Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK Article (David Hambling)
Same report, cleansed of Rossi's references, for purposes of publication elsewhere. There has been steady progress in the world of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR), better known as Cold Fusion, in the last few months. The main commercial players have been quiet but the open-source Martin Fleishmann Memorial Project http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/home (MFMP) has made some big steps towards its goal of proving the reality of LENR to a skeptical world. Bob Greenyerhttp://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/facilitators/32-bob-greenyeris one of the driving forces behind the MFMP. He's a successful entrepreneur, having run a diverse portfolio of businesses in the fields of pharmaceuticals, finance, advertising and education. But now he's in a business that costing him money rather than making it, and he loves it. Like the other MFMP team members, he has put in a lot of his own time and money because he believes in the cause. MFMP has no interest in intellectual property, says Greenyer. It wants to share it with the world. One of the MFMP's first aims is a cheap, simple apparatus that can be easily replicated and which shows that new fire (as MFMP terms the reaction) produces energy. It aims to do this as transparently as possible, in an exercise in crowd-sourced engineering. Greenyer calls it science by the people for the people. He has seen the disruptive effects of big egos elsewhere in LENR research and wants to avoid the destructive patterns of rivalry and secrecy which can result. We will work with anyone, whether they are a barrow boy or a nuclear physicist, says Greenyer. In contrast to normal practice where everything is behind closed doors until a paper is published, with the MFMP it's right out in the open. Experimental protocols and detailed results are published day by day on the Replicate section of its website http://www.quantumheat.org/. The only thing that does remain secret is the identity of some of their collaborators, as any association with cold fusion could damage the reputation of most scientists. Greenyer says this open approach has been very successful because it has identified possible flaws in the experimental procedure and allows his team to identify potential criticisms of its setup. This means it should be able to come up with a foolproof demonstration by the end of the process. The MFMP's experiments are based on the work of Italian physicist Francesco Celani, who has made the details of his research available to the group. Celani has given several successful demonstrations over the past year, and his work has beenreplicated by third partieshttp://www.e-catworld.com/2012/12/celani-announces-3rd-party-replication/. The apparatus consists of a nanostructured nickel wire weighing 275 mg loaded with hydrogen. The wire produces roughly four watts extra of excess heat in addition to the fifteen watts supplied. This continues for many hours, showing that far more energy is produced than could be accounted for by a chemical reaction. The challenge is of course in the detail of the setup and ensuring that there is no possible source of error. Four watts from a small length of wire represents a high energy density, But why not crank it up and produce more power to make it that much more obvious? Greenyer says that this would be possible, but the team needs to understand more before it can be done safely. There have been explosions and injuries in LENR labs before now, and a well-designed experiment should be able to provide proof of new fire at the power levels they have. Greenyer notes that the MFMP is well behind where some of the competitors claim to be. But he believes that the advantage of its setup is that it cannot simply be bought out by hostile interests. In addition, its progress may force other researchers into the open if they want to be seen to be ahead. It doesn't matter if we prove it, or if we force others to, says Greenyer. What's important is that this gets recognition. The next few weeks will see some improved experimental approaches that will provide better figures and eradicate possible sources of error. An elaborate protocol will see live and inert wires tested side by side, with the same tests being carried out inmultiple laboratorieshttp://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/follow-2/206-tgoc. The live and inert wires are the same except for the nanostructure in which the reaction occurs. While this may not be the final configuration, if the results continue as they have done it's getting pretty close to a setup that produces measurable amounts of excess heat reliably and repeatably -- what cold fusion researchers have been trying to achieve for 20 years. The next stage for MFMP is to raise funds to demonstrate the technology to the world, using Kickstarter. Greenyer says that one experiment would cost around £50k, if it raises £150k it can set up three independent replications in different countries, £350k would be enough for ten
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
At 12:39 AM 9/17/2012, Eric Walker wrote: On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: You can play with ideas all you want. The information in the subject article from Defkalion is primitive, it's hard to tell what it means. Not just in terms of implication, but in terms of what they actually did to collect it. Read the article and see how ambiguous it all is. Now, of course, maybe I missed something. That happens. I agree -- the Defkalion article is really a set of notes and shouldn't be considered a confirmation.  I'm thinking of the ten or so experiments summarized in section 4.5 of Ed Storms's book in which transmutations were seen in a nickel substrate under hydrogen.  This seems like enough evidence to adopt as a working assumption that Ni/H is bona fide LENR; this might be correct or it might not, but one cannot avoid making assumptions, and that seems like sufficient evidence for adopting the assumption that Ni/H is LENR until there is further evidence to call such an assumption into doubt.  If the confirmation one seeks is correlation with heat, I agree, this is important, and I have not seen it a report of it yet, aside from anecdotal evidence.  But that level of evidence isn't needed for exploration. There is easily enough evidence for NiH LENR to justify exploration. However, there is a skeptical position that deserves recognition. A lot of people, after 1989, started looking for LENR in various places. There is probably as much work done and not published as there has been published. People tend to publish what they consider interesting. In transmutation work, there are ready and knotty contamination problems. EarthTech attempted to replicate some of Miley's work, as I recall, and was able to track down some unexpected contamination sources. A certain level of report, then, may not mean as much as we might think. Rather, a report is a report, and deserves respect. The general assumption in science is that reports are to be trusted as reflections of what the observer found. That does not mean that we assume the observer's interpretations were correct. Data intepretation. So when some unusual report is of interest, what we hope for is replication or other confirmation. A general something unusual report can be quite misleading. This is what undisciplined investigation of a field will commonly produce. Rather, for different researchers to find the same transmutations would be of interest, and if this is correlated with other experimental conditions, across variations, it would be major confirmation. I don't think we have seen that with NiH. We have with PdD, which is why I consider PdD heat -- and even fusion -- to be established science. Established science can be overturned. All someone would have to do is disconfirm heat/helium, to throw it into doubt, and this were done with conclusive identification of the responsible artifact(s), fusion would be dead as an explanation for the FPHE. We'd then have an enormous mystery again: what's the source of the heat? Because it's highly unlikely that all that calorimetry is wrong. The reaction is unreliable, but it does correlate with H/D ratio and with current density and other variables, even if we could somehow shoot down the helium results. Unlikely, I'd say. Storms is talking about low levels of transmutation, not about major levels. I think I've heard him say this as well.  But I also understand that the characterization of transmutations has not been carefully pursued until more recently, so it would be premature to conclude that the levels are known to be low. The levels are known to be low. Remember, I'm talking about PdD. I'm not sure about the levels for NiH, but if there were high levels, I'd think we'd have been hearing a lot more about it.  The ash does not cover all possible products of rare branches or secondary reactions, it refers to the main reaction. We agree on this point. Great. The helium seen in Pd/D systems seemsà compatibleà with catalyzed D or p capture, if there is some kind of subsequent alpha decayà occurring within a palladium substrate; it is possible that this is not energetically favorable in Ni/H systems, though, in which case you would not expect to see 4He as an ash in Ni/H. à It is common in the experiments to see reports of fast protons and alpha particles in the palladium experiments. Actually, it isn't common. There are reports of CR-39 tracks, but the work is problematic, confirmation rare. SPAWAR's non-neutron results are difficult to distinguish from chemical damage. I personally think they might be produced by massive low-energy alphas, under 20 KeV, but that's not a strong belief at all. Referring to the main reaction, there isn't anything above 20 KeV, the Hagelstein limit. I looked further into the question of
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: The back side tracks could only be caused by neutrons, basically. And a gold cathode, from their work, produces a lot more neutrons. This is very interesting. You need to understand that the limit is not absolute. Hagelstein is not saying that the radiation doesn't exist, but that it's not significant, compared to whatever is happening with the main reaction. It occurred to me today that Peter Hagelstein might have in mind a central tendency of some kind in mind. Eric
RE: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
This might be of interest, for transmutation on an even larger scale: POWER LINE STUDIES I: LABORATORY AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND EXPERIMENTS RELATING RADIOACTIVITY AND ALTERNATING ELECTRIC AND/OR MAGNETIC FIELDS ... which is the documentation of transmutation products under high power lines. http://staff.jccc.net/rhammack/section01.html thru http://staff.jccc.net/rhammack/section04.html -Original Message- From: John Newman Moving from the vac tube end of the spectrum to larger sizes, there is scope for closer examination of heavy duty industrial processes. Welding RD literature could be a rich hunting ground for baffled asides citing annoying post-welding impurities.
