Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-14 Thread Jed Rothwell
Eric Walker  wrote:

>
> Interestingly, and relevantly it seems to me, p+d is preferentially
> consumed over d+d (whatever path is taken, I assume). My own favorite lead
> to be investigated is that Ni/H involves p+d.
>

I assume that would gradually deplete the D in the gas, making it less than
1 part in 6000. That should not be as difficult to detect as some other
potential products.

- Jed


Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-14 Thread Eric Walker
On Dec 14, 2012, at 7:08, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> The fact that hydrogen fusion is more difficult than deuterium fusion strikes 
> me as unimportant.

Interestingly, and relevantly it seems to me, p+d is preferentially consumed 
over d+d (whatever path is taken, I assume). My own favorite lead to be 
investigated is that Ni/H involves p+d.

That, too, would be a "fusion"-like process.

Eric


Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-14 Thread Jed Rothwell
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:


> The Fleischmann-Pons Heat effect is the result of the conversion of
> deuterium to helium, at least primarily.
>

Probably.

Look, this is not complicated. As you say, it seems likely that Pd-D is a
fusion reaction. McKubre and I believe that whatever the other reactions
are, they are probably related. It seems unlikely there are multiple
unrelated ways of producing heat with hydrides that of all been discovered
recently. We call this the conservation of miracles which is a humorous way
to express a serious idea. It is not rigorous proof but it seems logical to
us. You disagree. Okay. We got it.

The fact that hydrogen fusion is more difficult than deuterium fusion
strikes me as unimportant. Both of them are extremely unlikely according to
conventional theory. Who cares if one is extremely unlikely and the other
is superduper extraordinarily extremely unlikely? Theory goes out the
window either way.

- Jed


Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

At 06:32 PM 12/13/2012, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:

I agree with Jed,

I wish we could stop obsessing over what the phrase “Cold Fusion”
really means. The truth of the matter is: nobody really knows for sure
what kind of phenomenon “Cold Fusion” really represents. Big deal! Get
over it!  The phrase “Cold Fusion” is nothing more than a place
holder.


It was at one time. It was quickly realized that 
this was misleading, because we didn't know it 
was fusion. However, as soon as Miles was 
confirmed, that was obsolete. The FPHE is a 
result of the conversion of deuterium to helium through an unknown mechanism


That is, we have not identified the burglar, but 
we know what was taken and what was left behind. 
We don't have to know who the burglar is to call the incident "burglary."


It's actually very important to establish "cold 
fusion" as meaning the conversion of lighter 
elements into heavier ones, releasing the energy 
expected from the mass deficit. Not as meaning 
"d-d fusion," bringing up images of colliding 
deuterons. Bad Idea. It might be similar to that, 
or very different, but the fuel-product 
relationship is clear, at least for the main 
reaction. All kinds of stuff might be happening 
in there, explaining those minor effects, like 
tritium production or ... neutrons! (at extremely low levels).


Krivit has been damaging the field by saying 
"it's not fusion." He's doing this because he 
imagines that W-L theory isn't "fusion." It may 
not be as to specific reaction mechanism, but 
even Larsen acknowledges that certain SRI work 
showing a heat/helium ratio a bit above 30 
MeV/He-4 is sound, he merely interprets it 
differently, but he *does* acknowledge helium as 
a product, and his reactions start with 
deuterium. (In the PdD environment.) So what is 
accomplished is "fusion," and *maybe* there are 
some other things going on in there, but that has not been established.)


Krivit does not understand this, unfortunately. I 
tried to meet with him when I was there. Hostile, 
and gratuitously so. Unfortunate. He's trashing his career.



I find it to be an exercise in absurdity that others continue to make
such a big deal out of the fact that others continue to sue the phrase
“Cold Fusion” - as if doing so is a horrible thing to do to science.
What I see is far more political foreplay in harping on this issue, as
compared to focusing on actual scientific investigation.


I now refer to the FPHE as "cold fusion." Storms 
did so in his 2010 review, "Status of cold fusion 
(2010)", which is a remarkable shift. He didn't 
use the word in the title of his book, only three 
years earlier. "The Science of Low Energy Nuclear 
Reaction." However, it's in the subtitle: "A 
Comprehensive Compilation of Evidence and 
Explanations about Cold Fusion." Nothing changed 
of importance on this issue between 2007 and 2010.


I think it's very important. But until there is 
solid evidence that NiH reactions are real and 
involve fusion, I'm going to discourage it, and 
probably challenge it. It's important to 
distinguish what is scientifically established 
from what is not. That obvious does not mean that 
we should discard NiH! The opposite. There are 
persistent reports, and the big problem with the 
entire field has been that there are extremely 
interesting findings that nobody replicates. They 
may be real, they may be artifact. We really need to know!


My favorite example is biological LENR. If 
Vysotskii's work can be confirmed, it could be an 
approach to LENR that would blow all the others 
out of the water. Imagine, biologically 
engineering Nuclear Active Environment. Growing 
cold fusion cells, literally, in culture medium. 
Not to mention other applications Has 
*anyone* tried to replicate Vysotskii? I have 
heard of nothing. This is not difficult work, it 
could be expected. For one approach, one simply 
needs a strain that works, I presume Vysotskii 
would cooperate, and access to a Mossbauer 
spectrometer for a few measurements. Those are not rare.


