From Abd:
Why care you what I think. Do, or do it not! Talk incessantly about it,
do not. Herh herh herh.
Feel free to ignore what I write to this mailing list. I write to
explore ideas, and some people read what I write and criticize them,
allowing me to explore the ideas even more
From Abd:
COLD FUSION EXPERIMENT KIT SOLD AT WALL MART HEATS POT OF TEA
PHYSICISTS HYSTERICAL
Nah, WalMart would want too much of a cut. On the other hand, if we
knew how to do that with a fast turn-on method, it would be cool to
put together such a tea-brewer, even if only as a prototype.
At 11:37 AM 10/31/2009, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
Enjoyed your response. Admittedly, my preliminary thoughts on your objective
is that it is way too ambitious.
In what way? Failure modes:
1. I'm too scattered and disorganized to actually get it together.
While this is the
Abd,
Why care you what I think. Do, or do it not! Talk incessantly about it, do
not. Herh herh herh.
http://www.yodaspeak.co.uk/index.php
Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Heat is the principal
At 06:20 PM 10/31/2009, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
Abd,
Why care you what I think. Do, or do it not! Talk incessantly about it, do
not. Herh herh herh.
Feel free to ignore what I write to this mailing list. I write to
explore ideas, and some people read what I write and
At 08:32 PM 10/29/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
The other day I mentioned to Shanahan that it seems unlikely this
positional artifact would occur only with Pd and deuterium, and not
Pt and hydrogen or Pd and hydrogen. He said that is not unlikely and
his theory can account for it. I cannot imagine
At 09:25 PM 10/29/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I wrote:
However, as you see in the text you quoted, I said that in my
opinion CR-39 is not more sensitive or less disputable. That is
not quite the same as less convincing.
The key point is that heat detection is more reliable. More likely
to
At 09:50 PM 10/29/2009, you wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
So ... I don't expect it, but suppose I figure out how to get
serious excess heat, my cat pees in the tube and, damn, it works,
and I can reproduce it with some uric acid or whatever, sheer luck.
I shouldn't publish? But, sure,
2009/10/30 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com:
Palladium hydride formation is exothermic
(it releases around 11 kJ/mol heat for a loading factor of 0.8), so a
hot cathode is to be expected, correct me someone if I am wrong.
I think you are right, but I also think that with a
Michel Jullian wrote:
My suggestion: like the SPAWAR people have done before you, forget
about excess heat, hot spots, or other expensive to detect and
ambiguous signatures . . .
The people at SPAWAR did not forget about excess heat and hot
spots. They published papers and videos showing
This discussion ignores the elephant in the room. a) Heat is *fundamental*
and scalar, particles and radiation are not. Because it is fundamental, many
factors affect heat and careful experimental technique is essential. b)
Commercial value [i.e. money] is for utility for motive power and
On Oct 29, 2009, at 3:02 PM, Michel Jullian wrote:
2009/10/29 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomax design.com:
What I meant by my comment was that
measuring elevated temperature of a cathode is an *indicator* of
excess
heat. But the possibility would remain that some condition in the
electrolyte
Mike sez:
This discussion ignores the elephant in the room. a) Heat is *fundamental*
and scalar, particles and radiation are not. Because it is fundamental, many
factors affect heat and careful experimental technique is essential. b)
Commercial value [i.e. money] is for utility for motive
On Oct 30, 2009, at 5:17 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Michel Jullian wrote:
My suggestion: like the SPAWAR people have done before you, forget
about excess heat, hot spots, or other expensive to detect and
ambiguous signatures . . .
The people at SPAWAR did not forget about excess heat and hot
2009/10/30 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net:
...
No it isn't. A hot cathode means the global reaction at the cathode is
exothermic, nothing else. Palladium hydride formation is exothermic
(it releases around 11 kJ/mol heat for a loading factor of 0.8), so a
hot cathode is to be expected,
At 05:17 AM 10/30/2009, you wrote:
Michel Jullian wrote:
My suggestion: like the SPAWAR people have done before you, forget
about excess heat, hot spots, or other expensive to detect and
ambiguous signatures . . .
The people at SPAWAR did not forget about excess heat and hot spots.
They
Steven Krivit wrote:
The people at SPAWAR did not forget about excess heat and hot
spots. They published papers and videos showing these things. They
were the first to show hot spots, as far as I know.
In other words - for the moment - they left it behind, in the past.
They moved on to
Horace Heffner wrote:
It makes perfect sense *if* clear nuclear signatures can be obtained
in 100 percent of a given kind of experiment, and the goal is to
prove CF is real to the extent large amounts of funding can be
obtained for pure research.
