that he committed the *unpardonable act* for any scientist of *inventing data* to justify his personal belief. He would not be the first acknowledged expert in the field to do this. Even the great Newton may have indulged. Here is a review of False Prophets - by Alexander Kohn http://www.jimloy.com/books/false.htm A similar book is Betrayers of the Truth (Fraud and deceit in the halls of science) by William Broad and Nicholas Wade. This book is more hostile and claims that fraud is rampant in science, and that scientists are not doing much to recitfy the situation. As Richard Hull observes: Two people on the team were actually present when Farnsworth was taking notes on several different occassions. Both claimed to see him enter numbers that were just not supported by the data that they were physically reporting to Farnsworth at that very moment in time! One even mentioned it to him and said Farnsworth just smiled, closed the note book, picked it up and left the room. I asked several of the members of the team why on earth Farnsworth might make up numbers. The most kind and generous said that Phil might have to do that in the notebooks to keep funding, make the Admiral (head of ITT) happy, etc. The one or two who spoke from the gut said that Phil KNEW in his MIND what he should be getting and marked those numbers down.AND ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASSION! Again, these general comments along with a lot of eyes rolling around in the head and broad smiles, gave me the impression that even with notebooks in hand, some of the data couldn't be trusted. ** All the while and to the man, every one on the team adored Phil and thought him the finest of people to be associated with.** That pretty much sums up this sad incident. And this is even more reason to set the record straight, despite Rothwell's lame protestations to the contrary. Do we really want some future RD lab wasting precious millions, pursuing Farnsworth's deception - which because of sloppy journalism gets repeated enough time to make it sound authoritative? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Cold vibes NMR
Jones Beene wrote: I stand by the assertion that Gerry Vassilatos is not just wrong, but guilty of terrible journalism in this instance, and this calls for the debunking the the bad journalism and urban myth of his oft-guote disinformation. If I ever find myself on trial I hope you are not on the jury. Do we really want some future RD lab wasting precious millions, pursuing Farnsworth's deception - which because of sloppy journalism gets repeated enough time to make it sound authoritative? That is preposterous! Some future RD lab will not waste millions of dollars because of something that Vassilatos wrote about something that Farnsworth allegedly observed decades ago. And if these hypothetical future lab researchers are so stupid that they will waste millions chasing after this will-o'-the-wisp, we will not be able to protect the poor dears by hiding the information now. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold vibes NMR
Jed Rothwell wrote: Do we really want some future RD lab wasting precious millions, pursuing Farnsworth's deception - which because of sloppy journalism gets repeated enough time to make it sound authoritative? That is preposterous! Not at all. To personalize a comparison related to how fast $$ can add up, when following simple false info or false claims - think about how much your time is worth and how many hours you spent on the simple false lead that the Greg Watson spread about the self-powering SMOT? Multiply that by the number of others who participated, worldwide probably, and think about the value of the man-hours which was spent on something which, even if it were true, was never going to amount to very much towards solving the energy crisis. I could easily see a future Bill Gates, or future Oil baron spending millions on any number of old ideas which never quite made it, based on authoritative-sounding reports of unknown accuracy. This would be especially true if a breakthrough were made in another field which made the Fusor seem more promising (such as confirmation of the hydrino, for instance). Jones
Re: [Vo]:Cold vibes NMR
Jones Beene wrote: That is preposterous! Not at all. To personalize a comparison related to how fast $$ can add up, when following simple false info or false claims - think about how much your time is worth and how many hours you spent on the simple false lead that the Greg Watson spread about the self-powering SMOT? Chris Tinsley and I spent several enjoyable hours on that. It was fun educational. Here is a better example of serious research that probably led to millions of dollars of wasted research: polywater. Was it a disaster? A waste of time ? Not at all. As I noted in a review of the Franks book: One researcher told Franks she had a wonderful working on polywater, and she considers this work the high point of her career, even though her results were all negative. She called it, scientifically the most interesting chapter, in her life. If, in