RE: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
Dave Roberson wrote: I guess I am not sure how to give transmutation at low energy the respect it might deserve. This might help. The general topic of transmutation (not linked to LENR) has been discussed within the Collective many times. and has been mired in obscurity for decades (gee, sound familiar???), because we all know that transmutation is simply another name for alchemy. and we've all been told by the masters that that is just a bunch of hooey. given what you now know about LENR, and the consistent, and wrong, view of LENR, do you all still trust the mainstream's view so completely??? One of the earliest and well researched efforts was Kervan's work with biological transmutations. here's the contents of the Collective's memory on this topic: http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l%40eskimo.com http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l%40eskimo.comq=kervan q=kervan you might start with this thread by the ever-belaboring Mr. Bean himself! http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg00791.html Dig in!! -Mark Iverson From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 10:00 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article Jeff, you have pointed out some interesting papers that allowed me to reconsider the transmutation concept. Thus far I have placed most of these experiments in the same category as ghosts and other difficult spirits to capture. Like the other phenomena, it is impossible to accept unless I witness it several times myself. I and I assume many others have read the articles and placed them in the bin labeled Something must have gone wrong with that test! This type of physics might be relatively common but not accepted due to the lack of understanding. If it is real, then we have a great deal of new things to learn about the natural world. I honestly have no idea about the validity of these papers and my tendency is to assume that there are operator errors. As soon as that assumption is applied, we are back to normal physics where transmutations are not happening under these low energy conditions. We find ourselves in a position similar to that of the main line physicists who refuse to waste time reading about LENR since it can not be true. I guess I am not sure how to give transmutation at low energy the respect it might deserve. Your bringing it up again for discussion might help resolve the issue. Dave -Original Message- From: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Sep 16, 2012 12:05 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article I'm old, so I'm old school. I'm not a physicist, just an experienced observer with a basic science education. After a few months of intensive reading, I'm squarely in the transmutation don't get no respect camp. I particularly like this one: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Castellanonucleartra.pdf No particle acceleration. No electrolysis. In fact, no use of electricity in the experimental setup. No disputable calorimetry - in fact no claims of excess heat. The description of the experimental setup clearly implies reasonable skill in materials handling and laboratory technique. Result: a wide range of heavy-element transmutations. Wtf!? And not just these guys. Also here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTanomalousia.pdf and here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHnucleartra.pdf and here: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Dash-Effect%20o f%20Recrystallization-Paper.pdf These results seem objective, widely replicated, and afaik inexplicable via existing condensed-matter physics. Yet they get very little attention. I'm new in this group, so help me out. The way I learned it, there ain't no philosopher's stone, leaving aside well-understood high-energy fusion and fission reaction processes. What am I missing? Jeff On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 8:30 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: To me 250 electron volts of energy in the form of electron projectiles is incredibly small. The neutron generators that can be had all operate with something like 100 keV which is fairly close to 1000 times larger, and they use deuterons as the projectiles. Why would we think that electrons impacting atoms would generate mutations when there is not enough energy to produce energetic X-rays? If we assume that the elevated temperature of the plate material is responsible, then perhaps so, but the battle to prove that LENR exists in the first place has been difficult. It just seems likely that anyone who has witnessed the transmutation of elements within a low power tube would accept LENR without much question. I would like to see proof that the tube transmutation effect is real and an explanation for its occurrence. Again, how could low energy electrons cause this to happen? If one calculates the expected
RE: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
How embarrassing. All those posts on biological transmutation, and we misspelled the guy's last name in most of them. Should be Kervran, no? From: MarkI-ZeroPoint Dave Roberson wrote: I guess I am not sure how to give transmutation at low energy the respect it might deserve. This might help. The general topic of transmutation (not linked to LENR) has been discussed within the Collective many times. and has been mired in obscurity for decades (gee, sound familiar???), because we all know that transmutation is simply another name for alchemy. and we've all been told by the masters that that is just a bunch of hooey. given what you now know about LENR, and the consistent, and wrong, view of LENR, do you all still trust the mainstream's view so completely??? One of the earliest and well researched efforts was Kervan's work with biological transmutations. here's the contents of the Collective's memory on this topic: http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l%40eskimo.com http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l%40eskimo.comq=kervan q=kervan you might start with this thread by the ever-belaboring Mr. Bean himself! http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg00791.html Dig in!! -Mark Iverson From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 10:00 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article Jeff, you have pointed out some interesting papers that allowed me to reconsider the transmutation concept. Thus far I have placed most of these experiments in the same category as ghosts and other difficult spirits to capture. Like the other phenomena, it is impossible to accept unless I witness it several times myself. I and I assume many others have read the articles and placed them in the bin labeled Something must have gone wrong with that test! This type of physics might be relatively common but not accepted due to the lack of understanding. If it is real, then we have a great deal of new things to learn about the natural world. I honestly have no idea about the validity of these papers and my tendency is to assume that there are operator errors. As soon as that assumption is applied, we are back to normal physics where transmutations are not happening under these low energy conditions. We find ourselves in a position similar to that of the main line physicists who refuse to waste time reading about LENR since it can not be true. I guess I am not sure how to give transmutation at low energy the respect it might deserve. Your bringing it up again for discussion might help resolve the issue. Dave -Original Message- From: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Sep 16, 2012 12:05 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article I'm old, so I'm old school. I'm not a physicist, just an experienced observer with a basic science education. After a few months of intensive reading, I'm squarely in the transmutation don't get no respect camp. I particularly like this one: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Castellanonucleartra.pdf No particle acceleration. No electrolysis. In fact, no use of electricity in the experimental setup. No disputable calorimetry - in fact no claims of excess heat. The description of the experimental setup clearly implies reasonable skill in materials handling and laboratory technique. Result: a wide range of heavy-element transmutations. Wtf!? And not just these guys. Also here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTanomalousia.pdf and here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHnucleartra.pdf and here: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Dash-Effect%20o f%20Recrystallization-Paper.pdf These results seem objective, widely replicated, and afaik inexplicable via existing condensed-matter physics. Yet they get very little attention. I'm new in this group, so help me out. The way I learned it, there ain't no philosopher's stone, leaving aside well-understood high-energy fusion and fission reaction processes. What am I missing? Jeff On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 8:30 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: To me 250 electron volts of energy in the form of electron projectiles is incredibly small. The neutron generators that can be had all operate with something like 100 keV which is fairly close to 1000 times larger, and they use deuterons as the projectiles. Why would we think that electrons impacting atoms would generate mutations when there is not enough energy to produce energetic X-rays? If we assume that the elevated temperature of the plate material is responsible, then perhaps so, but the battle to prove that LENR exists in the first place has been difficult. It just seems likely that anyone who has witnessed the transmutation of elements within a low power tube would accept LENR without much question. I would like to see proof
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Sat, 15 Sep 2012 16:19:26 -0500: Hi, [snip] 1. They appear to be different samples. It is not stated that they are the same reaction material, before and after. The analysis numbers are 07/18/12 #25 for the before, and 07/18/12 #23 for the after. Since two separate analyses are required, one before, and one after, isn't it logical that they would have different numbers? OTOH the fact that the after analysis has a lower number appears to imply some confusion, or someone just assigned the numbers according to a non-obvious order. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 5:14 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Sat, 15 Sep 2012 16:19:26 -0500: Hi, [snip] 1. They appear to be different samples. It is not stated that they are the same reaction material, before and after. The analysis numbers are 07/18/12 #25 for the before, and 07/18/12 #23 for the after. Since two separate analyses are required, one before, and one after, isn't it logical that they would have different numbers? Yes and on different days. This is what PDGTG said in response to the question. http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17t=1290 XRF devises (sic), such the ones we use, label the measurements automatically per day, maintaining a sequential number. We perform such analysis in batches having labeled the samples before and after the reactions. So there is not any discrepancy or wrong labeling in this case. T
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
Okay, these are analysis numbers, not sample numbers, per se. This is not good control, by the way, but that's a different question. Samples should be labelled and then correlated with analysis. Now, what we know is that the two samples were analyzed on the same day. How long was this experiment? So they held the sample from before and analyzed it only later? Was this a sample of the same material or of similar material? I keep coming up with more questions, because the exact procedures used have not been stated. The paper is actually quite short on specific information, and long on theoretical explanation, which has a high probability of being utterly irrelevant. I.e., what they actually did to change the material isn't stated, only some theoretical result. And on and on. My point is that this isn't scientific information. It's a commercial report, heavy on meaning and light on what happened. (I did not claim that there was wrong labelling, only that I couldn't tell what had happened.) The comment quoted below about on different days is mysterious, since the samples, labelled per Defkalion comment, show the same day. I'm not sure at all why they used those sample numbers, since they tell us nothing about the *samples*, but only about the *analytical batch.* At 04:29 PM 9/16/2012, Terry Blanton wrote: On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 5:14 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Sat, 15 Sep 2012 16:19:26 -0500: Hi, [snip] 1. They appear to be different samples. It is not stated that they are the same reaction material, before and after. The analysis numbers are 07/18/12 #25 for the before, and 07/18/12 #23 for the after. Since two separate analyses are required, one before, and one after, isn't it logical that they would have different numbers? Yes and on different days. This is what PDGTG said in response to the question. http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17t=1290 XRF devises (sic), such the ones we use, label the measurements automatically per day, maintaining a sequential number. We perform such analysis in batches having labeled the samples before and after the reactions. So there is not any discrepancy or wrong labeling in this case. T
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
At 04:14 PM 9/16/2012, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Sat, 15 Sep 2012 16:19:26 -0500: Hi, [snip] 1. They appear to be different samples. It is not stated that they are the same reaction material, before and after. The analysis numbers are 07/18/12 #25 for the before, and 07/18/12 #23 for the after. Since two separate analyses are required, one before, and one after, isn't it logical that they would have different numbers? OTOH the fact that the after analysis has a lower number appears to imply some confusion, or someone just assigned the numbers according to a non-obvious order. It's simply the order in which the technician picked up and tested the samples. The exact test method isn't given. From what Defkalion has said, apparently, they ran at least 25 samples that day. There are a host of questions. The data and its intepretation are far from clear.
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: It's simply the order in which the technician picked up and tested the samples. The exact test method isn't given. From what Defkalion has said, apparently, they ran at least 25 samples that day. There are a host of questions. The data and its intepretation are far from clear. You appear to be a supporter of LENR; but, what is more important, your pride or the truth? T
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
That comment is a bit over my line. I think Abd's position is appropriate at this point in time. Jeff On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: It's simply the order in which the technician picked up and tested the samples. The exact test method isn't given. From what Defkalion has said, apparently, they ran at least 25 samples that day. There are a host of questions. The data and its intepretation are far from clear. You appear to be a supporter of LENR; but, what is more important, your pride or the truth? T
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: That comment is a bit over my line. I think Abd's position is appropriate at this point in time. Well, Jeff, I guess my emotions have gotten the better of me. How long have you been seeking a solution to the world's energy problem? I apologize to anyone I offend. Then again, don't expect me to change. T
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
So, how many people here think Defkalion is trying to deceive us? Raise your hands. T
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
Oh, one more question, how many think they (PDGTG) have employed incompetent people, who do not know what they are doing? Hands? T taking a sabbatical
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 8:30:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article To me 250 electron volts of energy in the form of electron projectiles is incredibly small. The neutron generators that can be had all operate with something like 100 keV which is fairly close to 1000 times larger, and they use deuterons as the projectiles. . From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com I couldn't find any reference in a quick search to accumulated transmutations in a triode. Anyone got a reference to an actual report of transmuted elements from vacuum tubes? Searching along these lines did get me to the Farnsworth (of TV fame) Fusor : http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/farnsworth-fusor-carls-jr/ http://carlwillis.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/thesis2.doc 3.0*10^6 neutrons/sec from a 70 kV spherical accelerator.
RE: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
I'm with you on that. However, this does not mean that they have nothing. In fact, the scenario that best fits the facts is that they seen excess heat in that range of COP= 1.5-2; which is significant in itself - but they are burdened with a flawed business plan which was built on the expectation of much better results (and greed). Thus the deception. -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton So, how many people here think Defkalion is trying to deceive us? Raise your hands. T
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
At 04:29 PM 9/16/2012, Terry Blanton wrote: [quoting Defkalion at http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17t=1290] XRF devises (sic), such the ones we use, label the measurements automatically per day, maintaining a sequential number. We perform such analysis in batches having labeled the samples before and after the reactions. So there is not any discrepancy or wrong labeling in this case. There is a subsequent answer on that page: MTd2 wrote: You disclosed changes in composition of the materials. But, what about the isotopic ratio, which really could rule out contamination? Is it possible to say anything now? In public, through this forum, no there is nothing more to say. Such data (and the methods we use to get them as well the handling procedures in use) are available to any interested scientist/researcher/lab that wish to visit, under a NDA, our labs. Off course we valuate such requests based on the scientific record and history of each applicant. Defkalion is not publishing scientific reports, they are deliberately withholding important information. As I've written many times, they certainly have the right to do this, but a consequence of it is that we don't accept what they say just because they say it. Defkalion, in what they are showing, are far ahead of Rossi, but that doesn't say much! Both are concealing more than they reveal. In answering questions about the XRF analysis results, they are quite vague. As for the extra elements origin: Some of them are present in the structure of the internal supporting material inside the reactor whilst some other (such as Cu) are not. In all cases, we try not contaminate the samples using standard handling procedures. Samples of before and after wouldn't discriminate between contamination and production. What would be more interesting would be comparisons of shift in composition before/after, as experimental cell vs. control cell, otherwise identical except perhaps for hydrogen/deuterium or hydrogen/helium. (Deuterium is supposed to be generally inactive in Ni work.) The question asked about isotopic composition was, of course, a crucial one. Most contamination (not necessarily all) would show standard natural isotopic abundance, whereas elements transmuted from other elements would typically show different abundances, giving clues as to the process. XRF is dependent upon the electronic structure of elements, so it only shows the element, not the isotopes of the element, which apparently all show up with the same X-ray flourescent wavelength.