I see that. Physicists are impressed by
At 11:13 AM 10/30/2009, Mike Carrell wrote:
This discussion ignores the elephant in the room. a) Heat is
*fundamental* and scalar, particles and radiation are not. Because
it is fundamental, many factors affect heat and careful experimental
technique is essential. b) Commercial value [i.e.
At 11:48 AM 10/30/2009, you wrote:
On Oct 29, 2009, at 3:02 PM, Michel Jullian wrote:
2009/10/29 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomax design.com:
What I meant by my comment was that
measuring elevated temperature of a cathode is an *indicator* of
excess
heat. But the possibility would remain that
At 11:59 AM 10/30/2009, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
If all the kings men and all the kings horses put all of their
herculean efforts into proving the legitimacy of these sub atomic
particles they may very well prove their point.
But if all of this effort produces yet another cold
At 12:01 PM 10/30/2009, Horace Heffner wrote:
On Oct 30, 2009, at 5:17 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Michel Jullian wrote:
My suggestion: like the SPAWAR people have done before you, forget
about excess heat, hot spots, or other expensive to detect and
ambiguous signatures . . .
The people at
At 01:23 PM 10/30/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
If they are not producing heat, they would not produce neutrons
either. A person who has not mastered the art of producing heat has
not made an NAE and will probably not see any neutrons, tritium,
helium or transmutations.
Alchemy, to the extent
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
The idea that excess heat is easier to detect reliably than
radiation is downright weird.
It is. But not so much if you assume that in some cases the reaction
produces only heat and no particles. Also, when the particles in
question are neutrons, you are probably
At 01:39 PM 10/30/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
It makes perfect sense *if* clear nuclear signatures can be obtained
in 100 percent of a given kind of experiment, and the goal is to
prove CF is real to the extent large amounts of funding can be
obtained for pure research.
I
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
I have no idea why it would be difficult to put a piece of CR-39
inside a cell inside a calorimeter.
Putting the whole thing inside a large Seebeck calorimeter might
work. You can't watch the reaction in that case. I guess you would
wait until the plating-out
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Simply finding neutrons, unless it is consistently the same level,
isn't consistent.
They are never consistent. I have never heard of that. Methods such
as BF3 counters may be insensitive, but if the level of neutrons were
consistently generated, the BF3 would
Abd sez:
The idea that excess heat is easier to detect reliably than
radiation is downright weird.
It might seem weird to you.
But it's a probably whole lot safer looking for anomalous heat as
compared to anomalous neutrons and other sub-atomic particles.
I have a story to recount.
Many
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
But as I said, with other less sensitive methods of detecting
neutrons I do not think anyone has ever seen neutrons in the
absence of heat, whereas heat without neutrons has often been seen.
So it seems clear to me that heat is the more reliable signal.
Sure. If
At 05:05 PM 10/30/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
The idea that excess heat is easier to detect reliably than
radiation is downright weird.
It is. But not so much if you assume that in some cases the reaction
produces only heat and no particles. Also, when the particles
2009/10/30 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Or to tape LR-115 detectors (or CR-39) on the outside of the cell.
For some reason they find it necessary to put the CR-39 as close to the
cathode as possible.
It can be both outside of the cell and as close to the
On Oct 30, 2009, at 8:29 AM, Michel Jullian wrote:
2009/10/30 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net:
...
No it isn't. A hot cathode means the global reaction at the
cathode is
exothermic, nothing else. Palladium hydride formation is exothermic
(it releases around 11 kJ/mol heat for a
On Oct 30, 2009, at 9:39 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
It makes perfect sense *if* clear nuclear signatures can be obtained
in 100 percent of a given kind of experiment, and the goal is to
prove CF is real to the extent large amounts of funding can be
obtained for pure
At 05:37 PM 10/30/2009, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
Abd sez:
The idea that excess heat is easier to detect reliably than
radiation is downright weird.
It might seem weird to you.
But it's a probably whole lot safer looking for anomalous heat as
compared to anomalous neutrons and
At 05:39 PM 10/30/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
But as I said, with other less sensitive methods of detecting
neutrons I do not think anyone has ever seen neutrons in the
absence of heat, whereas heat without neutrons has often been
seen. So it seems clear to me that
At 05:14 PM 10/30/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
I have no idea why it would be difficult to put a piece of CR-39
inside a cell inside a calorimeter.
Putting the whole thing inside a large Seebeck calorimeter might
work. You can't watch the reaction in that case. I
At 05:28 PM 10/30/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Simply finding neutrons, unless it is consistently the same level,
isn't consistent.
They are never consistent. I have never heard of that.
With electronic detectors, that is. The SPAWAR neutrons appear to be
I wrote:
However one good professional expensive experiment is worth 1000
amateur ones, in my opinion. . . . If you cannot afford electronic
gadgets you are probably coming to this field 19 years too late to
make a useful contribution. Amateur experiments have caused more
harm than good . .
