Re: Scientific American again misrepresents cold fusion research
In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:20:25 -0700: Hi Ed, [snip] Actually Robin, hydrino production has been ruled out. Cells are now sealed and contain a recombiner. If hydrinos were produced and did not react with oxygen to reform water, extra oxygen would accumulate and been detected as increased pressure or extra gas. If they did react, either they would revert to normal D, absorbing their energy of formation, or they would produce abnormal D2O, which has not been seen. In any case, abnormal behavior would be observed. [snip] Not necessarily, because hydrinohydride could undergo new chemical reactions (i.e. form strange salts) which could bind any excess oxygen as a solid. (Though I am somewhat grasping at straws here). Laying all my cards on the table, I would say first, that not all cells are sealed, and secondly that it is highly likely that putative hydrinos are not responsible for all forms of CF, though IMO they may be responsible for at least some past reports of excess heat. In short, I tend to agree with you that there is likely to be *at least* one form of CF/LENR/CANR, that has nothing to do with hydrinos. However I think it's going too far to say that hydrinos have been definitively ruled out as a contender in some cases. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Re: Scientific American again misrepresents cold fusion research
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Edmund Storms's message of Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:20:25 -0700: Hi Ed, [snip] Actually Robin, hydrino production has been ruled out. Cells are now sealed and contain a recombiner. If hydrinos were produced and did not react with oxygen to reform water, extra oxygen would accumulate and been detected as increased pressure or extra gas. If they did react, either they would revert to normal D, absorbing their energy of formation, or they would produce abnormal D2O, which has not been seen. In any case, abnormal behavior would be observed. [snip] Not necessarily, because hydrinohydride could undergo new chemical reactions (i.e. form strange salts) which could bind any excess oxygen as a solid. (Though I am somewhat grasping at straws here). Laying all my cards on the table, I would say first, that not all cells are sealed, and secondly that it is highly likely that putative hydrinos are not responsible for all forms of CF, though IMO they may be responsible for at least some past reports of excess heat. In short, I tend to agree with you that there is likely to be *at least* one form of CF/LENR/CANR, that has nothing to do with hydrinos. However I think it's going too far to say that hydrinos have been definitively ruled out as a contender in some cases. Well Robin, you just proved the one law that can never be disproven, i.e. in the presence of a clever person, no law can be proven correct. Regards, Ed Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Scientific American again misrepresents cold fusion research
[I am thinking about uploading something along these lines to the web page.] The March 2005 issue of scientific American has a one-page article describing the 2004 DoE review of cold fusion: Choi, C., News Scan: Back to Square One, in Scientific American. 2005. p. 21. The main part of the article is reasonably accurate. It describes the doe report and the conclusions that report reaches. However, the scientific American also added a sidebar, titled Nuclear Doubts that includes four statements which are incorrect, and totally at odds with the literature. They are: 1. Helium 4, a suggested cold fusion by-product, was detected at amounts close to background levels. Correction: In some experiments helium-4 has been close to the background, but in others it has been hundreds of times above background. And at least one case the concentration has been above atmospheric helium. 2. Expected gamma rays were not produced; experts doubted the explanation that all energy was generated as heat instead. Correction: gamma rays have been detected in many experiments although not in amounts commensurate with a conventional hot fusion reaction. Other nuclear products including tritium, helium and transmuted elements have also been detected, sometimes at levels millions of times above background. It is a fact that the energy was generated as mainly as heat; these unnamed experts cannot contradict facts established by replicated experiments. 3. Not all chemical explanations for the excess heat were eliminated. Correction: All chemical explanations for the excess heat were eliminated long before Fleischmann and Pons went public 1989. The cold fusion effect has been replicated hundreds of times and laboratories all around the world, and there is not a single instance in which chemical fuel was present in the so or chemical changes were observed. The heat generated by many cells has ranged from 100 to 10,000 times greater than the absolute maximum amount of energy that could be generated by an equivalent mass of chemical fuel. 4. Excess power was only a few percent more than the power applied, suggesting that measurement errors could account for the purported net energy. Correction: Excess power has ranged up to 300% when input power was supplied. In gas loading and heat after death experiments, there is no input power, so any detectable output heat comes from cold fusion, since there are, as noted above, no chemical changes in the cells, and no chemical fuel. The article expresses bias in several other more subtle ways. For example, it repeats spurious claims made by some of the DoE reviewers that top-of-the-line instruments have not been used to measure cold fusion effects. The best instruments on earth have been used to measure excess heat, helium, tritium and transmutations, mainly in Italy and Japan. Top-of-the-line instruments have not been available in the United States mainly because there is so much opposition to the research. Skeptics are complaining that could instruments have not been used yet they themselves are to blame for this situation. Finally, it should be noted that the caption on the photograph says, cold fusion allegedly occurs in a jar of heavy water with electrodes. Apparently after 16 years, the Scientific American still cannnot distinguish between a jar and a Dewar test tube. This is like calling the Mount Palomar telescope a big magnifying glass. - Jed
Re: Scientific American again misrepresents cold fusion research
I am still mulling over that statement, and waiting for some reactions. I will upload it later today or tomorrow. Ed will probably want to tone it down. Suggestions and corrections from readers here are welcome. We should also write a letter to Sci. Am., or maybe add something to their on-line forum. Actually, this is the most positive thing Sci. Am. has written about cold fusion since 1989. This is progress, but it is much too slow and halting. - Jed
Re: Re: Scientific American again misrepresents cold fusion research
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was wondering when someone was going to react to the Sci. Am. March article. Actually, Jed, I'm surprised it took you this long! I just noticed it yesterday, thanks to Google Alerts. I subscribe to the print magazine, but overlooked this item. My only suggestion would be to make sure to site specific references in which to back up LENR's claims. That is probably a good idea, although it will make the statement crowded. Ed Storms thinks is a mistake to get into a tit-for-tat argument over technical details like this. He is writing a more general statement. Perhaps we can use both . . . We will probably slide something like this into the Special Collection - DoE Report section, rather than making it a new Acrobat file. The Sci. Am. will never published a letter about this, but perhaps they have online discussion groups and someone can insert a message into them. - Jed