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
In reply to David Roberson's message of Sun, 16 Sep 2012 00:59:46 -0400 (EDT): Hi, [snip] I guess I am not sure how to give transmutation at low energy the respect it might deserve. Your bringing it up again for discussion might help resolve the issue. It's not so difficult to accept, if you look at it from the Hydrino standpoint. Hydrinos form a sort of geometric mean between chemical and nuclear energies. That means that they can also act as a half-way house. If you multiply chemical energy (e.g. 1 eV) with nuclear energy e.g. 1 MeV, and take the square root, you get 1000 eV, which is in the ballpark of 600 eV. What this means is that for about 1000 eV you can force Hydrino chemical reactions, which can in turn, due to their small size lead to nuclear reactions. (tunneling is much faster at much reduced separation distances). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
At 07:58 PM 9/16/2012, Terry Blanton wrote: On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: It's simply the order in which the technician picked up and tested the samples. The exact test method isn't given. From what Defkalion has said, apparently, they ran at least 25 samples that day. There are a host of questions. The data and its intepretation are far from clear. You appear to be a supporter of LENR; but, what is more important, your pride or the truth? My pride is of no importance. Why do you ask? I've come to the conclusion that LENR is real, specifically, that the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect is nuclear in origin and that it is extremely likely to be some form of deuterium fusion, mechanism unknown, though, as Storms says, there are plausible theories, which means we don't fall down laughing. My conclusion is rebuttable, but I've been unable to find any cogent rebuttal. The preponderance of the evidence is clear, and I'm nothing to be particularly proud of in coming to the conclusion I've stated: it appears to be the position supported in mainstream journals as of late, the only problem being that some journals have continued a long-standing blackout of coverage of the field. That is unstable, I doubt it will last long. Basically, Springer-Verlag and Elsevier, the two largest scientific publishers in the world, are eating the lunch of a few holdouts, by publishing in the field. Naturwissenschaften published -- it actually invited -- Edmund Storms' review, Status of cold fusion (2010). It is not going to stand without answer forever. A minor journal, Journal of Environmental Monitoring, published a review of cold fusion, by Krivit and Marwan, and there was a letter from Kirt Shanahan in response. There was then a joint response by most of the major names in the field, demolishing Shanahan's claims, which didn't take much, they were mostly preposterous. And Shanahan has complained that the editors wouldn't allow him further response. The tables have turned. In case people haven't noticed. I think it rather likely that there have been submissions of skeptical papers to journals, but they did not have adequate quality to be published. After a time, Richard Garwin's position, as expressed to CBS News, gets a tad old: They must be making some mistake measuring the input power. Which would absolutely fail to explain heat/helium. Heat/helium, for anyone who was paying attention (which doesn't include most of the physics community), blew the skeptical position out of the water, once Miles was confirmed, all that was left was pseudoskepticism. There is not this level of evidence for nickel-hydrogen reactions. I'm sympathetic to reports, but am quite wary of jumping to conclusions about them. Obviously, NiH, if it works, is likely to be far more practical than PdD. The latter is, at this point, a scientific curiosity. Maybe commercial applications will eventually appear for it, but a lot of money has been spent trying, without result. NiH has only recently begun to get serious attention, and most of this has been commercially afflicted. Dr. Storms thinks that both PdD and NiH involve the same process. That's actually an assumption of his, though, it's not clearly demonstrated. (He is explicit about this.) I would not reject a PdD process proposal merely because it wouldn't work with NiH, nor the reverse. I consider that no assumption based on PdD research can be taken as applying automatically to NiH work. And, absolutely, we don't know the ash. The Defkalion paper gives us some clues, perhaps, but not the data we would need to have any kind of certainty, and I don't find even reasonable surmise very possible from it. I've suggested what kind of data would be more likely to allow that, but we are not likely to get that data from Defkalion unless they change their approach.
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
I didn't mean to take a shot at you Terry. Answers to your three questions. How long? Not long (although I've followed the subject on and off since 1989) - no credentials here. Trying to deceive us? No. Incompetent people? No. I believe we do them a favor by being professionally skeptical and asking hard questions. The rest of the world will. Jeff On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Oh, one more question, how many think they (PDGTG) have employed incompetent people, who do not know what they are doing? Hands? T taking a sabbatical
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
At 08:26 PM 9/16/2012, Terry Blanton wrote: On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: That comment is a bit over my line. I think Abd's position is appropriate at this point in time. Well, Jeff, I guess my emotions have gotten the better of me. How long have you been seeking a solution to the world's energy problem? I apologize to anyone I offend. Then again, don't expect me to change. As you say. Basically, if you say you can change, you can. And if you say you cannot change, you cannot. Usually. Sometimes lightning strikes. Now, I'm not seeking a solution to the world's energy problem, because I don't see the world as having an energy problem. We will adapt or we will die. What's the problem? Rather, my interest is in science and how we understand reality. I'm not attached to specifics, more than a little. Right now, I'm looking at some radiation detectors, LR-115, seeing if I can make any sense out of the tracks. They may have been a little underdeveloped, but I'm not eager to drop them in the caustic solution for longer. Underdeveloped could mean crisper images. If I'm too hot for energy solutions, my judgment could easily be be warped. I just want to see what the detectors show, I don't want to see what I want to see, unless that's what nature intends to show me. Ultimately, if I find anything of significance here, I'll have someone else do an analysis, who doesn't know the experimental conditions to which the detectors were exposed.
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
If you want relatively copious transmutation reactions, you use high voltages. I don't know the rates, specifically, but I'd not be surprised to find some low level of transmutation at 100 V. That's pretty hot, anyone know the equivalent temperature? From Wikipedia, I come up with 100 eV as being about a million degrees K. That's not ordinarily considered hot enough for fusion, but hot enough means fusion at an appreciable rate. If a tube has years to accumulate stuff, I wouldn't be surprised at all, and that was my point. The papers that were linked in another post, from Rex Research, were about high voltage discharge tubes. One produced a 12 inch spark. What is that, 200 KV? I forget. The information below showed 3 million neutrons per second, indicating perhaps six million fusions (depends on the reaction) per second, at 70 KV. So could those old results have been coming from fusion? Reasonably likely, in fact. So? Cold fusion involves much higher reaction rates than one would get in plasma experiments at the 10-20 volts that might be used in electrochemical work. And, folks, no neutrons, no gammas, not from PdD, at any rate. Cold fusion is something quite different. Nobody came up with references to an accumulation of transmutations in old triode vacuum tubes, as used in amplifiers and such. I wasn't looking for things like high voltage discharge tubes or the Farnsworth Fusor! The latter was specifically designed to create standard hot fusion. Yes, it's a vacuum tube but not what we were talking about. At 09:00 PM 9/16/2012, Alan Fletcher wrote: From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 8:30:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article To me 250 electron volts of energy in the form of electron projectiles is incredibly small. The neutron generators that can be had all operate with something like 100 keV which is fairly close to 1000 times larger, and they use deuterons as the projectiles. . From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com I couldn't find any reference in a quick search to accumulated transmutations in a triode. Anyone got a reference to an actual report of transmuted elements from vacuum tubes? Searching along these lines did get me to the Farnsworth (of TV fame) Fusor : http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/farnsworth-fusor-carls-jr/ http://carlwillis.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/thesis2.doc 3.0*10^6 neutrons/sec from a 70 kV spherical accelerator.
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
This page is not widely known? -- Dozens of scientific papers were published between 1905 and 1927 concerning the mysterious appearance of hydrogen, helium and neon in vacuum tubes. The matter never has been resolved. http://www.levity.com/alchemy/nelson2_6.html Jeff On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: If you want relatively copious transmutation reactions, you use high voltages. I don't know the rates, specifically, but I'd not be surprised to find some low level of transmutation at 100 V. That's pretty hot, anyone know the equivalent temperature? From Wikipedia, I come up with 100 eV as being about a million degrees K. That's not ordinarily considered hot enough for fusion, but hot enough means fusion at an appreciable rate. If a tube has years to accumulate stuff, I wouldn't be surprised at all, and that was my point. The papers that were linked in another post, from Rex Research, were about high voltage discharge tubes. One produced a 12 inch spark. What is that, 200 KV? I forget. The information below showed 3 million neutrons per second, indicating perhaps six million fusions (depends on the reaction) per second, at 70 KV. So could those old results have been coming from fusion? Reasonably likely, in fact. So? Cold fusion involves much higher reaction rates than one would get in plasma experiments at the 10-20 volts that might be used in electrochemical work. And, folks, no neutrons, no gammas, not from PdD, at any rate. Cold fusion is something quite different. Nobody came up with references to an accumulation of transmutations in old triode vacuum tubes, as used in amplifiers and such. I wasn't looking for things like high voltage discharge tubes or the Farnsworth Fusor! The latter was specifically designed to create standard hot fusion. Yes, it's a vacuum tube but not what we were talking about. At 09:00 PM 9/16/2012, Alan Fletcher wrote: From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 8:30:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article To me 250 electron volts of energy in the form of electron projectiles is incredibly small. The neutron generators that can be had all operate with something like 100 keV which is fairly close to 1000 times larger, and they use deuterons as the projectiles. . From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com I couldn't find any reference in a quick search to accumulated transmutations in a triode. Anyone got a reference to an actual report of transmuted elements from vacuum tubes? Searching along these lines did get me to the Farnsworth (of TV fame) Fusor : http://carlwillis.wordpress.**com/2008/02/17/farnsworth-**fusor-carls-jr/http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/farnsworth-fusor-carls-jr/ http://carlwillis.files.**wordpress.com/2008/02/thesis2.**dochttp://carlwillis.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/thesis2.doc 3.0*10^6 neutrons/sec from a 70 kV spherical accelerator.