Hah! The pseudoskeptics think that 
Naturwissenschaften is a biology journal. So, 
where would a Vysotskii replication be published? NW? Not a bad idea. 



Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

At 05:41 PM 12/13/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:

My suggestion. For more effective communication, don't use language 
that treats a guess as if were known fact. Even if it seems like a good guess.



Any statement about the nature of cold fusion is a guess.


No, or more accurately, only as "cold fusion" came to be a term for 
suspected LENR of many kinds.


The Fleischmann-Pons Heat effect is the result of the conversion of 
deuterium to helium, at least primarily.


That is a statement about the nature of cold fusion which is not a 
guess. It's a conclusion from the analysis of experimental data. 
While it could be wrong, it's very unlikely to be so. There are no 
credible artifacts that have been proposed and which match the 
experimental data. None. While there are a few unexplained results in 
early data, Stuff Happens. For example, helium was missing from an 
Arata-Zhang replication attemped by SRI, and McKubre says that he 
suspects the cell, a DS-cathode, leaked or was somehow prematurely 
opened. That cell *did* show tritium, and He-3 as would be expected 
from tritium generated from reactions inside the cell.


There is no work that impeaches heat/helium.

Don't confuse the entire class of statements, theories, with a 
specific class, in this case about *mechanism*. What's true is that 
we don't know the mechanism, we only know the result. Helium is being 
generated commensurate with the heat, and the amount of helium 
generated is consistent with experimental conditions and accuracy and 
the value for deuterium-helium conversion, regardless of mechanism or 
intermediate products. Only if an intermediate product persists would 
it change this, and if there are intermediates, they do not appear to 
be sticking around in quantity enough to affect the heat measurements.


 There are no generally accepted theories. I'll take "fusion" over 
the W-L theory or Mills.


WRT the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect, you would be on solid ground. 
However, that effect results in deuterium fusion. Straight deuterium 
fusion, for starters, is much easier to accomplish than, say, protium 
fusion. Deuterium fusion is not an explanation for NiH results. It is 
obviously different.


Now, the concept of "conservation of miracles." We need to stop 
referring to cold fusion as a miracle. It might be, but it's quite 
likely that all that happened was that people failed to anticipate -- 
and thus to calculate -- a possible physical configuration. The 
application of quantum mechanics to the solid state is a primitive 
field, it's extremely difficult to model more than two-body problems. 
That's what Takahashi is doing, that's what Kim is doing (in a more 
general way), and there is work on this going on elsewhere. This can 
take years. The math is difficult and complex.


My suggestion: don't "take" anything. There were plenty of errors on 
the pseudoskeptical physicist side, but the other side made the error 
of insisting on "nuclear" when the evidence was still circumstantial. 
As a result of the crystallization of opinon, the physicists mostly 
stopped looking, but Huizenga noticed Miles, and commented with 
genuine amazement. If confirmed, he wrote, this would solve a major 
mystery of cold fusion. I.e., the ash. Well, Miles was confirmed, but 
it seems Huizenga was infirm


Thinking that was are obviously two distinct effects, experimentally, 
must be the same because each one is a "miracle" is not going to help 
the field. No, the FPHE is not a miracle, it's natural, under the 
conditions. And a real conservation of miracles leads me to suspect 
that this is also true for NiH, if it's real and confirmed.


There is NiH work going on right now at SRI, or at least being set 
up. Brillouin.


There is the Celani work and the MFMP replication, and these people, 
I suspect, aren't going to stop with mere replication, they will 
attempt falsification, at least I hope they will!


Meanwhile, *we do know,* at least, the fuel/ash relationship for PdD. 
It's obviously going to be different for NiH. While the mechanism may 
be "similar," it's unlikely to be exactly the same. If it were the 
same, the NAE for PdD would work with H. If it does, it's only at 
very low levels.


Calling NiH "cold fusion" is jumping the shark. Even calling it LENR, 
without confirmed nuclear products, is premature. It *may be* LENR, 
and, yes, if it's LENR, some kind of fusion is most likely. However, 
not all LENR would be fusion as to product. For example, neutron 
activation is not normally called fusion (though it can be thought of 
as the fusion of an element with neutronium), and it can lead to 
energy release from *fission*. I'll agree that the reaction is 
*probably* some kind of fusion, but that is *only* speculation.


I'd say its very important for those who accept cold fusion to back 
off from "belief" and take on the skeptical role that the 
pseudoskeptics a

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Jed Rothwell
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:


> Dmitriyeva. Cool. She just got her PhD. For cold fusion work. Times are
> changing, Jed.
>

She never got any excess heat! Years of work with no interesting results.
That part has not changed.

- Jed


Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

At 04:15 PM 12/13/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:

Jed, all those examples are PdD FPHE cells, if I'm correct. Right?


Well, the data from Pons is in heat after death, which is sort of 
like gas loading. No electrolysis or input noise.


But, often, one chaotic environment.



We are all familiar with Rossi's data, which is noisy at times. Like this:

http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Lynn%20%20Oct%206%20Calorimetry%20based%20on%20steam%20temp.gif

Ararta's gas cells produce very smooth curves. Too smooth.


I.e., Jed, you are questioning experimental results because they 
don't look right to you. "Right" is based on long experience with a 
particular kind of cell.


That's okay, but ... just so it's clear where the suspicion comes from.