the future, some group of researchers decides to look more closely at the Farnsworth user, it is likely they will find something interesting, even if it is not what they are looking for. They will not waste much time. There is no chance that researchers would spend months or years working, making no progress at all and having no fun at all, based solely on the distant rumor that the device once self sustained. No researcher worth his salt is that stupid. Multiply that by the number of others who participated, worldwide probably, and think about the value of the man-hours which was spent on something which, even if it were true, was never going to amount to very much towards solving the energy crisis. If it was true there is no telling whether it would amount to anything or not! You cannot possibly make that extrapolation. On the contrary, I think if it were true it would be so revolutionary it might open the door to entire new branches of physics, and discoveries we cannot begin to imagine. All the people I know who worked on the SMOT were smart enough to know that it was probably not true, and they did it as a lark, as Chris I did. I could easily see a future Bill Gates, or future Oil baron spending millions on any number of old ideas which never quite made it, based on authoritative-sounding reports of unknown accuracy. I have known a few people like Gates, and I cannot imagine them doing anything like that. Most of them will not fund cold fusion experiments that were replicated by SRI and published in peer-reviewed journals, for crying out loud. You needn't worry that such people will be too gullible. Their problem is the opposite: they are too skeptical and too quick to dismiss reported anomalies. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Cold vibes NMR
-Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 11:31 AM To: vortex Subject: [Vo]:Cold vibes NMR Neutrons - produced 'on demand' are arguably the most valuable commodity on earth. Recalling this line from your post in July, I was surprised to see it had already been done. The Farnsworth fuser was cranking out neutrons at a rate of 15.5 G-neutrons/sec in 1965 using a very modest amount of power, according to the website: http://www.farnovision.com/chronicles/fusion/vassilatos.html It seems that the technology was suppressed. This is a very depressing article. It makes me think we are all wasting our time here. If any of us manage to come up with a world changing idea we will be stifled by big business, suppressed by the government, and if all that fails to stop us, we will be murdered. In any event we get nowhere and civilization looses. P.S. Does anyone know what became of Eric Dollard? He has written some really great stuff on the nature of electricity. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.1/965 - Release Date: 8/21/2007 4:02 PM
Re: [Vo]:Cold vibes NMR
Hi Jeff, It seems that the technology was suppressed. The Farnsworth Fusor is still going strong, and the Fusor forum is very active (no real suppression other than free-market lack of interest). Many garage inventors have running Fusors, and George Miley patented a version useful for testing purposes, which Daimler Aerospace bought the rights to some years back. The problem there is that the neutron count is pitiful - ... say it is in the 10,000 per second range or double that, which may sound decent at first, after all it is *real fusion* (hot fusion) - but on closer look it is way to low to be interesting for real world energy use, and cannot be scaled up easily. It is far away from breakeven. You need neutrons in the range of 10^12 per second minimum to be of interest for power production. That would be millions of times more than any Fusor. Boron, for instance, can convert a free neutron into several MeV of mass energy, and boron steel could be used for the shell of a Fusor, but to bring the flux up to the needed 20-40 kWhr for automotive, one needs a much higher level yet - a fractional amp-equivalent neutron flux. It would take a 10^12 neutrons to equal only one foot-pound of torque, for instance, using the boron reaction (if memory serves)- and that is why the Fusor, though interesting in itself in being an atomic reactor will never get us close to being useful for power without a major breakthrough in neutron output. BTW a gram of deuterium would contain about 10,000 equivalent amps of neutrons, so it doesn't take much fuel - just a better means of conversion of fuel (removal of neutrons, or production of heat from D fusion) than the Fusor is capable of. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Cold vibes NMR