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
At 10:24 PM 9/16/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: This page is not widely known? -- I refer to that page below, the Rex Research page, at least in one incarnation. High voltage. (no more original content below). Dozens of scientific papers were published between 1905 and 1927 concerning the mysterious appearance of hydrogen, helium and neon in vacuum tubes. The matter never has been resolved. http://www.levity.com/alchemy/nelson2_6.htmlhttp://www.levity.com/alchemy/nelson2_6.html Jeff On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: If you want relatively copious transmutation reactions, you use high voltages. I don't know the rates, specifically, but I'd not be surprised to find some low level of transmutation at 100 V. That's pretty hot, anyone know the equivalent temperature? From Wikipedia, I come up with 100 eV as being about a million degrees K. That's not ordinarily considered hot enough for fusion, but hot enough means fusion at an appreciable rate. If a tube has years to accumulate stuff, I wouldn't be surprised at all, and that was my point. The papers that were linked in another post, from Rex Research, were about high voltage discharge tubes. One produced a 12 inch spark. What is that, 200 KV? I forget. The information below showed 3 million neutrons per second, indicating perhaps six million fusions (depends on the reaction) per second, at 70 KV. So could those old results have been coming from fusion? Reasonably likely, in fact. So? Cold fusion involves much higher reaction rates than one would get in plasma experiments at the 10-20 volts that might be used in electrochemical work. And, folks, no neutrons, no gammas, not from PdD, at any rate. Cold fusion is something quite different. Nobody came up with references to an accumulation of transmutations in old triode vacuum tubes, as used in amplifiers and such. I wasn't looking for things like high voltage discharge tubes or the Farnsworth Fusor! The latter was specifically designed to create standard hot fusion. Yes, it's a vacuum tube but not what we were talking about. At 09:00 PM 9/16/2012, Alan Fletcher wrote: From: David Roberson mailto:dlrober...@aol.comdlrober...@aol.com To: mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.comvortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 8:30:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article To me 250 electron volts of energy in the form of electron projectiles is incredibly small. The neutron generators that can be had all operate with something like 100 keV which is fairly close to 1000 times larger, and they use deuterons as the projectiles. . From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com I couldn't find any reference in a quick search to accumulated transmutations in a triode. Anyone got a reference to an actual report of transmuted elements from vacuum tubes? Searching along these lines did get me to the Farnsworth (of TV fame) Fusor : http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/farnsworth-fusor-carls-jr/http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/farnsworth-fusor-carls-jr/ http://carlwillis.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/thesis2.doc 3.0*10^6 neutrons/sec from a 70 kV spherical accelerator.
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: You can play with ideas all you want. The information in the subject article from Defkalion is primitive, it's hard to tell what it means. Not just in terms of implication, but in terms of what they actually did to collect it. Read the article and see how ambiguous it all is. Now, of course, maybe I missed something. That happens. I agree -- the Defkalion article is really a set of notes and shouldn't be considered a confirmation. I'm thinking of the ten or so experiments summarized in section 4.5 of Ed Storms's book in which transmutations were seen in a nickel substrate under hydrogen. This seems like enough evidence to adopt as a working assumption that Ni/H is bona fide LENR; this might be correct or it might not, but one cannot avoid making assumptions, and that seems like sufficient evidence for adopting the assumption that Ni/H is LENR until there is further evidence to call such an assumption into doubt. If the confirmation one seeks is correlation with heat, I agree, this is important, and I have not seen it a report of it yet, aside from anecdotal evidence. But that level of evidence isn't needed for exploration. Storms is talking about low levels of transmutation, not about major levels. I think I've heard him say this as well. But I also understand that the characterization of transmutations has not been carefully pursued until more recently, so it would be premature to conclude that the levels are known to be low. The ash does not cover all possible products of rare branches or secondary reactions, it refers to the main reaction. We agree on this point. The helium seen in Pd/D systems seems compatible with catalyzed D or p capture, if there is some kind of subsequent alpha decay occurring within a palladium substrate; it is possible that this is not energetically favorable in Ni/H systems, though, in which case you would not expect to see 4He as an ash in Ni/H.  It is common in the experiments to see reports of fast protons and alpha particles in the palladium experiments. Actually, it isn't common. There are reports of CR-39 tracks, but the work is problematic, confirmation rare. SPAWAR's non-neutron results are difficult to distinguish from chemical damage. I personally think they might be produced by massive low-energy alphas, under 20 KeV, but that's not a strong belief at all. Referring to the main reaction, there isn't anything above 20 KeV, the Hagelstein limit. I looked further into the question of alpha decay in palladium, and it does not appear to be energetically favorable -- that was just speculation on my part and not intended to be a summary of any experimental evidence. I've seen a lot of reports of hot alphas and protons; i.e., the CR-39 tracks -- are this the results you were questioning, or am I misreading the paragraph above? I believe there are studies from the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre using this approach as well showing similar results, although it's been a little while since I've reviewed them, so I might be mistaken. It is this kind of evidence, in which there are 11MeV alpha particles and 2MeV protons, that leads me to question the proposed 20KeV limit; that seems to me to be simply being selective about the experimental record. I appreciate that the CR-39 experiments may be problematic, and I know almost nothing about how they are carried out or what goes into them. But they will continue to cast doubt in my mind about the proposed limit until they are completely discredited. It's fine to adopt such a limit as a working hypothesis, however. :) I would compare what's in the before and after Defkalion charts, but basic details are missing: I didn't have the Defkalion charts in mind, although I think they're interesting. Only very primitive science is done with anecdotal evidence. Unfortunately, a lot of cold fusion work has been like this. We did X and Y, and we saw this amazing result, Z. I hope I haven't been understood to suggest that this is the main thrust of science. While it's interesting, and the kind of stuff that people share at conferences or informally, it's far more interesting, scientifically, if we have We did X and Y, 50 times, and this is the range of results we saw. We altered Y to Z, and this is the range of results we saw. And then when someone else independently confirms this, we have real science. If someone tries to confirm it and fails, we have not necessarily lost anything, because confirmations can fail for lots of reasons; what we then have is more work to do Agreed. These are the results that form the basis of journal articles. But there is a large amount of exploratory work that must precede the level of rigor that goes into the articles, and this exploratory work is just as much the business of science as the subsequent activity of drawing measured conclusions that takes place
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
thanks for the data. anyway the results are much less replicated in volume than PdD electrolysis. However in Cold fusion, based on the huge LENr evidence with PdD, we should maybe stop treating LENR as fringe science, doubting of any even reputed scientist results... there are many claimed results by different, competing, scientists. it is a normal science domain, like superconduction, and when 4 scientist, with different protocols, claims high energy density with NiH, we can be confident. when we see industrial jumping on the bandwagon, we can expect they businessly lie, but (except rossi) that they dont lie totally... LENr is hard science. we shoul not keep our Stockholm syndrome. to be honest I'm even more skeptical than a corporate innovator I know... for him, all is clear, much clearer than many usual technologies with weaker claims. Nothing is sure in real life, and LENr existence is one of the most solid fact. 2012/9/15 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *We don't know whether NiH results are actually LENR, because we don't know what the ash is and therefore we don't know what the reaction is.* Abd ul-Rahman Lomax and Jed Rothwell be advised that Defkalion has provided us with a comprehensive list of ash products that resulted from the long term operation of their pre-industrial Hyperion product. This information is available for reference in the Defkalion document titled: TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS PERFORMANCE OF THE DEFKALION’S HYPERION PRE-INDUSTRIAL PRODUCT. The nuclear reaction reflected in this ash description seems to be a mix of complex fusion and fission nuclear reactions. Such a mix of reactions might be expected when the coulomb barrier is lowered in varying degrees that range from slight to total. This lowering seems to happen in a random way in terms of intensity. It also points to the likelihood these various nuclear reactions occur respectively many time to both virgin and repeatedly transmuted elements and are not restricted to just nickel (Ni58, Ni60, Ni62and Ni64 stable isotopes). Isotopic shifts in the transmutation products are also documented. Similar assays of ash products have been documented in a number of LENR experimental references down through the years. This recently available document should be accessible for reference in the Rothwell LENR library. Cheers:Axil On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 12:26 PM 9/14/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote: Cold fusion: smoke and mirrors, or raising a head of steam? http://www.wired.co.uk/news/**archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusionhttp://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusion With friends like this, who needs enemies? The article does, at least, pay some attention to developments, but: 1. NiH reactions are not scientifically established. The article does distinguish between Rossi et al and other more scientific groups, but then essentially makes them seem similar. Celani is reported, but ... Celani has not been confirmed. 2. unlike Rossi, Celani has plenty of theoretical physics to support it. Uh, Celani may propose a different theoretical explanation, but the author is presenting an opinion without sourcing it. This field is still almost entirely experimental, no theories, yet, have been shown to be adequate for predicting results, quantitatively, which is the crux of the matter. 3. Toyota funded cold fusion research in the 90s to the tune of £12 million, but was discouraged by negative results. The immediate impression created? Even spending $12 million, we might think, researchers for Toyota were unable to confirm the effect. Is that true? Toyota funded Pons and Fleischmann's work in France, and that work showed plenty of confirmation. However, the results were likely disappointing to a commercial funder, who would be interested, quite likely, in practical application. The Wired article does not distinguish between the science (real, established) and commercial practicality, plus the huge flap over Rossi et al (news, controversial, not scientifically established.) 4. Perhaps Brillouin's biggest claim is that their results are consistently repeatable -- something of a Holy Grail in a field where results notoriously fail to get replicated. And then they drive another nail in the coffin of the truth. The big myth about cold fusion is that it was impossible to reproduce. That's based on the fact that the original reaction, set up using electrolysis of heavy water with a palladium cathode, is chaotic, primarily due to the shifting nanostructure of the palladium, but also from sensitivity to other conditions. *The same cathode* would produce no significant heat at one time, then, under what appeared to be the same conditions, nothing changed except the history of the cathode is now different, measured in the same way, significant heat would be evolved, way above noise. However, ultimately, a
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: We don't know whether NiH results are actually LENR, because we don't know what the ash is and therefore we don't know what the reaction is. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax and Jed Rothwell be advised that Defkalion has provided us with a comprehensive list of ash products that resulted from the long term operation of their pre-industrial Hyperion product. Yes and in my exchange with PDGTG they implied that they were taking Hydrogen and making Boron. If they are right, we are seeing the microscopic equivalent of the star birthing nebula in Orion: http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/399/cache/space159-orion-nebula-star-forming-region_39921_600x450.jpg in the cracks of Nickel. The implication is that, in the cracks of the metal, almost all that we have discussed is happening and electrons an protons are combining to directly form these heavier elements. T