I'll say, about the Arata results -- I have in mind those temperature 
plots that show a large heat release with initial loading, i.e., from 
the heat of formation of the hydride (presumably), then a decline, 
settling at 2 degrees of temperature difference between the chamber 
internal temp and a hollow chamger surrounding it, and two more 
degrees to ambient (which was surrounded with insulation). First of 
all, there is nothing to disturbe the internal environment, unless 
the reaction itself, which is taking place at a relatively low 
level,disturbs it, and, second, this rough indication of generated 
heat is not precise, and would rather naturally be averaged already. 
So what is "too smooth" about the Arata curves?


Arata took down his cells after 50 hours, still going strong, to 
measure helium, but I've never seen his results. (These were PdD 
gas-loading cells.)


Here are a bunch if curves of heat from chemical reactions during 
loading and de-loading of metals:


http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Dmitriyevamechanisms.pdf


Dmitriyeva. Cool. She just got her PhD. For cold fusion work. Times 
are changing, Jed. 



Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
I agree with Jed,

I wish we could stop obsessing over what the phrase “Cold Fusion”
really means. The truth of the matter is: nobody really knows for sure
what kind of phenomenon “Cold Fusion” really represents. Big deal! Get
over it!  The phrase “Cold Fusion” is nothing more than a place
holder.

I find it to be an exercise in absurdity that others continue to make
such a big deal out of the fact that others continue to sue the phrase
“Cold Fusion” - as if doing so is a horrible thing to do to science.
What I see is far more political foreplay in harping on this issue, as
compared to focusing on actual scientific investigation.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks



Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Jed Rothwell
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:

My suggestion. For more effective communication, don't use language that
> treats a guess as if were known fact. Even if it seems like a good guess.
>

Any statement about the nature of cold fusion is a guess. There are no
generally accepted theories. I'll take "fusion" over the W-L theory or
Mills. LENR means more or less the same thing as "fusion" since it sure
doesn't see likely to be fission. What other reactions are there starting
with H or D? Nowhere to go but up. I doubt the entire thing is host metal
reactions.

You have to call it something. Any name will include some assumptions and
exclude others. Even "the FP effect" assumes that Ni-H is the same effect
as Pd-D.

It is axiomatic in language that: Words are not in themselves the thing
they represent; they are partial descriptions at best; and (also along
these lines) word etymology has no bearing on present meaning. I was going
to mention that with regard to your discussion about the word "Allah." Even
if it did once mean "Moon God" that has no bearing on what it means now. (I
will take your word that it did not derive from that.)

The English word "Monday" is derived from the word "moon" but it now has no
connection whatever to the moon. The word "understand" no longer means
standing under, even though it originally had that meaning a metaphoric
sense. Computer folders no longer fold in any sense.

Most words were originally derived from metaphor.

- Jed


Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
My suggestion. For more effective communication, don't use language that treats 
a guess as if were known fact. Even if it seems like a good guess.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 13, 2012, at 4:56 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:
>  
>> Please remember: we do not know that NiH heat is "cold fusion." We don't 
>> know what it is.
> 
> Mike McKubre and I suspect that whatever it is, it is the same thing as Pd-D 
> heat, based on the conservation of miracles.
> 
> Since no one has checked for products yet, fusion is a good a guess as any 
> other.
> 
>  
>> We certainly, however, are not going to discard apparent XP results because 
>> they are too smooth!
> 
> I wouldn't discard them but I would be wary of them. That's not how cold 
> fusion heat looks. Whether it comes from electrolysis or gas loading, it is 
> usually more lumpy.
> 
> That's how things look when you imagine you are seeing excess heat, but you 
> made a mistake. I have seen such results time after time, from many people.
> 
> One way to resolve this would be to put the whole cell into the air-flow 
> calorimeter. Assuming that device works properly. Ed Storms has expressed 
> some doubts about it. He thinks the time constant is too long and changes in 
> air pressure and humidity may affect the instrument too much.
> 
> If the signal really is as stable as it appears here I guess the time 
> constant will not be a problem. I suppose you could catch changes in air 
> pressure by installing a heater next to the cell and doing on-the-fly 
> re-calibration.
> 
> I think Ed would prefer a Seebeck calorimeter.
> 
> - Jed
> 


Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Jed Rothwell
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:


> Please remember: we do not know that NiH heat is "cold fusion." We don't
> know what it is.


Mike McKubre and I suspect that whatever it is, it is the same thing as
Pd-D heat, based on the conservation of miracles.

Since no one has checked for products yet, fusion is a good a guess as any
other.



> We certainly, however, are not going to discard apparent XP results
> because they are too smooth!
>

I wouldn't discard them but I would be wary of them. That's not how cold
fusion heat looks. Whether it comes from electrolysis or gas loading, it is
usually more lumpy.

That's how things look when you imagine you are seeing excess heat, but you
made a mistake. I have seen such results time after time, from many people.

One way to resolve this would be to put the whole cell into the air-flow
calorimeter. Assuming that device works properly. Ed Storms has expressed
some doubts about it. He thinks the time constant is too long and changes
in air pressure and humidity may affect the instrument too much.

If the signal really is as stable as it appears here I guess the time
constant will not be a problem. I suppose you could catch changes in air
pressure by installing a heater next to the cell and doing on-the-fly
re-calibration.

I think Ed would prefer a Seebeck calorimeter.