Jones Beene wrote: The problem there is that the neutron count is pitiful - ... say it is in the 10,000 per second range or double that, which may sound decent at first, after all it is *real fusion* (hot fusion) - but on closer look it is way to low to be interesting for real world energy use, and cannot be scaled up easily. It is far away from breakeven. G.Vassilatos wrote a fascinating paper about Farnsworth, THE FARNSWORTH FUSOR: THE MOST NOTABLY FORGOTTEN EPISODE IN HOT FUSION HISTORY. He claimed that the fusor self-sustained on at least one occasion, and that the technology was suppressed. Quoting the paper: On October 5, 1965 the Fusor Mark II-Model 6 was tested. A reconfigured, high-precision ion gun arrangement produced 1 G-neutrons cc/sec at 20 Kv. and 1 mAa record achievement. On December 28, 1965 tritium was admitted into the test chamber...producing 2.6 G-neutrons/sec. at 105 Kv. and 45 mA. . . . The Mark III Fusor produced startling high records in quick succession. By the end of 1965 the team was routinely measuring 15.5 G-neutrons/sec. at 150 Kv and 70 mA.. The final problem to be tackled involved the poissor itself. . . . SUSTAINED FUSION REACTION Dr. Farnsworth reported that his team achieved a self-sustaining reaction on several occasions...and could repeat the effect. He once invited his wife to watch a test-run of this feat. As power was applied to the Fusor the neutron-reading meter achieved a steady threshold and there remained...until a slight increment of power was applied. Then the needle went off the scale. Dr.Farnsworth cut the applied power...but the needle remained in place for thirty seconds or more as the reaction continued. ITT gradually absorbed the entire project. All related patents were assigned to ITT as success was achieved in steady steps. . . .While steady progress was being achieved at a modest cost . . . ITT was being influenced by powerful professionally hired opinion makers to drop fusion research. Suddenly even Wall Street analysts were publishing their concerns for ITT and its absorption of the Farnsworth subsidiary. Farnsworth himself was made the focus of every corporate death-word. These outlandish accusations indelibly remain in newspapers from the time period. The suppression and assassination of technology is historically the response of frightened competitors... Piercing voices appeared from everywhere against Farnsworth. A large reception at the Waldorf was astir with executive unrest concerning the Farnsworth research project. While dressing, Farnsworth suffered a mild stroke. The AEC was mounting the nuclear fission race and the anti-fusion race simultaneously...and using every tactic to achieve total dominance of the energy field. He was relieved of his research project. . . . I do not know if this was ever published, where Vassilatos is today. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold vibes NMR
I wrote: He claimed that the fusor self-sustained on at least one occasion . . . Correction: on several occasions, like the man said: Dr. Farnsworth reported that his team achieved a self-sustaining reaction on several occasions...and could repeat the effect. I do not know why I recalled this as only one event. I guess I am used to one-off cold fusion experiments. All too often they work once spectacularly and never again. I do not know if Vassilatos' account is accurate, but he seems to know his stuff. His references are as follows: BOOKS Farnsworth, E. Distant Vision. Pemberley Kent Publishers, Salt Lake City, Utah. 1989. Dollard, E Wireless Power.Borderland Science Publishers. Whitethorn, California. 1989. PERIODICALS Halloran, A.H. Farnsworth's Cold-Cathode Electron Multiplier Tube, Radio (October 1932). New Amplifier Amazes Radio Engineers, San Francisco Engineer (March 5, 1936). Smith, Gene, ITT Hopeful On Experiments To Harness H - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold vibes NMR
Yes. It is a fascinating device, and definitely under-appreciated except by the cult-like following, which I mentioned (Hull's forum), but there is little evidence of any conspiracy to silence the technology. Richard Hull, who runs the Fusor Forum, and is the leading expert on the Farnsworth Fusor - has a slightly different opinion on the suppression issue (that is was market-driven, and mostly due to the ITT merger, and the inherent danger of tritium - NOT any kind of mysterious conspiracy) ... and yes, there probably was one or more runaway reactions at ITT BUT... that was using tritium ! With tritium, many things are possible, including instant death due to radiation poisoning... ... anyway, isn't G.Vassilatos a SciFi writer ? Not that there's anything wrong with that... except unconventional usage, like what is 15.5 G-neutrons/sec ? Is it 15.5 giga-neutrons/sec - or 1.55 x10^10 or what? ... if so, then this is still FAR away from breakeven, no? This is half-hamster energy output! You really need 100 times more flux before things get interesting. But you also need to avoid the runaway (if living is important), and you need to do it with ONLY deuterium! The runaway was using tritium, big difference, which is not even possible today, outside of very tightly contolled situations. Jones Jed Rothwell wrote: Jones Beene wrote: The problem there is that the neutron count is pitiful - ... say it is in the 10,000 per second range or double that, which may sound decent at first, after all it is *real fusion* (hot fusion) - but on closer look it is way to low to be interesting for real world energy use, and