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
The first quoted sentence should be attributed to Abd. On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: We don't know whether NiH results are actually LENR, because we don't know what the ash is and therefore we don't know what the reaction is. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax and Jed Rothwell be advised that Defkalion has provided us with a comprehensive list of ash products that resulted from the long term operation of their pre-industrial Hyperion product. Yes and in my exchange with PDGTG they implied that they were taking Hydrogen and making Boron. If they are right, we are seeing the microscopic equivalent of the star birthing nebula in Orion: http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/399/cache/space159-orion-nebula-star-forming-region_39921_600x450.jpg in the cracks of Nickel. The implication is that, in the cracks of the metal, almost all that we have discussed is happening and electrons an protons are combining to directly form these heavier elements. T
RE: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
Terry, The caveat of this is that it is mundane: all electrical discharges produce transmutation over time. That is the nature of QM tunneling. You can take any old triode from an old TV set - and apply the same type of XRF testing to the plates, and find boron plus a Cornucopia of transmuted elements. Dozens! And in every single tube! Roy Hammack and others have done this. It is mundane. Since we can say with certainty that QM transmutation due to tunneling is ubiquitous in electrical arcs over time - the problem shifts to one of correlating transmutation to excess energy. That is most difficult. AS we know triodes are inherently lossy, so transmutation alone guarantees nothing. Is Defkalion capable of doing this? -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton The first quoted sentence should be attributed to Abd. On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: We don't know whether NiH results are actually LENR, because we don't know what the ash is and therefore we don't know what the reaction is. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax and Jed Rothwell be advised that Defkalion has provided us with a comprehensive list of ash products that resulted from the long term operation of their pre-industrial Hyperion product. Yes and in my exchange with PDGTG they implied that they were taking Hydrogen and making Boron. If they are right, we are seeing the microscopic equivalent of the star birthing nebula in Orion: http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/399/cache/spa ce159-orion-nebula-star-forming-region_39921_600x450.jpg in the cracks of Nickel. The implication is that, in the cracks of the metal, almost all that we have discussed is happening and electrons an protons are combining to directly form these heavier elements. T attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
I think the stellar analogy holds the answer, Jones. But, it is not the normal star like Sol that we should study. It is white dwarfs and neutron stars. Negative resistance in magnetized plasmas has been known to exist for decades. So we know there is an energy source. Degenerate matter is forming within these Storms Discontinuities, possibly relativistic as has been speculated here. Are we seeing Color Superconductors? At the limit of Chandrasekhar mass electrons and protons do form neutrons and neutrinos. Is the degenerate state simulating this limit? It was CE's black hole idea that got me thinking like this. I'll probably get over it. Or not. T
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
Significant power production from a LENR reactor might simply come down to the number of nuclear reactions that happen per unit of time. If Defkalion can generate 10^^23 reactions per second, even if each of these separate reactions only produce a relatively small power contributions, their total can add to a large number. It’s simple arithmetic. A prolific reaction rate can make up for a poor fusion power production profile. This is what Peter means when he says that LENR+ works and LENR doen’t. It all boils down to the reaction production rate. The LENR production rate is small whereas the LENR+ power production rate is high. Cheers:Axil On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Terry, The caveat of this is that it is mundane: all electrical discharges produce transmutation over time. That is the nature of QM tunneling. You can take any old triode from an old TV set - and apply the same type of XRF testing to the plates, and find boron plus a Cornucopia of transmuted elements. Dozens! And in every single tube! Roy Hammack and others have done this. It is mundane. Since we can say with certainty that QM transmutation due to tunneling is ubiquitous in electrical arcs over time - the problem shifts to one of correlating transmutation to excess energy. That is most difficult. AS we know triodes are inherently lossy, so transmutation alone guarantees nothing. Is Defkalion capable of doing this? -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton The first quoted sentence should be attributed to Abd. On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: We don't know whether NiH results are actually LENR, because we don't know what the ash is and therefore we don't know what the reaction is. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax and Jed Rothwell be advised that Defkalion has provided us with a comprehensive list of ash products that resulted from the long term operation of their pre-industrial Hyperion product. Yes and in my exchange with PDGTG they implied that they were taking Hydrogen and making Boron. If they are right, we are seeing the microscopic equivalent of the star birthing nebula in Orion: http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/399/cache/spa ce159-orion-nebula-star-forming-region_39921_600x450.jpghttp://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/399/cache/space159-orion-nebula-star-forming-region_39921_600x450.jpg in the cracks of Nickel. The implication is that, in the cracks of the metal, almost all that we have discussed is happening and electrons an protons are combining to directly form these heavier elements. T
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
No, they didn't. To be characterized as an ash proper, that is, as the main product of the reaction, it has to correlate with the output energy. They did't do that. 2012/9/15 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com Abd ul-Rahman Lomax and Jed Rothwell be advised that Defkalion has provided us with a comprehensive list of ash products that resulted from the long term operation of their pre-industrial Hyperion product. This information is available for reference in the Defkalion do -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The nuclear reaction reflected in this ash description seems to be a mix of complex fusion and fission nuclear reactions. Such a mix of reactions might be expected when the coulomb barrier is lowered in varying degrees that range from slight to total. This lowering seems to happen in a random way in terms of intensity. It also points to the likelihood these various nuclear reactions occur respectively many time to both virgin and repeatedly transmuted elements and are not restricted to just nickel (Ni58, Ni60, Ni62and Ni64 stable isotopes). Isotopic shifts in the transmutation products are also documented. Agreed. Ni/H has been confirmed, in a sense, unless we are to quibble over the meaning of the word, in which case we must ask what it means for the Pd/D experiments to be confirmed where the Ni/H experiments are not. See sec. 4.5 of Ed Storms's book. Although there are fewer experiments reporting on Ni/H, there are enough to be able to adopt some working assumptions about the existence of the Ni/H reaction. As a side note, I notice that Storms concludes in this section that there must be something like capture of p or D or more complex species within nuclei that make up the different substrates (Pd, Ni, W, Ti, etc.) and in impurities that form in the substrates. There are several significant details that support this conclusion. They include a lack of radioisotopes that would be expected to linger around after the reaction shuts off if there were neutron capture going on, the shift in stable isotopes and the unexpectedly low correlation of neutrons with anomalous heat. Although catalyzed capture of D and p sounds like a crazy idea, on the basis of the reasonable objection that there is Coulomb repulsion to be dealt with, I suspect that Defkalion and Andrea Rossi will be vindicated in the end. I am not a betting man, but perhaps some of you would like to start up a pool? The helium seen in Pd/D systems seems compatible with catalyzed D or p capture, if there is some kind of subsequent alpha decay occurring within a palladium substrate; it is possible that this is not energetically favorable in Ni/H systems, though, in which case you would not expect to see 4He as an ash in Ni/H. It is common in the experiments to see reports of fast protons and alpha particles in the palladium experiments. Eric
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: You can take any old triode from an old TV set - and apply the same type of XRF testing to the plates, and find boron plus a Cornucopia of transmuted elements. Dozens! And in every single tube! Roy Hammack and others have done this. It is mundane. Since we can say with certainty that QM transmutation due to tunneling is ubiquitous in electrical arcs over time - the problem shifts to one of correlating transmutation to excess energy. That is most difficult. AS we know triodes are inherently lossy, so transmutation alone guarantees nothing. This is an important question -- are the transmutations just a peripheral effect, or can they be correlated with anomalous heat? My sense is that the jury is still out, and that the researchers haven't been paying close attention to this until more recently. (I do not see correlation of 4He with heat in Pd/D systems as a counter-argument, since it is possible that this is due to alpha decay, or that there is agglomeration of the kind that Terry hinted at.) It's actually pretty cool that transmutations are a well-known result of electric arc discharges, if this is true. Perhaps this has been LENR all along, staring back at us, but we wanted to build Tokamaks. Eric
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=2cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CCYQFjABurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnewenergytimes.com%2Fv2%2Farchives%2Ffic%2FJ%2FJNE1N3.PDFei=5NhUUJcDpuvSAYaRgMADusg=AFQjCNHLzO1yj1a8km7ia4txRjAaseKw_Qsig2=GqC2L98oUVx6HKY5TpS9OQCoulomb This reference: “The developing technology of transmutation by Miley et al” addresses why your expectations regarding transmutation charactorization are excessive. Cheers: Axil On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: No, they didn't. To be characterized as an ash proper, that is, as the main product of the reaction, it has to correlate with the output energy. They did't do that. 2012/9/15 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com Abd ul-Rahman Lomax and Jed Rothwell be advised that Defkalion has provided us with a comprehensive list of ash products that resulted from the long term operation of their pre-industrial Hyperion product. This information is available for reference in the Defkalion do -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
T Thanks, I need all the support can get! I have been more research on my theory, I think if the reaction is along the lines of my theory we should be looking for Extremely Low Frequency(ELF) Radiation or ULF(ultra) in the 0-5 Hz range generated from the anomalous heat effect. Which BTW is also used to communicate with military subs... see OSHA http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/elfradiation/index.html ** On Saturday, September 15, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote: I think the stellar analogy holds the answer, Jones. But, it is not the normal star like Sol that we should study. It is white dwarfs and neutron stars. Negative resistance in magnetized plasmas has been known to exist for decades. So we know there is an energy source. Degenerate matter is forming within these Storms Discontinuities, possibly relativistic as has been speculated here. Are we seeing Color Superconductors? At the limit of Chandrasekhar mass electrons and protons do form neutrons and neutrinos. Is the degenerate state simulating this limit? It was CE's black hole idea that got me thinking like this. I'll probably get over it. Or not. T
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
No, it doesn't address. There is just a list of elements that supposed transmuted, none of them with no error bars. Besides, what I want is to correlate the quantity of ash in time vs. output energy in time. This is the correlation. 2012/9/15 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com This reference: “The developing technology of transmutation by Miley et al” addresses why your expectations regarding transmutation charactorization are excessive. Cheers: Axi -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