- Jed


Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
I'll agree. Mallove was talking about the FPHE, which *is* cold fusion 
(remaining arguments are semantic/pedantic. If deuterium is being converted to 
helium, and it is, no matter what the mechanism, it is fusion as to result.)

But we don't know the mechanism for NiH. We don't really even know if the 
results are LENR. We just aren't there yet, as to what has been sufficiently 
confirmed.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 13, 2012, at 12:13 PM, "Jones Beene"  wrote:

> With all deference to Dr. Mallove, this is simply not a smart rationale. It
> smacks of some kind of psychological payback.
> 
> Science "aspires" to be more than vindictive (even when it is not above that
> sin, most of the time)... and if anything, if LENR proponents take the high
> road, they are not giving up very much.
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Craig 
> 
>> You may personally not want to make this important distinction, but "cold
>> fusion" obviously refers to fusion, most notably with deuterium - and this
>> is only a fraction of what can be covered by LENR. The term "cold fusion"
>> should be dropped for all references to NiH - unless and until there is
>> arguable evidence of fusion. There is none.
> 
> Didn't Eugene Mallove once write, when referring to pathological
> skeptics, that we must keep the name 'Cold Fusion' so that we can hear
> them utter the words they so dreaded, after Pons and Fleishmann have
> been shown to be correct?
> 
> Craig
> 
> 



Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Jack Cole
I ran a correlational analysis on the last 4 hours of data.  T ambient is
correlated -.79 with P_xs.  So, pxs rises when ambient drops (or vice
versa).  That may have to do with the spiking and dipping, but probably not
with the baseline level of Pxs.


On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:
>
> Jed, all those examples are PdD FPHE cells, if I'm correct. Right?
>>
>
> Well, the data from Pons is in heat after death, which is sort of like gas
> loading. No electrolysis or input noise.
>
> We are all familiar with Rossi's data, which is noisy at times. Like this:
>
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Lynn%20%20Oct%206%20Calorimetry%20based%20on%20steam%20temp.gif
>
> Ararta's gas cells produce very smooth curves. Too smooth.
>
> Here are a bunch if curves of heat from chemical reactions during loading
> and de-loading of metals:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Dmitriyevamechanisms.pdf
>
> - Jed
>
>


Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Jed Rothwell
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:

Jed, all those examples are PdD FPHE cells, if I'm correct. Right?
>

Well, the data from Pons is in heat after death, which is sort of like gas
loading. No electrolysis or input noise.

We are all familiar with Rossi's data, which is noisy at times. Like this:

http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Lynn%20%20Oct%206%20Calorimetry%20based%20on%20steam%20temp.gif

Ararta's gas cells produce very smooth curves. Too smooth.

Here are a bunch if curves of heat from chemical reactions during loading
and de-loading of metals:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Dmitriyevamechanisms.pdf

- Jed


Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Jed Rothwell
Jeff Berkowitz  wrote:

The possible correlation with T_Ambient was being discussed in another
> thread.


Yup. I realized that after posting the message.



> Eric and Arnaud (?) pointed it out, I argued against jumping to
> conclusions. Dunno.


Yup again. It is the kind of thing that bears looking into.

- Jed


Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

Jed, all those examples are PdD FPHE cells, if I'm correct. Right?

At 11:07 AM 12/13/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

That is not typical. The key to Dardik's technique - the very essence - is
to provide the "superwave" of power input . . .


Input is atypical, but the fluctuations in output are typical.

Here is another example:

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-2.jpg

The fluctuations in the live cell are larger than the ones in the 
control cell.


Figure 1 here shows a remarkably stable reaction:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMelectrochec.pdf

It still fluctuations more than the MFM reaction.

- Jed




Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

At 10:02 AM 12/13/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

I went to HUGentView and pulled up a graph with these parameters:

From: 12/12/2012 09:06:31 to 12/13/2012 09:06:31 Type: history 
(yesterday and today)


This is only my impression, but these graphs look far too smooth to 
be cold fusion. All of the actual cold fusion reactions I have seen 
fluctuate much more than this. They increase, decrease and sometimes 
stop for no apparent reason. This looks like an instrument artifact.


That does not match the Arata gas-loading results. It's very true 
with the electrochemical-loading approaches. There is plenty of sign 
that NiH reactions may be more stable, indeed, that is part of the 
hope for NiH.


Please remember: we do not know that NiH heat is "cold fusion." We 
don't know what it is. We certainly, however, are not going to 
discard apparent XP results because they are too smooth! 



Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Jeff Berkowitz
The possible correlation with T_Ambient was being discussed in another
thread. Eric and Arnaud (?) pointed it out, I argued against jumping to
conclusions. Dunno.
Jeff



On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> I wrote:
>
>
>> http://i50.tinypic.com/2e49mbd.jpg
>>>
>>> I can't pull up that exact graph, but the fluctuations are similar in
>>> the lower P_Xs Low parameter.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, that does look better. The periodicity is maybe a little too regular.
>> But better.
>>
>
> If I had to pick a likely instrument artifact, I would guess those
> fluctuations are the HVAC cycle. Maybe not; they seem too long for that.
> They turn on and increase for 30 to 50 minutes, and then off for about that
> long, turning on again as soon as the baseline is reached. That is what a
> thermostat does, but 50 minutes is longer than it takes to heat most
> buildings.
>
> Maybe the ambient temperature recording (T_Ambient) can rule out this
> possibility.
>
> I assume those are minutes on the X-scale.
>
> - Jed
>
>


Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Jed Rothwell
I wrote:


> http://i50.tinypic.com/2e49mbd.jpg
>>
>> I can't pull up that exact graph, but the fluctuations are similar in
>> the lower P_Xs Low parameter.
>>
>
> Ah, that does look better. The periodicity is maybe a little too regular.
> But better.
>

If I had to pick a likely instrument artifact, I would guess those
fluctuations are the HVAC cycle. Maybe not; they seem too long for that.
They turn on and increase for 30 to 50 minutes, and then off for about that
long, turning on again as soon as the baseline is reached. That is what a
thermostat does, but 50 minutes is longer than it takes to heat most
buildings.

