Re: [Vo]:Following up on a Heffner idea
At 12:37 AM 10/5/2009, Horace Heffner wrote: Supporting this is not my aim. I did not join your list. In fact, I may mount a competing operation at some point if a good experiment emerges. I suggested a similar effort about a year ago on another list, with the difference being that I suggested a non-profit effort aimed at classrooms. I think such an effort should be non-profit, providing kits to classrooms at cost or less. Do you think that the people who actually do the work should be compensated? How? Should the availability of the kits be dependent upon how much donation funding is available? I've suggested that people who want to make the kits more available could make donations for that purpose. I've suggested that a nonprofit corporation could be set up and that it might even own whatever business operation exists. I'm starting as an independent entrepreneur, but the scale is so small that I'll be lucky to make minimum wage. I'm pretty sure I'll get my investment back, but I can't afford to donate either the investment or, for that matter, too much time. Should I put off actually doing the work in order to wait for donations to appear? I haven't noticed any pouring in the door, perhaps I should check my mailbox. Ed Storms has said that he's the only person who has made money on cold fusion. Perhaps if more had figured out how to make money, other than by spending other people's money in fruitless efforts to make the big strike, the field would be a decade ahead of where it is. What I'm doing could have been done probably a decade ago. Heffner, you are welcome to mount a competing operation. If you can do something better than I, I'd happily defer to you. If you can supply materials and supplies to experimenters, fine with me! My only worry would be that you would undercut the market, cause competing operations to collapse, but be unable or unwilling to sustain it, so the end result is less availability, not more. To me, the model of buying fairly priced kits from someone who makes a living doing it, and giving them away makes more sense. Even better, probably, investing enough to allow better economy in production, maybe even subsidizing the price, but still requiring some investment from kit buyers, would spread responsibility and a sense of public ownership. My recent business experience is with a business selling otherwise-unobtainable materials to textile artists. They can't go to a mill and get a particular yarn made, or to a factory and get a particular kind of fiber, they'd have to buy enough to last them a century. But a small business which supplies 100 artists can do it, and the internet made it possible to connect with the artists, who are scattered all over the world. It doesn't take a large market to support a small business. Have you noticed United Nuclear? Seems like a nice company I'm tempted to buy some of their toys. Seems to me that I did see a spinthariscope when I was a kid, and it got me excited. Maybe that's why I thought I would be a nuclear physicist until I was distracted by other joys. I've purchased some LR-115; I will cut it up, I plan to serialize the chips, and I'll be selling them in small packages. If you want to give some away, you could either subsidize what I'm doing, or you could buy your own material from the supplier. There is nothing stopping you. If I try to price gouge, which would be stupid, anyone else could step in. I have no interest in spending time on this kind of thing when the basic science to pull this off cheaply and *convincingly* in a classroom setting is not there yet. I would prefer to focus on the fundamentals if I spend time on CF. However, I have a lot more on my plate than CF. If I should find a way to do this my first step would be to publish free instructions with suppliers for all parts listed. No kit necessary. The next step would be to form a non-profit corporation to distribute kits for educational institutions at cost or less. The instructions already exist. It's the Galileo protocol. It includes a list of suppliers, and detailed instructions. The first thing I'm doing is to follow the protocol very closely; I may do some things a little differently, but I'm quite aware that what might seem like a harmless variation could quench the effect, so I'll be very careful. What I do will be documented. The plan was to, indeed, make all the engineering involved in my kits available, so that anyone could replicate exactly without depending on me for supplies. But if you can buy the supplies in appropriate quantities from me, at a price that is worth spending to save the time and hassle, where I make my profit based on quantity purchase and/or convenience, why would you avoid it? For pure science, spotlessly independent replication, perhaps. But that's not the purpose of these kits. The purpose is to get *demonstration* happening, out in the public, widespread,
Re: [Vo]:Following up on a Heffner idea