At 12:40 AM 9/15/2012, Axil Axil wrote: We don't know whether NiH results are actually LENR, because we don't know what the ash is and therefore we don't know what the reaction is. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax and Jed Rothwell be advised that Defkalion has provided us with a comprehensive list of ash products that resulted from the long term operation of their pre-industrial Hyperion product. This information is available for reference in the Defkalion document titled: TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS PERFORMANCE OF THE DEFKALION'S HYPERION PRE-INDUSTRIAL PRODUCT. I'm going to repeat, *we* don't know what the ash is. That paper is inadequate to establish the ash, except as speculation from a single run. The nuclear reaction reflected in this ash description seems to be a mix of complex fusion and fission nuclear reactions. What ash description? Ash would be material produced that was not there previously. Ash would be confirmed through correlation with heat, this can't be done with a single-point analysis. The report does show a before a test run and one after a test run, but 1. They appear to be different samples. It is not stated that they are the same reaction material, before and after. The analysis numbers are 07/18/12 #25 for the before, and 07/18/12 #23 for the after. 2. There is no report of the energy generated. 3. In Miles' work with PdD, the samples were analyzed blind. There is no indication that any similar precautions were taken. 4. They claim that the analyses are of the NAE, which is Storn's term, and they distinguish between the NAE and the material, but they say nothing about how they manage to analyze the NAE without analyzing the material. Do they mean surface? 5. Surface composition of a material may shift as a result of hydrogen activity, without any transmutation at all. That is why correlation with heat is so important. Helium alone, in PdD experiments, would not be strong evidence of transmutation. It was correlation that made the identity of helium, as the ash, clear. We don't know the ash until reports are independently confirmed, and the paper states that this is not possible, essentially. Whatever tests are done must be done in Defkalion's lab, they say, under NDA. This is proprietary and confidential commercial activity, not science. Note that they have the right to do this. However, they, by the same token, have the right to operate outside of scientific protocols and the process of the development of scientific knowledge. There is more information in that paper than we had before, but it's all single-source information. They say they operated a cell for 6 weeks as the longest test protocol run with the same charge. Great. What was the heat performance of that cell? They don't say! They merely say that there wasn't any drop in performance. This is not a peer-reviewed paper, and I'd consider it inadequate to pass reasonable peer review. It's a company report, and it's heaviest on what the company knows least: theory. They know what they actually did, and they know what the actual results were, and they are not telling. They are speculating about theory, wandering off into Widom-Larsen, the solar corona, and other distractions to justify LENR, as if LENR needs justification. We don't need to know if LENR is real, we need to know if Defkalion has an approach that works reliably, and, for confirmation and the development of theory, we need to know the heat/ash ratios. (a working product will be its own proof, but we will still need, for the long term, to know the ash, and its relationship with energy, so that theories about mechanism can be vetted.) I found the paper at http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Hadjichristos-Technical-Characteristics-Paper.pdf
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
At 02:14 PM 9/15/2012, Eric Walker wrote: On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Axil Axil mailto:janap...@gmail.comjanap...@gmail.com wrote: The nuclear reaction reflected in this ash description seems to be a mix of complex fusion and fission nuclear reactions. Such a mix of reactions might be expected when the coulomb barrier is lowered in varying degrees that range from slight to total. This lowering seems to happen in a random way in terms of intensity. It also points to the likelihood these various nuclear reactions occur respectively many time to both virgin and repeatedly transmuted elements and are not restricted to just nickel (Ni58, Ni60, Ni62and Ni64 stable isotopes). Isotopic shifts in the transmutation products are also documented. Agreed.  Ni/H has been confirmed, in a sense, unless we are to quibble over the meaning of the word, in which case we must ask what it means for the Pd/D experiments to be confirmed where the Ni/H experiments are not.  See sec. 4.5 of Ed Storms's book.  Although there are fewer experiments reporting on Ni/H, there are enough to be able to adopt some working assumptions about the existence of the Ni/H reaction. You can play with ideas all you want. The information in the subject article from Defkalion is primitive, it's hard to tell what it means. Not just in terms of implication, but in terms of what they actually did to collect it. Read the article and see how ambiguous it all is. Now, of course, maybe I missed something. That happens. As a side note, I notice that Storms concludes in this section that there must be something like capture of p or D or more complex species within nuclei that make up the different substrates (Pd, Ni, W, Ti, etc.) and in impurities that form in the substrates.  There are several significant details that support this conclusion.  They include a lack of radioisotopes that would be expected to linger around after the reaction shuts off if there were neutron capture going on, the shift in stable isotopes and the unexpectedly low correlation of neutrons with anomalous heat.  Although catalyzed capture of D and p sounds like a crazy idea, on the basis of the reasonable objection that there is Coulomb repulsion to be dealt with, I suspect that Defkalion and Andrea Rossi will be vindicated in the end.  I am not a betting man, but perhaps some of you would like to start up a pool? Storms is talking about low levels of transmutation, not about major levels. The ash does not cover all possible products of rare branches or secondary reactions, it refers to the main reaction. If fusion is taking place, even under conditions that usually produce no other transmutation, relatively rare secondary reactions are quite likely to occur. SPAWAR has reported very low levels of neutrons at about 14 MeV (and those produce proton tracks, plus rare triple tracks). That tells us practically nothing about the main reaction, the levels are so low. (As I recall, They theorize that the neutrons are from D-T fusion, perhaps from rare hot deuterons or the like.) The helium seen in Pd/D systems seems compatible with catalyzed D or p capture, if there is some kind of subsequent alpha decay occurring within a palladium substrate; it is possible that this is not energetically favorable in Ni/H systems, though, in which case you would not expect to see 4He as an ash in Ni/H.  It is common in the experiments to see reports of fast protons and alpha particles in the palladium experiments. Actually, it isn't common. There are reports of CR-39 tracks, but the work is problematic, confirmation rare. SPAWAR's non-neutron results are difficult to distinguish from chemical damage. I personally think they might be produced by massive low-energy alphas, under 20 KeV, but that's not a strong belief at all. Referring to the main reaction, there isn't anything above 20 KeV, the Hagelstein limit. Storms thinks that NiH is operating by the same mechanism, fed by protium and/or deuterium, but that's actually an explicit *assumption* of his. It might be correct, it might not be. I would compare what's in the before and after Defkalion charts, but basic details are missing: 1. Is this a before and after from the same material? 2. Or is it one material for before and a different material from after. 3. How are the error values determined? Is that variance from multiple analyses *of the same sample*? 4. What is the range of values for different samples from the same basic material? 5. Lastly, how does the analysis vary based on different levels of energy generated from the sample? As others have pointed out, there are multiple possible sources for anomalous elements. If high voltage discharges are used, these might produce transmutations themselves. Hence controls would be appropriate, probably many different kinds of controls. Only very primitive science is done with
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
I would be surprised if no one has done extensive research into these transmutations. By now, they must have some idea as to how this happens or they lack curiosity. If this has been swept under the table over the years it makes one wonder how many other important discoveries are hidden. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Sep 15, 2012 3:37 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: You can take any old triode from an old TV set - and apply the same type of XRF testing to the plates, and find boron plus a Cornucopia of transmuted elements. Dozens! And in every single tube! Roy Hammack and others have done this. It is mundane. Since we can say with certainty that QM transmutation due to tunneling is ubiquitous in electrical arcs over time - the problem shifts to one of correlating transmutation to excess energy. That is most difficult. AS we know triodes are inherently lossy, so transmutation alone guarantees nothing. This is an important question -- are the transmutations just a peripheral effect, or can they be correlated with anomalous heat? My sense is that the jury is still out, and that the researchers haven't been paying close attention to this until more recently. (I do not see correlation of 4He with heat in Pd/D systems as a counter-argument, since it is possible that this is due to alpha decay, or that there is agglomeration of the kind that Terry hinted at.) It's actually pretty cool that transmutations are a well-known result of electric arc discharges, if this is true. Perhaps this has been LENR all along, staring back at us, but we wanted to build Tokamaks. Eric
RE: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
At 12:26 PM 9/15/2012, Jones Beene wrote: Terry, The caveat of this is that it is mundane: all electrical discharges produce transmutation over time. That is the nature of QM tunneling. You can take any old triode from an old TV set - and apply the same type of XRF testing to the plates, and find boron plus a Cornucopia of transmuted elements. Dozens! And in every single tube! Roy Hammack and others have done this. It is mundane. There is another example of the Gee Whiz, This Proves It, way of thinking. There are claims of radiation from light water electrolysis, see the work of Oriani and the attempted confirmation by Kowalski et al. So you stick some radiation detectors in a cell and you see some tracks on them. However, how often do we take plastic accumulating radiation detectors and hang them somewhere and develop them and see the range of what we get? To really confirm that an anomaly is taking place that is due to elecrolysis, one needs to run matched controls. For starters, we'd expect to see a correlation between electrolytic current (for constant-current experiments) and the radiation. Yet Oriani apparently saw no such correlation. Maybe there was an effect from electrolysis and maybe not. Kowalski reported replication failure, but he did see some unusual tracks. Maybe this was something and maybe not. This is why we really want to see correlated effects. All kinds of correlations can be tested, some demonstrate something about the nature of the effect, itself (such as heat/helium with PdD), some provide clues as to mechanism or necessary conditions (perhaps, with Pd/D, H/D ratio, current density, loading factor -- D/Pd ratio --, cathode prep and history, and, given Storms' theory, how about cathode deformation, bending stress?) Oriani reported the effect as replicable, supposedly, because he saw *something unusual* with every cell. However, cell protocol was all over the map. Kowalski basically picked one protocol and several people ran it. So Kowalski only tested one of Oriani's protocols. Entirely possible, then, that all the others worked and Kowalski happened to pick one that was punk. I must say, to me, it's more likely that the whole thing was artifact. Oriani's work did *not* show what was claimed, a reproducible experiment, because Oriani did not show a series of *reproduced* experiments. Oriani was doing investigational work, which is great, and commendable. The only problem was when reproducibility was claimed, without a showing of it. And, by the way, Kowalski is also to be commended, for attempting replication. That's too rare in this field, where so many have been scrambling to be the first to find the magic protocol.
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
At 06:41 PM 9/15/2012, David Roberson wrote: I would be surprised if no one has done extensive research into these transmutations. By now, they must have some idea as to how this happens or they lack curiosity. If this has been swept under the table over the years it makes one wonder how many other important discoveries are hidden. I couldn't find any reference in a quick search to accumulated transmutations in a triode. However, it's not surprising if there are such. Nuclear fusion takes place at fairly low energies, merely with a very low rate. If there are years to accumulate the product, one might find all kinds of things. Yes, it could be interesting, but how this happens wouldn't be a big deal, necessarily. Nothing here to sweep under the table, unless the rate of transmutation is substantially different from what would be expected from theory. Anyone got a reference to an actual report of transmuted elements from vacuum tubes?