Maybe the ambient temperature recording (T_Ambient) can rule out this
possibility.

I assume those are minutes on the X-scale.

- Jed


Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Jed Rothwell
Harry Veeder  wrote:

An elecrochemical environment might simply be more complex and so the
> power produced is more erractic.


That's true. And fluctuations are not desirable. This could be a sign of
progress, and not a sign of an artifact.

Rossi's heat is also pretty stable. I am pretty sure that is real heat, at
least in the graphs that have been published. It wasn't working when NASA
was there. I have no idea what that data looked like. As I read in a
medical report long ago, the absence of pulse was present.



> A notable exception is "heat after
> death" when an electrolyte boils away and becomes more like a Celani
> wire in a gaseous environment.
>

Good point. Still, it fluctuates after a while, as shown in Fig. 7 here:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/PonsSheatafterd.pdf

- Jed


Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Jed Rothwell
Terry Blanton  wrote:


> > Juliet Capulet was Italian?
>
> Verona, IT.  Hmm, we learn something every day.
>

Yes, Italians spoke English remarkably well in those days. Lots of cliches
though.

You might be thinking of the Verona Beach, FL version with the well-known
Italian Leonardo De Vinci DiCaprio. His English is also good.

- Jed


Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Jed Rothwell
Craig  wrote:


> Are you seeing the fluctuations that are here?
>
> http://i50.tinypic.com/2e49mbd.jpg
>
> I can't pull up that exact graph, but the fluctuations are similar in
> the lower P_Xs Low parameter.
>

Ah, that does look better. The periodicity is maybe a little too regular.
But better.

As noted, calling up two days of data may have smoothed things too much.


Jones Beene  wrote:

You may personally not want to make this important distinction, but "cold
> fusion" obviously refers to fusion, most notably with deuterium - and this
> is only a fraction of what can be covered by LENR. The term "cold fusion"
> should be dropped for all references to NiH - unless and until there is
> arguable evidence of fusion. There is none.
>

I don't care how many angels can dance on that particular pin-head.

I do not know anyone who has even looked for evidence, so I don't think
that is significant.

For now I will stick with McKubre's principle of the conservation of
miracles.

- Jed


Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Terry Blanton
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>
>>Anyway, as another Italian put it:
>>
>> "What's in a name? that which we call a rose
>> By any other name would smell as sweet . . ."
>
> Juliet Capulet was Italian?

Verona, IT.  Hmm, we learn something every day.



Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Terry Blanton
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>Anyway, as another Italian put it:
>
> "What's in a name? that which we call a rose
> By any other name would smell as sweet . . ."

Juliet Capulet was Italian?



Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Harry Veeder
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Craig  wrote:
> On 12/13/2012 11:52 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
>> You may personally not want to make this important distinction, but "cold
>> fusion" obviously refers to fusion, most notably with deuterium - and this
>> is only a fraction of what can be covered by LENR. The term "cold fusion"
>> should be dropped for all references to NiH - unless and until there is
>> arguable evidence of fusion. There is none.
>>
>>
>
> Didn't Eugene Mallove once write, when referring to pathological
> skeptics, that we must keep the name 'Cold Fusion' so that we can hear
> them utter the words they so dreaded, after Pons and Fleishmann have
> been shown to be correct?
>
> Craig
>

Mallove knew what it is on a poetic level:
Fire from Ice.

The rest is just science. ;-)

Harry



RE: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Jones Beene
With all deference to Dr. Mallove, this is simply not a smart rationale. It
smacks of some kind of psychological payback.

Science "aspires" to be more than vindictive (even when it is not above that
sin, most of the time)... and if anything, if LENR proponents take the high
road, they are not giving up very much.


-Original Message-
From: Craig 

> You may personally not want to make this important distinction, but "cold
> fusion" obviously refers to fusion, most notably with deuterium - and this
> is only a fraction of what can be covered by LENR. The term "cold fusion"
> should be dropped for all references to NiH - unless and until there is
> arguable evidence of fusion. There is none.

Didn't Eugene Mallove once write, when referring to pathological
skeptics, that we must keep the name 'Cold Fusion' so that we can hear
them utter the words they so dreaded, after Pons and Fleishmann have
been shown to be correct?

Craig

<>

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Craig
On 12/13/2012 11:52 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
> You may personally not want to make this important distinction, but "cold
> fusion" obviously refers to fusion, most notably with deuterium - and this
> is only a fraction of what can be covered by LENR. The term "cold fusion"
> should be dropped for all references to NiH - unless and until there is
> arguable evidence of fusion. There is none.
>
>

Didn't Eugene Mallove once write, when referring to pathological
skeptics, that we must keep the name 'Cold Fusion' so that we can hear
them utter the words they so dreaded, after Pons and Fleishmann have
been shown to be correct?