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 9:46 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Have you noticed United Nuclear? Seems like a nice company I'm tempted to buy some of their toys. Did you know it was run by Bob Lazar? Yes, he is the same one who allegedly worked in section S4 of Area 51. I keep an eye out for Unobtainium on his United Nuclear web site. Bob also made a stab at a solar powered electrolyzer for hydrogen fuel. Talk about an inefficient solution that would never have a RoI! Indeed, he embrittled the valves in his Vette. Pity, that. Terry
Re: [Vo]:Following up on a Heffner idea
On Oct 5, 2009, at 5:46 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: I've purchased some LR-115; I will cut it up, I plan to serialize the chips, and I'll be selling them in small packages. If you want to give some away, you could either subsidize what I'm doing, or you could buy your own material from the supplier. There is nothing stopping you. If I try to price gouge, which would be stupid, anyone else could step in. Clearly I have not communicated. I have no interest in being intensively involved in what you are doing either positively or negatively. I especially do not want to engage in extended detailed discussion with you about it. I merely feel it is important to note that I had specific aspirations long before you came on the scene that do not match your vision, and may conflict with your vision in the future. What I lacked is a *convincing* cheap experiment. If such a protocol comes along, then I may or my not continue efforts to develop an experiment intended for classroom use. If I feel like commenting here on any aspect of CF that may or may not relate to your commercial effort I will do so, and if not, not. However, I am not part of your team and not part of the we to which you continually refer, unless by we you mean the free energy lunatic fringe, to which I freely admit belonging. I have no interest in spending time on this kind of thing when the basic science to pull this off cheaply and *convincingly* in a classroom setting is not there yet. I would prefer to focus on the fundamentals if I spend time on CF. However, I have a lot more on my plate than CF. If I should find a way to do this my first step would be to publish free instructions with suppliers for all parts listed. No kit necessary. The next step would be to form a non-profit corporation to distribute kits for educational institutions at cost or less. The instructions already exist. It's the Galileo protocol. I said *convincing*. Not only is the Galileo protocol highly controversial, to put it mildly, even the superior work by SPAWAR is still controversial amongst experts in the field. If you come up with something better, great. A convincing experiment would be a good thing to provide to students for a first hand experience, but an unreliable non-definitive experiment, especially one disseminated for profit making purposes, could be a very negative thing for the field. It includes a list of suppliers, and detailed instructions. The first thing I'm doing is to follow the protocol very closely; I may do some things a little differently, but I'm quite aware that what might seem like a harmless variation could quench the effect, so I'll be very careful. What I do will be documented. The plan was to, indeed, make all the engineering involved in my kits available, so that anyone could replicate exactly without depending on me for supplies. But if you can buy the supplies in appropriate quantities from me, at a price that is worth spending to save the time and hassle, where I make my profit based on quantity purchase and/or convenience, why would you avoid it? For pure science, spotlessly independent replication, perhaps. But that's not the purpose of these kits. The purpose is to get *demonstration* happening, out in the public, widespread, plus certain other benefits I've mentioned. And, since I'm on social security, with a very limited income and very little savings, making some small profit is important for me. Even though I'm retired, I do have two small children and they could use a little more support than they themselves get from their survivor's benefits. You want to form the non-profit, go ahead. I'd cooperate and support it. But I'm not about to stop this effort because someone else prefers to do something else! I haven't suggested you stop. In fact, I might be a prospective customer. What I am not is an employee, nor a committed collaborator. All I am is a list member of vortex-l. There already is the New Energy Foundation, which supports Krivit in his work. How about sending them a check? Maybe you already have, I don't know who is behind them. Somebody bought $600-$800 worth of CR-39 and sent it to the researchers in a rush when the Tastrak detectors turned out to be fogging in the electrolyte. Another approach I want to pursue, by the way, is to test one of the standard commercial varieties of CR-39, especially very thin sheets. It's possible to erase it before usage, by pre-etching. See http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radmeas.2004.11.010. And I'll be working on scaling down the cells. A small amount of radiation is just as useful for our purposes as a larger amount as long as it is clearly above background, and smaller is both safer and cheaper. (But the SPAWAR neutron levels are very low, ten times background is thinner than I like; still, when that's replicable and consistent,