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
To me 250 electron volts of energy in the form of electron projectiles is incredibly small. The neutron generators that can be had all operate with something like 100 keV which is fairly close to 1000 times larger, and they use deuterons as the projectiles. Why would we think that electrons impacting atoms would generate mutations when there is not enough energy to produce energetic X-rays? If we assume that the elevated temperature of the plate material is responsible, then perhaps so, but the battle to prove that LENR exists in the first place has been difficult. It just seems likely that anyone who has witnessed the transmutation of elements within a low power tube would accept LENR without much question. I would like to see proof that the tube transmutation effect is real and an explanation for its occurrence. Again, how could low energy electrons cause this to happen? If one calculates the expected transmutation rate at the energies we are speaking of I bet it would be too small to measure. Then again, I guess that we see significance evidence that standard physics is not working in the case of LENR devices. Another clue was overlooked and I bet there are many more. Dave -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Sep 15, 2012 8:38 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article At 06:41 PM 9/15/2012, David Roberson wrote: I would be surprised if no one has done extensive research into these transmutations. By now, they must have some idea as to how this happens or they lack curiosity. If this has been swept under the table over the years it makes one wonder how many other important discoveries are hidden. I couldn't find any reference in a quick search to accumulated transmutations in a triode. However, it's not surprising if there are such. Nuclear fusion takes place at fairly low energies, merely with a very low rate. If there are years to accumulate the product, one might find all kinds of things. Yes, it could be interesting, but how this happens wouldn't be a big deal, necessarily. Nothing here to sweep under the table, unless the rate of transmutation is substantially different from what would be expected from theory. Anyone got a reference to an actual report of transmuted elements from vacuum tubes?
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
I'm old, so I'm old school. I'm not a physicist, just an experienced observer with a basic science education. After a few months of intensive reading, I'm squarely in the transmutation don't get no respect camp. I particularly like this one: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Castellanonucleartra.pdf No particle acceleration. No electrolysis. In fact, no use of electricity in the experimental setup. No disputable calorimetry - in fact no claims of excess heat. The description of the experimental setup clearly implies reasonable skill in materials handling and laboratory technique. Result: a wide range of heavy-element transmutations. Wtf!? And not just these guys. Also here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTanomalousia.pdf and here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHnucleartra.pdf and here: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Dash-Effect%20of%20Recrystallization-Paper.pdf These results seem objective, widely replicated, and afaik inexplicable via existing condensed-matter physics. Yet they get very little attention. I'm new in this group, so help me out. The way I learned it, there ain't no philosopher's stone, leaving aside well-understood high-energy fusion and fission reaction processes. What am I missing? Jeff On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 8:30 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: To me 250 electron volts of energy in the form of electron projectiles is incredibly small. The neutron generators that can be had all operate with something like 100 keV which is fairly close to 1000 times larger, and they use deuterons as the projectiles. Why would we think that electrons impacting atoms would generate mutations when there is not enough energy to produce energetic X-rays? If we assume that the elevated temperature of the plate material is responsible, then perhaps so, but the battle to prove that LENR exists in the first place has been difficult. It just seems likely that anyone who has witnessed the transmutation of elements within a low power tube would accept LENR without much question. I would like to see proof that the tube transmutation effect is real and an explanation for its occurrence. Again, how could low energy electrons cause this to happen? If one calculates the expected transmutation rate at the energies we are speaking of I bet it would be too small to measure. Then again, I guess that we see significance evidence that standard physics is not working in the case of LENR devices. Another clue was overlooked and I bet there are many more. Dave -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Sep 15, 2012 8:38 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article At 06:41 PM 9/15/2012, David Roberson wrote: I would be surprised if no one has done extensive research into these transmutations. By now, they must have some idea as to how this happens or they lack curiosity. If this has been swept under the table over the years it makes one wonder how many other important discoveries are hidden. I couldn't find any reference in a quick search to accumulated transmutations in a triode. However, it's not surprising if there are such. Nuclear fusion takes place at fairly low energies, merely with a very low rate. If there are years to accumulate the product, one might find all kinds of things. Yes, it could be interesting, but how this happens wouldn't be a big deal, necessarily. Nothing here to sweep under the table, unless the rate of transmutation is substantially different from what would be expected from theory. Anyone got a reference to an actual report of transmuted elements from vacuum tubes?
RE: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
Moving from the vac tube end of the spectrum to larger sizes, there is scope for closer examination of heavy duty industrial processes. Welding RD literature could be a rich hunting ground for baffled asides citing annoying post-welding impurities. On the other hand, an ab initio fresh start on welding might commence with experimentation using hyper-pure raw materials of species having a single stable isotope, such as aluminium (http://www.webelements.com/aluminium/isotopes.html for example), with painstaking spectrographic analysis of good provenance before and after welding. It would be interesting to see what could arise as 'impurities' after welding with the huge range of different welding processes and, indeed, with variations on welding input parameters, both within and outside those conducive to production of a technologically sound weld. Even further along this spectrum we get into seriously heavy duty stuff such as electric-arc steel making, an introduction to which (probably long-term stable!) is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_arc_furnace My first viewing of the movie Alien, many years ago, brought the seemingly organic twitching and writhing of the power supply cables on such furnaces to mind, particularly during the process of melting down a fresh batch of cold steel scrap. But transmutation in the electric steel foundry never crossed my mind as a summer student first seeing this in 1957. Fortunately, I suppose, or I would have had a short and unhappy career. As for what actually goes on in weld pools and such like, the jury may not even be selected yet. I believe several other 20th Century theoretical works that don't seem to have been cited in CF/LENR literature have an essential part in providing a scale-invariant matter-wave basis for understanding the outcomes of condensed state interparticle encounters. If this is of interest I will provide such, and I'm happy to participate in any theorising, particularly if half-baked contributions are acceptable. -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] Sent: 16 September 2012 02:39 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article At 06:41 PM 9/15/2012, David Roberson wrote: I would be surprised if no one has done extensive research into these transmutations. By now, they must have some idea as to how this happens or they lack curiosity. If this has been swept under the table over the years it makes one wonder how many other important discoveries are hidden. I couldn't find any reference in a quick search to accumulated transmutations in a triode. However, it's not surprising if there are such. Nuclear fusion takes place at fairly low energies, merely with a very low rate. If there are years to accumulate the product, one might find all kinds of things. Yes, it could be interesting, but how this happens wouldn't be a big deal, necessarily. Nothing here to sweep under the table, unless the rate of transmutation is substantially different from what would be expected from theory. Anyone got a reference to an actual report of transmuted elements from vacuum tubes?
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 12:47 AM, John Newman johnws.new...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: On the other hand, an ab initio fresh start on welding might commence with experimentation using hyper-pure raw materials of species having a single stable isotope, such as aluminium (http://www.webelements.com/aluminium/isotopes.html for example), with painstaking spectrographic analysis of good provenance before and after welding. It would be interesting to see what could arise as 'impurities' after welding with the huge range of different welding processes and, indeed, with variations on welding input parameters, both within and outside those conducive to production of a technologically sound weld. Interesting you should mention this: http://www.gizmag.com/honda-steel-aluminum-welding/24096/ Not a lot of information available; but, what did they learn? T
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
Jeff, you have pointed out some interesting papers that allowed me to reconsider the transmutation concept. Thus far I have placed most of these experiments in the same category as ghosts and other difficult spirits to capture. Like the other phenomena, it is impossible to accept unless I witness it several times myself. I and I assume many others have read the articles and placed them in the bin labeled Something must have gone wrong with that test! This type of physics might be relatively common but not accepted due to the lack of understanding. If it is real, then we have a great deal of new things to learn about the natural world. I honestly have no idea about the validity of these papers and my tendency is to assume that there are operator errors. As soon as that assumption is applied, we are back to normal physics where transmutations are not happening under these low energy conditions. We find ourselves in a position similar to that of the main line physicists who refuse to waste time reading about LENR since it can not be true. I guess I am not sure how to give transmutation at low energy the respect it might deserve. Your bringing it up again for discussion might help resolve the issue. Dave -Original Message- From: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Sep 16, 2012 12:05 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article I'm old, so I'm old school. I'm not a physicist, just an experienced observer with a basic science education. After a few months of intensive reading, I'm squarely in the transmutation don't get no respect camp. I particularly like this one: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Castellanonucleartra.pdf No particle acceleration. No electrolysis. In fact, no use of electricity in the experimental setup. No disputable calorimetry - in fact no claims of excess heat. The description of the experimental setup clearly implies reasonable skill in materials handling and laboratory technique. Result: a wide range of heavy-element transmutations. Wtf!? And not just these guys. Also here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTanomalousia.pdf and here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHnucleartra.pdf and here: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Dash-Effect%20of%20Recrystallization-Paper.pdf These results seem objective, widely replicated, and afaik inexplicable via existing condensed-matter physics. Yet they get very little attention. I'm new in this group, so help me out. The way I learned it, there ain't no philosopher's stone, leaving aside well-understood high-energy fusion and fission reaction processes. What am I missing? Jeff On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 8:30 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: To me 250 electron volts of energy in the form of electron projectiles is incredibly small. The neutron generators that can be had all operate with something like 100 keV which is fairly close to 1000 times larger, and they use deuterons as the projectiles. Why would we think that electrons impacting atoms would generate mutations when there is not enough energy to produce energetic X-rays? If we assume that the elevated temperature of the plate material is responsible, then perhaps so, but the battle to prove that LENR exists in the first place has been difficult. It just seems likely that anyone who has witnessed the transmutation of elements within a low power tube would accept LENR without much question. I would like to see proof that the tube transmutation effect is real and an explanation for its occurrence. Again, how could low energy electrons cause this to happen? If one calculates the expected transmutation rate at the energies we are speaking of I bet it would be too small to measure. Then again, I guess that we see significance evidence that standard physics is not working in the case of LENR devices. Another clue was overlooked and I bet there are many more. Dave -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Sep 15, 2012 8:38 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article At 06:41 PM 9/15/2012, David Roberson wrote: I would be surprised if no one has done extensive research into these transmutations. By now, they must have some idea as to how this happens or they lack curiosity. If this has been swept under the table over the years it makes one wonder how many other important discoveries are hidden. I couldn't find any reference in a quick search to accumulated transmutations in a triode. However, it's not surprising if there are such. Nuclear fusion takes place at fairly low energies, merely with a very low rate. If there are years to accumulate the product, one might find all kinds of things. Yes, it could be interesting, but how this happens wouldn't be a big deal, necessarily. Nothing here to sweep
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
Pursuing transmutations due to the types of processes you list seems like an excellent idea. The high temperature effects could demonstrate that things which occur within liquids and solids are quite different than those within plasmas and gasses. We seem to observe these issues frequently in our research into LENR devices and of course are considered out of touch by most of the main physicists. Many of their operational theories were developed under much higher temperature conditions and at far less material density. It is difficult to imagine the equivalent pressure that a plasma would be subjected to if the gas nuclei were as close together as we obtain within the NAE of a solid. I guess it is up to us to figure out a theory that we can use to engineer our future products so that they are safe and reliable. Dave -Original Message- From: John Newman johnws.new...@blueyonder.co.uk To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: 'charlie barraclough' charlie.barraclo...@btconnect.com Sent: Sun, Sep 16, 2012 12:47 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:New Wired UK article Moving from the vac tube end of the spectrum to larger sizes, there is scope for closer examination of heavy duty industrial processes. Welding RD literature could be a rich hunting ground for baffled asides citing annoying post-welding impurities. On the other hand, an ab initio fresh start on welding might commence with experimentation using hyper-pure raw materials of species having a single stable isotope, such as aluminium (http://www.webelements.com/aluminium/isotopes.html for example), with painstaking spectrographic analysis of good provenance before and after welding. It would be interesting to see what could arise as 'impurities' after welding with the huge range of different welding processes and, indeed, with variations on welding input parameters, both within and outside those conducive to production of a technologically sound weld. Even further along this spectrum we get into seriously heavy duty stuff such as electric-arc steel making, an introduction to which (probably long-term stable!) is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_arc_furnace My first viewing of the movie Alien, many years ago, brought the seemingly organic twitching and writhing of the power supply cables on such furnaces to mind, particularly during the process of melting down a fresh batch of cold steel scrap. But transmutation in the electric steel foundry never crossed my mind as a summer student first seeing this in 1957. Fortunately, I suppose, or I would have had a short and unhappy career. As for what actually goes on in weld pools and such like, the jury may not even be selected yet. I believe several other 20th Century theoretical works that don't seem to have been cited in CF/LENR literature have an essential part in providing a scale-invariant matter-wave basis for understanding the outcomes of condensed state interparticle encounters. If this is of interest I will provide such, and I'm happy to participate in any theorising, particularly if half-baked contributions are acceptable. -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] Sent: 16 September 2012 02:39 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article At 06:41 PM 9/15/2012, David Roberson wrote: I would be surprised if no one has done extensive research into these transmutations. By now, they must have some idea as to how this happens or they lack curiosity. If this has been swept under the table over the years it makes one wonder how many other important discoveries are hidden. I couldn't find any reference in a quick search to accumulated transmutations in a triode. However, it's not surprising if there are such. Nuclear fusion takes place at fairly low energies, merely with a very low rate. If there are years to accumulate the product, one might find all kinds of things. Yes, it could be interesting, but how this happens wouldn't be a big deal, necessarily. Nothing here to sweep under the table, unless the rate of transmutation is substantially different from what would be expected from theory. Anyone got a reference to an actual report of transmuted elements from vacuum tubes?