Craig



RE: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Jones Beene
You may personally not want to make this important distinction, but "cold
fusion" obviously refers to fusion, most notably with deuterium - and this
is only a fraction of what can be covered by LENR. The term "cold fusion"
should be dropped for all references to NiH - unless and until there is
arguable evidence of fusion. There is none.

Celani does not claim fusion, and "cold fusion" even as a non-specific
generality, is unlikely to be relevant to his work - nor to these results
from MFM/Quantum.

In contrast to "what's in name" the more relevant cliché of the moment is
"nomen est numen". 

It is a mistake to be sticking with "nomen nudum" ... even when it is from a
POV of nostalgia. "Cold fusion" only makes the NiH field look less
scientific, even tainted to some degree.

Jones

From: Jed Rothwell 

Jones Beene wrote:
 
BTW - has Celani ever claimed "cold fusion" ? News to me if
he has.

I believe he has, but in any case, that is what I call all
unexplained non-chemical heat anomalies in hydrides and deuterides. Whether
they are all actually the same effect or not is no concern of mine. The
effect is also known as LENR, CANR and by various other names. They are all
the same thing until proven otherwise. Anyway, as another Italian put it:

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet . . ."

- Jed

<>

RE: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Jones Beene
What you are objecting to is more an artifact of software leveling and
choices made in how data is presented - than an actual problem of results
being too smooth. McKubre's chart has already been leveled and could be
leveled more - and the MFM charts could be altered the other way to
accentuate the small point-to-point differences, and it would appear spikier
- if they desired to present it that way.

 

I do not see this as a real issue.

 

 

From: Jed Rothwell 

 

Jones Beene wrote:

 

That is not typical. The key to Dardik's technique - the very essence - is
to provide the "superwave" of power input . . .

 

Input is atypical, but the fluctuations in output are typical.

 

Here is another example:

 

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-2.jpg

 

The fluctuations in the live cell are larger than the ones in the control
cell.

 

Figure 1 here shows a remarkably stable reaction:

 

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMelectrochec.pdf

 

It still fluctuations more than the MFM reaction.

 

- Jed

 



Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Harry Veeder
An elecrochemical environment might simply be more complex and so the
power produced is more erractic. A notable exception is "heat after
death" when an electrolyte boils away and becomes more like a Celani
wire in a gaseous environment.

Harry

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> That is not typical. The key to Dardik's technique - the very essence - is
>> to provide the "superwave" of power input . . .
>
>
> Input is atypical, but the fluctuations in output are typical.
>
> Here is another example:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-2.jpg
>
> The fluctuations in the live cell are larger than the ones in the control
> cell.
>
> Figure 1 here shows a remarkably stable reaction:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMelectrochec.pdf
>
> It still fluctuations more than the MFM reaction.
>
> - Jed
>



Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Jed Rothwell
Jones Beene  wrote:


> BTW - has Celani ever claimed "cold fusion" ? News to me if he has.
>

I believe he has, but in any case, that is what I call all unexplained
non-chemical heat anomalies in hydrides and deuterides. Whether they are
all actually the same effect or not is no concern of mine. The effect is
also known as LENR, CANR and by various other names. They are all the same
thing until proven otherwise. Anyway, as another Italian put it:

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet . . ."

- Jed


Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Jed Rothwell
Jones Beene  wrote:

That is not typical. The key to Dardik's technique - the very essence - is
> to provide the "superwave" of power input . . .


Input is atypical, but the fluctuations in output are typical.

Here is another example:

http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/McKubre-graph-2.jpg

The fluctuations in the live cell are larger than the ones in the control
cell.

Figure 1 here shows a remarkably stable reaction:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMelectrochec.pdf

It still fluctuations more than the MFM reaction.

- Jed


RE: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Jones Beene
That is not typical. The key to Dardik's technique - the very essence - is
to provide the "superwave" of power input - which is waves of energy
superimposed on other waves. 

One would expect that that a Dardik chart would  look extremely noisy. 

BTW - has Celani ever claimed "cold fusion" ? News to me if he has.


From: Jed Rothwell

Typical real cold fusion excess heat looks like this:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIprogressin.pdf

See:

"Exp. # 64a . . . Excess Power of up to 34 watts; Average
~20 watts for 17 h"

This is also how Ni-H cold fusion looks.

Perhaps Celani has discovered a particularly stable form of
cold fusion. Frankly, I doubt it, but I am only guessing. In past cases I
recall, stable reactions that look like this all turned out to be artifacts.

- Jed

<>

Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Craig
It may also be that if Celani has found a method which is 100%
reproducible, then it is because his method creates a more stable
reaction. Otherwise it probably wouldn't be 100% reproducible if it was
as erratic as other experiments.