Re: [Vo]:Following up on a Heffner idea
2009/10/5 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: On Oct 5, 2009, at 5:46 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: ... Well, not in the cell, and I won't be using it on cells where I want to observe the cathode with a microscope during the experiment. Unless it's on the opposite side, a possibility, since the neutrons should penetrate in both directions. I wish you success in your research. So do I, Abd. I wish I had more time to contribute to your project, but you seem to be progressing impressively swiftly in spite of the very limited help you've been getting up to now. I like your approach of changing as little as possible in the cell wrt what is known to work, in spite of obvious temptation, and of adding stuff only to the outside. Michel
Re: [Vo]:Following up on a Heffner idea
At 06:19 PM 10/5/2009, Michel Jullian wrote: 2009/10/5 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: I wish you success in your research. So do I, Abd. I wish I had more time to contribute to your project, but you seem to be progressing impressively swiftly in spite of the very limited help you've been getting up to now. Let's see how I can do with the nuts and bolts, actually Getting Stuff Done. So far it's mostly brainstorming and exploring ideas. But that's how we start. I like your approach of changing as little as possible in the cell wrt what is known to work, in spite of obvious temptation, and of adding stuff only to the outside. I *might* make some small changes inside, but only where I'm reasonably confident they won't reduce the effect, and, even then, with the awareness that if I don't see the effect, I'll need to back up and run it again exactly as instructed. I intend to be totally paranoid about how I handle the materials. Even then, I'm worried about things like humidity, D20 is hygroscopic.
Re: [Vo]:Following up on a Heffner idea
At 09:11 PM 10/3/2009, Horace Heffner wrote: What has been lacking is testing a (3rd particle) seeding concept as an augmentation to a protocol that has already been shown to work for CF fairly reliably, such as SPAWAR's codeposition methods. Making this easy is part of what I'm trying to do. The Galileo project documentation suggested this: The minimum materials cost for this experiment is about $700 Expect that the initial setup of the experiment may take 15 to 30 hours. Add another 16 hours if you are going to use IC-based power supply/limiters instead of a potentiostat. Although the experiment can be done on the (relative) cheap, it can not be done quick and dirty. Although minimal researcher time is necessary during operation, the researcher must dedicate enough time during the setup phase. It is not the objective of Phase-1 to test the boundaries of the parameter space, such explorations are for future phases. From my examination of the actual materials, the cost for two cells (one experimental, one control) would be way below $700, but part of that might have to do with minimum purchase requirements and the extra per-unit expense involved in buying in very small quantities. I'm finding that some of the prices have risen substantially in the two years or so since Galileo, but, still, I believe I'm looking at well under $100 as a per-cell cost, including mark-up necessary to make the operation self-supporting. Once standard cells are available, with a standard protocol, there is a baseline to work with, and exploration of the parameter space should become much easier. Some of this exploration is likely to further reduce the cell cost. For example, how much of an effect would be seen from the usage of 99% D2O instead of 99.9%? 98%? The price goes down. Easy to test, and, in fact, one mice little piece of work would be a study of the effect of D2O percentage on measured effects. Taking it all the way down to deuterium-depleted water. What other options are available for the base electrodes? We can use gold for the cathode. What about gold plated silver, say? Or platinum plated? What about the anode? It seems a shame to spend so much for pure platinum wire if something else will function as well! I'm interested in recombination for a different reason than many of the experimenters, who want to recombine for calorimetric issues. I want to recombine because heavy water is expensive. I'm looking at toy fuel cells, there is one on the market, retailing, the whole kit, including a little car that operates from the generated power, for $100, and a fuel cell would have the nice advantage of easily instrumenting the recombination rate (current generated!). The cheaper the cells, the easier it is to run many cells and thus to explore the effects of even very small changes to parameters. Such as the percentage of tritium in the D2O. I think one of the most useful experimental techniques, not so much for generating energy, but for diagnostic purposes, might be light tritium doping. Right. It might either reveal something or identify a blind alley.