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
At 12:26 PM 9/14/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote: Cold fusion: smoke and mirrors, or raising a head of steam? http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusion With friends like this, who needs enemies? The article does, at least, pay some attention to developments, but: 1. NiH reactions are not scientifically established. The article does distinguish between Rossi et al and other more scientific groups, but then essentially makes them seem similar. Celani is reported, but ... Celani has not been confirmed. 2. unlike Rossi, Celani has plenty of theoretical physics to support it. Uh, Celani may propose a different theoretical explanation, but the author is presenting an opinion without sourcing it. This field is still almost entirely experimental, no theories, yet, have been shown to be adequate for predicting results, quantitatively, which is the crux of the matter. 3. Toyota funded cold fusion research in the 90s to the tune of £12 million, but was discouraged by negative results. The immediate impression created? Even spending $12 million, we might think, researchers for Toyota were unable to confirm the effect. Is that true? Toyota funded Pons and Fleischmann's work in France, and that work showed plenty of confirmation. However, the results were likely disappointing to a commercial funder, who would be interested, quite likely, in practical application. The Wired article does not distinguish between the science (real, established) and commercial practicality, plus the huge flap over Rossi et al (news, controversial, not scientifically established.) 4. Perhaps Brillouin's biggest claim is that their results are consistently repeatable -- something of a Holy Grail in a field where results notoriously fail to get replicated. And then they drive another nail in the coffin of the truth. The big myth about cold fusion is that it was impossible to reproduce. That's based on the fact that the original reaction, set up using electrolysis of heavy water with a palladium cathode, is chaotic, primarily due to the shifting nanostructure of the palladium, but also from sensitivity to other conditions. *The same cathode* would produce no significant heat at one time, then, under what appeared to be the same conditions, nothing changed except the history of the cathode is now different, measured in the same way, significant heat would be evolved, way above noise. However, ultimately, a single reproducible experiment was developed, but simply not called that. Run a series of cells to set up the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect. Measure heat and helium, to determine the heat/helium ratio. It has been measured as within experimental error of 23.8 MeV/He-4, all results so far are consistent with this, and this result is confirmed, and recognized as such. There is no contrary research. No heat, no helium. Wired is correct that the field is notorious for unconfirmed results, but the basic work by Pons and Fleischmann has been heavily confirmed. There is anomalous heat generated from PdD under some conditions. By stating the Brillouin claim -- just a claim! -- as they did, they have created confirmation of a major error, often repeated in the media, that cold fusion results were irreproducible. 5. On the NASA/Boeing report: The report concludes that LENR lacks verification, but expresses this in terms of feasibility rather than assuming it's impossible. What is LENR? The report mixes PdD -- which it doesn't mention, but there is reference to high temperature pitting which has, I think, only been reported with PdD -- with NiH. NiH lacks verification. PdD reactions have been heavily confirmed and verified. The fact is that LENR is verified. We don't know whether NiH results are actually LENR, because we don't know what the ash is and therefore we don't know what the reaction is, and we also don't know what levels of heat are being obtained, we only have unconfirmed reports of *demonstrations*, no independent verifications by experts. (Experts have observed demonstrations, but ... it's easy to overlook something under live conditions like that, where the expert cannot control what is being done. Kullander and Essen used a relative humidity meter in an attempt to determine steam quality, which can't be done with such a tool. And steam quality was crucial, as well as the possibility of overflow, unboiled water.) This article adds to the confusion, it does not clear it up. Pseudoskeptics will use the article to shore up their not reproduced arguments. The NASA/Boeing report actually tells us practically nothing about LENR. I.e, if LENR is real, the report tells us, here is a plan to utilize it. It's essentially pie in the sky, because planning how to use LENR when *we don't know what is happening in detail, is radically premature. What's needed is basic research to determine the physics of LENR, and to provide data
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/**archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusionhttp://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusion With friends like this, who needs enemies? . . . 1. NiH reactions are not scientifically established. The article does distinguish between Rossi et al and other more scientific groups, but then essentially makes them seem similar. Celani is reported, but ... Celani has not been confirmed. I agree with your critiques, but this is all you can expect from the mass media. Apart from 60 Minutes and a few others, mass media reporters never do their homework. They never get their facts straight. That is true of other subjects too. Read a mass media account of just about any subject you know well, and you will see that the account is a mish-mash of mistaken impressions. In a sense though, you can't blame mass media reporters. They are trying to accomplish the impossible. They are trying to understand a huge range of subjects well enough to write about them intelligently. I would never attempt to describe all the different subjects a science reporter is expected to cover. If I were ordered to describe things like medical breakthroughs, the details of global warming and atmospheric science, or cutting edge particle physics, the only honest account I could give would be: I cannot grasp this subject well enough to write a balanced, informative description of it. You can't sell magazines when that's all you have to say. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Wired UK article
*We don't know whether NiH results are actually LENR, because we don't know what the ash is and therefore we don't know what the reaction is.* Abd ul-Rahman Lomax and Jed Rothwell be advised that Defkalion has provided us with a comprehensive list of ash products that resulted from the long term operation of their pre-industrial Hyperion product. This information is available for reference in the Defkalion document titled: TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS PERFORMANCE OF THE DEFKALION’S HYPERION PRE-INDUSTRIAL PRODUCT. The nuclear reaction reflected in this ash description seems to be a mix of complex fusion and fission nuclear reactions. Such a mix of reactions might be expected when the coulomb barrier is lowered in varying degrees that range from slight to total. This lowering seems to happen in a random way in terms of intensity. It also points to the likelihood these various nuclear reactions occur respectively many time to both virgin and repeatedly transmuted elements and are not restricted to just nickel (Ni58, Ni60, Ni62and Ni64 stable isotopes). Isotopic shifts in the transmutation products are also documented. Similar assays of ash products have been documented in a number of LENR experimental references down through the years. This recently available document should be accessible for reference in the Rothwell LENR library. Cheers:Axil On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 12:26 PM 9/14/2012, Alan J Fletcher wrote: Cold fusion: smoke and mirrors, or raising a head of steam? http://www.wired.co.uk/news/**archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusionhttp://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusion With friends like this, who needs enemies? The article does, at least, pay some attention to developments, but: 1. NiH reactions are not scientifically established. The article does distinguish between Rossi et al and other more scientific groups, but then essentially makes them seem similar. Celani is reported, but ... Celani has not been confirmed. 2. unlike Rossi, Celani has plenty of theoretical physics to support it. Uh, Celani may propose a different theoretical explanation, but the author is presenting an opinion without sourcing it. This field is still almost entirely experimental, no theories, yet, have been shown to be adequate for predicting results, quantitatively, which is the crux of the matter. 3. Toyota funded cold fusion research in the 90s to the tune of £12 million, but was discouraged by negative results. The immediate impression created? Even spending $12 million, we might think, researchers for Toyota were unable to confirm the effect. Is that true? Toyota funded Pons and Fleischmann's work in France, and that work showed plenty of confirmation. However, the results were likely disappointing to a commercial funder, who would be interested, quite likely, in practical application. The Wired article does not distinguish between the science (real, established) and commercial practicality, plus the huge flap over Rossi et al (news, controversial, not scientifically established.) 4. Perhaps Brillouin's biggest claim is that their results are consistently repeatable -- something of a Holy Grail in a field where results notoriously fail to get replicated. And then they drive another nail in the coffin of the truth. The big myth about cold fusion is that it was impossible to reproduce. That's based on the fact that the original reaction, set up using electrolysis of heavy water with a palladium cathode, is chaotic, primarily due to the shifting nanostructure of the palladium, but also from sensitivity to other conditions. *The same cathode* would produce no significant heat at one time, then, under what appeared to be the same conditions, nothing changed except the history of the cathode is now different, measured in the same way, significant heat would be evolved, way above noise. However, ultimately, a single reproducible experiment was developed, but simply not called that. Run a series of cells to set up the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect. Measure heat and helium, to determine the heat/helium ratio. It has been measured as within experimental error of 23.8 MeV/He-4, all results so far are consistent with this, and this result is confirmed, and recognized as such. There is no contrary research. No heat, no helium. Wired is correct that the field is notorious for unconfirmed results, but the basic work by Pons and Fleischmann has been heavily confirmed. There is anomalous heat generated from PdD under some conditions. By stating the Brillouin claim -- just a claim! -- as they did, they have created confirmation of a major error, often repeated in the media, that cold fusion results were irreproducible. 5. On the NASA/Boeing report: The report concludes that LENR lacks verification, but expresses this in terms of feasibility rather than assuming it's impossible. What is LENR?