Craig


On 12/13/2012 10:14 AM, Akira Shirakawa wrote:
> On 2012-12-13 16:02, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>> This is only my impression, but these graphs look far too smooth to be
>> cold fusion. All of the actual cold fusion reactions I have seen
>> fluctuate much more than this. They increase, decrease and sometimes
>> stop for no apparent reason. This looks like an instrument artifact.
>
> Nevertheless, this appears to be the same effect as reported by Celani
> and Ubaldo Mastromatteo from STMicro: the higher the input power
> applied, the more the glass tube appears to heat compared to
> calibration runs with an inert wire and the active wire under inert
> conditions. This temperature difference appears to be significant. .
> So, in a way, their replication was successful.
>
> It's been suggested in their blog that they should use a steel tube
> (preferably painted in special black paint) instead of borosilicate
> glass, in order to make sure that there isn't some artifact happening
> with the active wire emissivity changing under loaded conditions and
> affecting temperature readings at the external glass thermocouple.
>
> If that quick and cheap test will be successful too, then the final
> answer will come from proper flow calorimetry.
>
> Cheers,
> S.A.
>



Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Craig
Which parameters were you viewing? Just the low power out? If so, then
it won't be to scale on that range and will look like a straight line
with the exception of where they turned the power off this morning.

Are you seeing the fluctuations that are here?

http://i50.tinypic.com/2e49mbd.jpg

I can't pull up that exact graph, but the fluctuations are similar in
the lower P_Xs Low parameter.

Craig

On 12/13/2012 10:02 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> I went to HUGentView and pulled up a graph with these parameters:
>
> From: 12/12/2012 09:06:31 to 12/13/2012 09:06:31 Type: history
> (yesterday and today)
>
> This is only my impression, but these graphs look far too smooth to be
> cold fusion. All of the actual cold fusion reactions I have seen
> fluctuate much more than this. They increase, decrease and sometimes
> stop for no apparent reason. This looks like an instrument artifact.
>
> - Jed
>



Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Akira Shirakawa

On 2012-12-13 16:02, Jed Rothwell wrote:

This is only my impression, but these graphs look far too smooth to be
cold fusion. All of the actual cold fusion reactions I have seen
fluctuate much more than this. They increase, decrease and sometimes
stop for no apparent reason. This looks like an instrument artifact.


Nevertheless, this appears to be the same effect as reported by Celani 
and Ubaldo Mastromatteo from STMicro: the higher the input power 
applied, the more the glass tube appears to heat compared to calibration 
runs with an inert wire and the active wire under inert conditions. This 
temperature difference appears to be significant. . So, in a way, their 
replication was successful.


It's been suggested in their blog that they should use a steel tube 
(preferably painted in special black paint) instead of borosilicate 
glass, in order to make sure that there isn't some artifact happening 
with the active wire emissivity changing under loaded conditions and 
affecting temperature readings at the external glass thermocouple.


If that quick and cheap test will be successful too, then the final 
answer will come from proper flow calorimetry.


Cheers,
S.A.



Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Jed Rothwell
Typical real cold fusion excess heat looks like this:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIprogressin.pdf

See:

"Exp. # 64a . . . Excess Power of up to 34 watts; Average ~20 watts for 17
h"

This is also how Ni-H cold fusion looks.

Perhaps Celani has discovered a particularly stable form of cold fusion.
Frankly, I doubt it, but I am only guessing. In past cases I recall, stable
reactions that look like this all turned out to be artifacts.

- Jed


Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Jed Rothwell
I went to HUGentView and pulled up a graph with these parameters:

From: 12/12/2012 09:06:31 to 12/13/2012 09:06:31 Type: history (yesterday
and today)

This is only my impression, but these graphs look far too smooth to be cold
fusion. All of the actual cold fusion reactions I have seen fluctuate much
more than this. They increase, decrease and sometimes stop for no apparent
reason. This looks like an instrument artifact.

- Jed


Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Akira Shirakawa

On 2012-12-13 13:25, Craig wrote:

They shut the power off from around 4:30 am EST until around 5:45am EST.
Does anyone know why?


It appears they tried loading it with pure H2 instead of an H2-Ar 
mixture (75%-25%). This might (according to Dr.Celani) increase over 
time the apparent excess heat.


According to MFMP calibrations with the inactive wire, at 1 bar of 
pressure the wire should about 1°C hotter at the input power level 
chosen (48 W), which means that their currently estimated excess heat 
under pure H2 should be about 0.7 higher than under H2-Ar for this 
reason alone. Anything significantly higher than this should be a due to 
a genuine increase of temperatures due to a LENR effect or unknown 
artifacts.


By the way, the controversy with "conservative baselines" arose  because 
the very first calibration performed with the inactive wire under H2-Ar 
gas (thick blue line in the graph below) and the last ones performed 
with the active wire under helium (not shown) showed significantly lower 
external glass temperature readings than the rest of those made with the 
inactive wire with different gases and pressures:


http://www.quantumheat.org/images/PinTout-Calib-Final.png

So, in order to avoid problems due to excess enthusiasm (my 
interpretation) they chose as a baseline the calibration showing the 
highest glass temperatures readings, which means that any possible 
excess heat effect with the active wire under hydrogen atmosphere might 
currently be significantly underestimated.


Of course, this is assuming that LENR is indeed occurring inside the 
cell. There's still the chance that this could all be an unexpected 
error artifact especially since they're measuring temperatures from a 
more or less transparent glass tube.


Cheers,
S.A.



Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-13 Thread Craig
They shut the power off from around 4:30 am EST until around 5:45am EST.
Does anyone know why?