Re: [Vo]:Following up on a Heffner idea
On Oct 4, 2009, at 7:37 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 09:11 PM 10/3/2009, Horace Heffner wrote: What has been lacking is testing a (3rd particle) seeding concept as an augmentation to a protocol that has already been shown to work for CF fairly reliably, such as SPAWAR's codeposition methods. Making this easy is part of what I'm trying to do. The Galileo project documentation suggested this: The minimum materials cost for this experiment is about $700 Expect that the initial setup of the experiment may take 15 to 30 hours. Add another 16 hours if you are going to use IC-based power supply/limiters instead of a potentiostat. Although the experiment can be done on the (relative) cheap, it can not be done quick and dirty. Although minimal researcher time is necessary during operation, the researcher must dedicate enough time during the setup phase. It is not the objective of Phase-1 to test the boundaries of the parameter space, such explorations are for future phases. From my examination of the actual materials, the cost for two cells (one experimental, one control) would be way below $700, but part of that might have to do with minimum purchase requirements and the extra per-unit expense involved in buying in very small quantities. I'm finding that some of the prices have risen substantially in the two years or so since Galileo, but, still, I believe I'm looking at well under $100 as a per-cell cost, including mark-up necessary to make the operation self-supporting. Supporting this is not my aim. I did not join your list. In fact, I may mount a competing operation at some point if a good experiment emerges. I suggested a similar effort about a year ago on another list, with the difference being that I suggested a non-profit effort aimed at classrooms. I think such an effort should be non-profit, providing kits to classrooms at cost or less. Once standard cells are available, with a standard protocol, there is a baseline to work with, and exploration of the parameter space should become much easier. Some of this exploration is likely to further reduce the cell cost. For example, how much of an effect would be seen from the usage of 99% D2O instead of 99.9%? 98%? The price goes down. Easy to test, and, in fact, one mice little piece of work would be a study of the effect of D2O percentage on measured effects. Taking it all the way down to deuterium-depleted water. What other options are available for the base electrodes? We can use gold for the cathode. What about gold plated silver, say? Or platinum plated? What about the anode? It seems a shame to spend so much for pure platinum wire if something else will function as well! I'm interested in recombination for a different reason than many of the experimenters, who want to recombine for calorimetric issues. I want to recombine because heavy water is expensive. I'm looking at toy fuel cells, there is one on the market, retailing, the whole kit, including a little car that operates from the generated power, for $100, and a fuel cell would have the nice advantage of easily instrumenting the recombination rate (current generated!). The cheaper the cells, the easier it is to run many cells and thus to explore the effects of even very small changes to parameters. Such as the percentage of tritium in the D2O. I have no interest in spending time on this kind of thing when the basic science to pull this off cheaply and *convincingly* in a classroom setting is not there yet. I would prefer to focus on the fundamentals if I spend time on CF. However, I have a lot more on my plate than CF. If I should find a way to do this my first step would be to publish free instructions with suppliers for all parts listed. No kit necessary. The next step would be to form a non-profit corporation to distribute kits for educational institutions at cost or less. I think one of the most useful experimental techniques, not so much for generating energy, but for diagnostic purposes, might be light tritium doping. Right. It might either reveal something or identify a blind alley. Yes. It can tell, on a nearly instantaneous basis, the amount of actual hydrogen fusion occurring, provided that fusion is principally of the kind where a hydrogen nucleus tunnels to one of greater or equal mass - which it should be in the majority of cases. It can also tell much about the kinetics of the tritium reactions, providing insights into the mechanism by which the Coulomb barrier is breached. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Following up on a Heffner idea
On Oct 3, 2009, at 9:18 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 01:52 AM 10/3/2009, Horace Heffner wrote:
I suggested a possible means to beat this co-location problem (and
thus cause fusion) here in 1996. It is described here:
http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/BoseHyp.pdf
Once we have simple, cheap, standard cells operating and available
and being produced in quantity, it becomes possible to efficiently
test lots of ideas. Adding some radioisotope that might co-deposit
with the palladium and deuterium could be pretty simple to do. And
if we can develop sensors and sensor analysis that show in real
time the level of nuclear activity, we might get very quick
results. Thus even long shots might be tested. Has the idea of
seeding the palladium deuteride with alpha or beta emitters been
tried?