cannot be scaled up easily. It is far away from breakeven. G.Vassilatos wrote a fascinating paper about Farnsworth, THE FARNSWORTH FUSOR: THE MOST NOTABLY FORGOTTEN EPISODE IN HOT FUSION HISTORY. He claimed that the fusor self-sustained on at least one occasion, and that the technology was suppressed. Quoting the paper: On October 5, 1965 the Fusor Mark II-Model 6 was tested. A reconfigured, high-precision ion gun arrangement produced 1 G-neutrons cc/sec at 20 Kv. and 1 mAa record achievement. On December 28, 1965 tritium was admitted into the test chamber...producing 2.6 G-neutrons/sec. at 105 Kv. and 45 mA. . . . The Mark III Fusor produced startling high records in quick succession. By the end of 1965 the team was routinely measuring 15.5 G-neutrons/sec. at 150 Kv and 70 mA.. The final problem to be tackled involved the poissor itself. . . . SUSTAINED FUSION REACTION Dr. Farnsworth reported that his team achieved a self-sustaining reaction on several occasions...and could repeat the effect. He once invited his wife to watch a test-run of this feat. As power was applied to the Fusor the neutron-reading meter achieved a steady threshold and there remained...until a slight increment of power was applied. Then the needle went off the scale. Dr.Farnsworth cut the applied power...but the needle remained in place for thirty seconds or more as the reaction continued. ITT gradually absorbed the entire project. All related patents were assigned to ITT as success was achieved in steady steps. . . .While steady progress was being achieved at a modest cost . . . ITT was being influenced by powerful professionally hired opinion makers to drop fusion research. Suddenly even Wall Street analysts were publishing their concerns for ITT and its absorption of the Farnsworth subsidiary. Farnsworth himself was made the focus of every corporate death-word. These outlandish accusations indelibly remain in newspapers from the time period. The suppression and assassination of technology is historically the response of frightened competitors... Piercing voices appeared from everywhere against Farnsworth. A large reception at the Waldorf was astir with executive unrest concerning the Farnsworth research project. While dressing, Farnsworth suffered a mild stroke. The AEC was mounting the nuclear fission race and the anti-fusion race simultaneously...and using every tactic to achieve total dominance of the energy field. He was relieved of his research project. . . . I do not know if this was ever published, where Vassilatos is today. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold vibes NMR
Jones Beene wrote: Yes. It is a fascinating device, and definitely under-appreciated except by the cult-like following, which I mentioned (Hull's forum), but there is little evidence of any conspiracy to silence the technology. No one said anything about a conspiracy. Vassilatos found gobs of evidence of suppression. Suppression does not equal a conspiracy. Countless technologies have been suppressed, often for long periods of time. Suppression is conducted openly for reasons that everyone knows. For example, as I have often pointed out, the dairy interests in New York City blocked the use of pasteurization from the 1860s until 1917. They did this quite openly and they stated their reasons on countless occasions: they did not want to pay a few pennies extra per bottle of milk. Automobile makers suppressed pollution control technology for decades, again because they said it would cost to much. They also refused to install seatbelts despite repeated recommendations by safety experts because they said passengers did not want seatbelts and would not use them. The coal and oil industry today conduct an all-out no-holds-barred public effort to prevent the development of wind energy. Their most recent tactical was to try to have Congress pass a law that would essentially make it illegal to install wind turbines, and would force most turbines to be disassembled, supposedly because of the danger to birds. Fake research institutes supported by the oil industry, GM and Ford have published countless attacks against hybrid automobile technology. They claim, for example, that hybrid cars cost more than Hummers and use more energy overall including production. This kind of nonsense is quoted by gullible people who know nothing about technology, such as George Will of the Washington Post. Vassilatos wrote: Farnsworth himself was made the focus of every corporate death-word. These outlandish accusations indelibly remain in newspapers from the time period. That is a clear-cut case of suppression, as clear as the Scientific American's attacks against cold fusion. The reasons may be different, but suppression is suppression. Richard Hull, who runs the Fusor Forum, and is the leading expert on the Farnsworth Fusor - has a slightly different opinion on the suppression issue (that is was market-driven, and mostly due to the ITT merger, and the inherent danger of tritium - NOT any kind of mysterious conspiracy) Frankly, I think that's silly. Conventional fission reactors produce plenty of tritium and other radioactive byproducts, but they are widely used. If the Fusor were to be properly developed I expect problems with tritium can be controlled. ... anyway, isn't G.Vassilatos a SciFi writer ? I have no idea who he is. Anyway, science fiction writers often right, especially Arthur C. Clarke. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Cold vibes NMR