Craig



Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-12 Thread Harry Veeder
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
 wrote:
> At 04:47 PM 12/12/2012, Craig wrote:
>>
>> The have 48 watts of input power now and are getting out 52 - 54 watts on
>> their conservative estimate. Their optimistic estimate shows them at  around
>> 67 - 70 watts out.
>
>
> This may be unfair, because it's a reaction to Craig's comment and not the
> MFM results, but "conservative" and "optimistic" don't really have a place
> in scientific reports. What we want to know is the measure of output power,
> the error bar. It's sounding like it's 52-70 watts, which would be amazingly
> imprecise. (Pons-Fleischmann were measuring in milliwatts, if I'm correct,
> using complex isoperibolic calorimetry, and the accuracy of SRI flow
> calorimetry, solid and much simpler but less precise, was, as I recall +/-
> 50 mW.)
>
> With that much imprecision, the input power of 48 watts is only slightly
> outside the error, and some relatively small unidentified effect might
> explain it.
>
> I'm hoping it's unfair

Unless one is trying to see if the data points are consistent with a
*predicted* curve, I don't think error bars are particularly
instructive at this time.

Harry



Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-12 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

At 04:47 PM 12/12/2012, Craig wrote:
The have 48 watts of input power now and are getting out 52 - 54 
watts on their conservative estimate. Their optimistic estimate 
shows them at  around 67 - 70 watts out.


This may be unfair, because it's a reaction to Craig's comment and 
not the MFM results, but "conservative" and "optimistic" don't really 
have a place in scientific reports. What we want to know is the 
measure of output power, the error bar. It's sounding like it's 52-70 
watts, which would be amazingly imprecise. (Pons-Fleischmann were 
measuring in milliwatts, if I'm correct, using complex isoperibolic 
calorimetry, and the accuracy of SRI flow calorimetry, solid and much 
simpler but less precise, was, as I recall +/- 50 mW.)


With that much imprecision, the input power of 48 watts is only 
slightly outside the error, and some relatively small unidentified 
effect might explain it.


I'm hoping it's unfair 



Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-12 Thread Harry Veeder
Thanks. I hope they do the calorimetry soon.
That should reveal or eliminate any possible heating artifact once and for all.

harry

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Akira Shirakawa
 wrote:
> On 2012-12-12 23:39, Harry Veeder wrote:
>>
>> I am confused about the location(s). Where exactly is/are the Celani
>> replications occuring?
>
>
> In Europe (France) and in the US (Minnesota).
>
> The replication apparently showing excess heat as of now is the European
> one, which is very close to the original Celani experiment (using a
> borosilicate glass tube).
>
> They're planning to set up several different cells soon in the Minnesota lab
> in order to more confidently replicate the excess heat effect and verify
> that it's indeed real.
>
> Cheers,
> S.A.
>



Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-12 Thread Harry Veeder
ok, thanks
harry

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Arnaud Kodeck  wrote:
> Minnesota for US
> South of France for EU
>
>> I am confused about the location(s). Where exactly is/are the Celani
>> replications occuring?
>>
>> Harry
>



Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-12 Thread Akira Shirakawa

On 2012-12-12 23:39, Harry Veeder wrote:

I am confused about the location(s). Where exactly is/are the Celani
replications occuring?


In Europe (France) and in the US (Minnesota).

The replication apparently showing excess heat as of now is the European 
one, which is very close to the original Celani experiment (using a 
borosilicate glass tube).


They're planning to set up several different cells soon in the Minnesota 
lab in order to more confidently replicate the excess heat effect and 
verify that it's indeed real.


Cheers,
S.A.



RE: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-12 Thread Arnaud Kodeck
Minnesota for US
South of France for EU

> I am confused about the location(s). Where exactly is/are the Celani
> replications occuring?
> 
> Harry



Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-12 Thread Harry Veeder
I am confused about the location(s). Where exactly is/are the Celani
replications occuring?

Harry

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Akira Shirakawa
 wrote:
> On 2012-12-12 22:47, Craig wrote:
>>
>> The have 48 watts of input power now and are getting out 52 - 54 watts
>> on their conservative estimate. Their optimistic estimate shows them at
>> around 67 - 70 watts out.
>
>
> The conservative estimate is *really* conservative. Basically, it's the
> calibration with the inert wire which gave the highest external glass
> temperature readings, putting aside that it was running at a lower hydrogen
> pressure (which increases glass temperatures slightly).
>
> Cheers,
> S.A.
>



Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-12 Thread Akira Shirakawa

On 2012-12-12 22:47, Craig wrote:

The have 48 watts of input power now and are getting out 52 - 54 watts
on their conservative estimate. Their optimistic estimate shows them at
around 67 - 70 watts out.


The conservative estimate is *really* conservative. Basically, it's the 
calibration with the inert wire which gave the highest external glass 
temperature readings, putting aside that it was running at a lower 
hydrogen pressure (which increases glass temperatures slightly).


Cheers,
S.A.



Re: [Vo]:MFM Project

2012-12-12 Thread Craig
The have 48 watts of input power now and are getting out 52 - 54 watts
on their conservative estimate. Their optimistic estimate shows them at 
around 67 - 70 watts out.

Craig

On 12/12/2012 04:45 PM, Craig wrote:
> You can follow this latest replication live here:
>
> http://data.hugnetlab.com/
>
> Click on 'View' for Celani Cell #2 and you can follow the live graph.
>
> If you have Google+, you can join a live hangout with them and talk to
> them in real time. The hangout is 'MFMP'.
>
> Craig
>