Partially. I know Dennis Cravens has done some of this. There
certainly have been some tests using radiated cathodes, both with
charged particles and with neutrons some of which showed moderately
positive results, but not attributed to 3rd particle triggered BEC
collapse. Actually every CF experiment, except those done deep in
mines, are stimulated experiments, due to cosmic rays. However,
irradiating electrodes, or including isotopes in the cathodes, can
not assist the reactions (under this model) if BEC creating
conditions are not established.
What has been lacking is testing a (3rd particle) seeding concept as
an augmentation to a protocol that has already been shown to work for
CF fairly reliably, such as SPAWAR's codeposition methods.
I think one of the most useful experimental techniques, not so much
for generating energy, but for diagnostic purposes, might be light
tritium doping. Consider the SPAWAR article:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/022501181p3h764l/
The presence of three alpha-particle tracks outgoing from a single
point is diagnostic of the 12C(n,n′)3alpha carbon breakup reaction
and suggests that DT reactions that produce ≥9.6 MeV neutrons are
occurring inside the Pd lattice. To our knowledge, this is the first
report of the production of energetic (≥9.6 MeV) neutrons in the
Pd–D system.
This is a peer reviewed article by credible researchers. Their data
and conclusion should be taken seriously.
There in fact is experimental data corroborating the lattice DT
hypothesis feasibility. Here is an article relating to T2O + D2O
electrolysis with some rare (8 +-4 counts per second) 10 MeV plus
neutrons found: Quote:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rusov VD, Zelentsova TN, Semenov MYu, Radin IV, Babikova
YuF Kruglyak YuA;
Pis'ma Zh. Tekh. Fiz. 15(#19) (1989) 9--13 {In Russian}
Fast neutron recording by dielectric track detectors in a palladium-
deuterated -tritiated water system in an electrolytic cell.
** Experimental, alloy, electrolysis, neutrons, res0
Used a 50:50 mix of D2O and T2O, a corrugated alloy
(Pd 72, Ag 25, Au 3) electrode, 10 mA/cm**2 and
200 V cell voltage (no electrolyte!). A polymer
track detector (CR-39) (1-5 E-04 track/n sensitivity)
was used to detect the integrated neutron flux from
possible cold fusion of light nuclei. Some rare
high-energy (10 MeV) neutrons (8+-4/s) were found.
071989|101989
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
End quote.
The above summary was taken from Dieter Britz's site:
http://www.chem.au.dk/~db/fusion/alpha_R
The above experiment provides a solid indication of a nominal amount
of D-T fusion even though there is no indication whatsoever that
proper lattice conditions for cold fusion were established. If
repeatable, that is a landmark achievement because it proves fusion
from chemical conditions. Hopefully with what is known today the
results can be greatly improved.
The SPAWAR data does indeed suggest high energy neutrons from a DT
reaction. The source of the tritium in SPAWAR experiments logically
can be expected to be DD fusion, and thus of a low probability
because the concentration of tritium (or possibly some form of
tritium precursor) is very low. It should be no surprise that tritium
can be produced in small quantities via cold fusion reactions.
The conclusion of the Boss et al article implies the need for
repeating exactly the same experiment using D2O + T2O (actually just
a trace amount of TDO) instead of just D2O. If the flux of high
energy neutrons does not increase, then the conclusion is suspect.
Otherwise, this will provide some confirmation of the Boss et al
conclusion. More importantly, if high energy neutrons can be
reliably produced using the more sophisticated, successful, and
controlled protocol as used by Boss et al, this could provide a solid
starting point for narrowing down the underlying physics. A tritium
atom does not differ significantly from a deuterium atom with respect
to the Coulomb barrier. Whatever mechanism permits deuterium to
defeat the