I do not know if this was ever published, where Vassilatos is today. - Jed I was asking in the P.S. about Eric Dollard, whom I was googling when I came across the Farnsworth stuff. The little I have read thus far on his Tesla experiments and his thoughts on the nature of electricity are really enlightening in my opinion. Jeff No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.1/965 - Release Date: 8/21/2007 4:02 PM
Re: [Vo]:Cold vibes NMR
On Aug 22, 2007, at 5:11 AM, Jeff Fink wrote: Recalling this line from your post in July, I was surprised to see it had already been done. The Farnsworth fuser was cranking out neutrons at a rate of 15.5 G-neutrons/sec in 1965 using a very modest amount of power, according to the website: http://www.farnovision.com/chronicles/fusion/vassilatos.html In the above Gerry Vassilatos writes: On October 5, 1965 the Fusor Mark II Model 6 was tested. A reconfigured, high precision ion gun arrangement produced l G neutrons cc/see at 20 Kv. and 1 mA a record achievement. On December 28, 1965 tritium was admitted into the test chamber ... producing 2.6 G-neutrons/sec. at 105 Kv. and 45 mA.. With a mixture of tritium and deuterium on the very next day Dr. Farnsworth's team measured and recorded 6.2 G-neutrons/sec. at 170 Kv.. The Mark III Fusor produced startling high records in quick succession. By the start of 196.5 the team was routinely measuring 15.5 G-neutrons/sec. at 150 Kv and 70 mA This makes no sense at all. The COP is not making significant progress. Assuming each neutron can produce a whopping 100 MeV I get: Gn/s Watts_in Watts_out COP 1.0 20 0.01608x10^-4 2.6 47500.04179x10^-6 15.5 10500 0.24832x10^-5 Dr.Farnsworth cut the applied power...but the needle remained in place for thirty seconds or more as the reaction continued. Since fusion reactions get far less out than 100 MeV per two reactions, there is no chance a self sustaining hot fusion reaction was obtained. The 30 second continued run after shut-off was probably due to a HV DC supply capacitor discharge time. If a substantial portion of deflation fusion type reactions, and thus helium producing reactions without neutrons, were obtained (not likely) then a self sustaining reaction is not energetically denied, but is denied because the confinement time of the fusor is very small. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Cold vibes NMR
Horace Since fusion reactions get far less out than 100 MeV per two reactions, there is no chance a self sustaining hot fusion reaction was obtained. Yes. It looks like - on second thought, you are correct. There was no probably no real runaway after all - but there were a number of burnthrough incidents instead, which can be caused by other factors than true ignition. Here are some messages from the old Fusor thread (circa 2004) relating to the events in question: debunking the the bad journalism and urban myth fostered by Vassilatos and others. http://www.fusor.net/board/search.php Too bad there is no way to get that kind of 'official-sounding' crap from Vassilatos off the internet (or reclassified as fiction). And here is the most important message of the thread - with what Richard Hull says about Vassilatos - basically that he is just wrong... Richard personally interviewed the witnesses to the event. BTW the perfessor mentioned here was the previous moderator, prior to Hull, of this most thorough and informative forum. http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?bn=fusor_historynewskey=1102708965
Re: [Vo]:Cold vibes NMR
Jones Beene wrote: Here are some messages from the old Fusor thread (circa 2004) relating to the events in question: debunking the the bad journalism and urban myth fostered by Vassilatos and others. http://www.fusor.net/board/search.php This is an invalid URL. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold vibes NMR
Perhaps one must join the Fusor group in order to use that function, but hopefully anyone can start with this message, which is the first - and then follow the history thread from there. http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?site=fusorbn=fusor_historynewskey=1102708965 Jed Rothwell wrote: Jones Beene wrote: Here are some messages from the old Fusor thread (circa 2004) relating to the events in question: debunking the the bad journalism and urban myth fostered by Vassilatos and others. http://www.fusor.net/board/search.php This is an invalid URL. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold vibes NMR
Jeff Fink wrote: -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] It seems that the technology was suppressed. This is a very depressing article. It makes me think we are all wasting our time here. If any of us manage to come up with a world changing idea we will be stifled by big business, suppressed by the government, and if all that fails to stop us, we will be murdered. In any event we get nowhere and civilization looses. This comment reminds me of last night's C to C AM interview. Kenny Ausubel of http://www.bioneers.org/ was interviewed. His big thesis was biological mimicking, invention mimicking nature. He thinks that it could save the world, but he conceded that the problem is political. I agree, but I realize that the political obstacle is insurmountable. Otto Schmitt coined the term biomimickics for this idea. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:Cold vibes NMR
One more important detail to add: We want to push the oscillation of the barbell to resonance at the same time as increase the amplitude of asymmetrical jerk (cross vector). Both of these two isotopes H and D - have a strong magnetic moment, but a significantly different moment, and also a very significantly different NMR resonance. This is a recipe for splitting at low energy. These atoms H and D have the single electron which if locked in one orbit is like a solenoid coil whose effective magnetic field can be calculated. As felt by the D nucleus - that field is 12.5 Tesla ! This assumes a perfectly planar electron spin orbital of course, and no one knows how this would actually look in Ice-X. The 3 frequencies of interest for the neutron, proton and the nucleus as a whole, in deuterium NMR are NOT dictated by the external field per se, in this situation - but by the close proximity of the (effective) 12.5 Tesla field from the atomic electron. When this electron is itself aligned by an external field, the nucleus only feels this closer field, according to Letts and according to logic. When sitting in this magnetic field created by the orbital electron, the nucleus becomes NMR resonant at 365 Mhz, 533 Mhz, and/or 82 MHz (for the neutron, proton and the nucleus as a whole). However, if there is any springiness at all in the barbell gluon linkage, then successive pulses of RF at 365 Mhz, followed very closely by a pulse at 533 Mhz (and then the sequence repeated either sequentially or randomly) will likely test the strength of that bond. When one end of the barbell is stimulated at its resonant RF and the other fells its different resonant frequency- will the bar - i.e. the gluon spring, as it were - ever be extended further (either axially or in another vector) than the short reach of the strong force (which BTW is not much further afield, in this nucleus than the furthest extremity of its normal elongation) ? Inquiring minds want to know... Jones BTW, Dennis Letts did invent a specific LENR cell - and co-authored a paper with John Bockris on how these same NMR frequencies of Deuterium might be used to trigger the cold fusion heat effect in Deuterated Palladium. The paper was peer reviewed and published in FUSION TECHNOLOGY in 1994 : Triggering of Heat and Sub-surface changes in Pd-D Systems. (Bockris, Sundaresan, Letts, Minevski). Letts demonstrated the effect in 1993 in the laboratories of ENECO in Salt Lake City, in the presence of two PhD's: John Bockris and Gale Thorne. He was able to demonstrate a clear connection between the presence of a few milliwatts of RF at these frequencies and an increases of several watts in the thermal output of Deuterated Palladium systems but... get this ... he was never, thereafter, able to re-create the effect in Texas despite much effort !! Again - one wonders about three particular variables which are generally unaccounted for in LENR experiments: 1) Location - There are a number of peculiarities about Salt Lake City and other locations- high altitude, dryness, a large body of brine (giant capacitor ?) Fred Sparber has hypothetically connected this location to the success of the Moray device - as well as to PF. 2) The Heavy water itself: the ratio of 18O/16O and/or metastability 3) The Tiller effect. Is that effect heightened in an area where other strong beliefs are prevalent? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Tiller To counter these 3: Perhaps cryogenics is the one additional factor which would nullify the importance of these unaccounted variables- which can make a marginally successful experiment seem more robust than it should...
Re: [Vo]:Cold vibes NMR
Jones wrote.. At a certain modest level of magnetic field (say the field provided by a permanent magnet) then the nuclear components of ice with a moment, will tend to mutually align but not quite. When one end of the barbell is stimulated at its resonant RF and the other fells its different resonant frequency- will the bar - i.e. the gluon spring, as it were - ever be extended further (either axially or in another vector) than the short reach of the strong force (which BTW is not much further afield, in this nucleus than the furthest extremity of its normal elongation) ? Howdy Jones, Or, unless a bending force is induced that would cause an action like a strain gage.. hmm.. or container to vary the pressure. Richard