2009/10/29 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com:
...
Heat is the principal signature of the reaction
...Do not look for other signatures until you have confirmed
the principal signature.
Why? Nuclear track counts in a _dry_ SSNTD as in the 2009 SPAWAR
paper
Michel Jullian wrote:
Why? Nuclear track counts in a _dry_ SSNTD as in the 2009 SPAWAR
paper http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBosscharacteri.pdf , and
as Abd is planning now following Horace's advice, are much easier to
measure, much more sensitive, and much less disputable proofs of
Jed, a point of information, from this non-scientist:
I understand that you are saying that heat, above all else, is the required
product, and that any other products are of secondary importance when it
comes to asserting that the effect has been produced.
Separately, you are saying that
2009/10/29 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com:
Michel Jullian wrote:
Why? Nuclear track counts in a _dry_ SSNTD as in the 2009 SPAWAR
paper http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBosscharacteri.pdf , and
as Abd is planning now following Horace's advice, are much easier to
measure, much more
Michel Jullian wrote:
Nuclear reactions were first discovered in the late 19th century because
they produce excess heat.
Are you sure? I thought they were discovered because a solid state
detector was impressed (Becquerel's photographic plate).
Yes, and the electrometer. I didn't quite
Xcuse me as another non-scientist butts in,
From Lawry:
Jed, a point of information, from this non-scientist:
I understand that you are saying that heat, above all else,
is the required product, and that any other products are of
secondary importance when it comes to asserting that the
At 02:30 PM 10/29/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
As to calorimetry, it's one thing to accurately measure total
excess heat, it's another to identify heat itself at the cathode.
The cathode is the only conceivable source of excess heat in these
systems. This has been
Lawrence de Bivort wrote:
I understand that you are saying that heat,
above all else, is the required product, and
that any other products are of secondary
importance when it comes to asserting that the effect has been produced.
Not importance, exactly. Nature makes no
distinction about
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
So finding no radiation or other products, by
MIT, as a huge example, meant practically
nothing. All they showed, in fact, was that they
did not manage to cause the effect.
On the contrary I think they probably did cause
the effect at MIT, and also CalTech and
2009/10/29 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com:
What I meant by my comment was that
measuring elevated temperature of a cathode is an *indicator* of excess
heat. But the possibility would remain that some condition in the
electrolyte close to the cathode raises the resistance there, so
At 12:07 PM 10/29/2009, you wrote:
Michel Jullian wrote:
Why? Nuclear track counts in a _dry_ SSNTD as in the 2009 SPAWAR
paper http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBosscharacteri.pdf , and
as Abd is planning now following Horace's advice, are much easier to
measure, much more sensitive,
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
But the possibility would remain that some condition in the electrolyte
close to the cathode raises the resistance there, so the Joule heat would be
dissipated there, thus making the cathode appear hotter. But I think it
unlikely. Shanahan might disagree.
It does
Steven Krivit wrote:
Why? Nuclear track counts in a _dry_ SSNTD as in the 2009 SPAWAR
paper http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBosscharacteri.pdf , and
as Abd is planning now following Horace's advice, are much easier to
measure, much more sensitive, and much less disputable proofs of
I wrote:
However, as you see in the text you quoted, I said that in my opinion CR-39
is not more sensitive or less disputable. That is not quite the same as
less convincing.
The key point is that heat detection is more reliable. More likely to
happen. For experiments that attempt to measure
At 03:01 PM 10/29/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I wrote:
However one good professional expensive experiment is worth 1000
amateur ones, in my opinion. . . . If you cannot afford electronic
gadgets you are probably coming to this field 19 years too late to
make a useful contribution. Amateur
At 03:21 PM 10/29/2009, Michel Jullian wrote:
2009/10/29 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com:
...
Heat is the principal signature of the reaction
...Do not look for other signatures until you have confirmed
the principal signature.
Why? Nuclear track counts in a _dry_ SSNTD as in the 2009
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
So ... I don't expect it, but suppose I figure out how to get serious
excess heat, my cat pees in the tube and, damn, it works, and I can
reproduce it with some uric acid or whatever, sheer luck. I shouldn't
publish? But, sure, publication of sloppy work that makes
At 04:07 PM 10/29/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Michel Jullian wrote:
Why? Nuclear track counts in a _dry_ SSNTD as in the 2009 SPAWAR
paper http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBosscharacteri.pdf , and
as Abd is planning now following Horace's advice, are much easier to
measure, much more
Very interesting.
Thank you.
Jed,
From what do you base your opinion that excess heat is a more convincing
proof of a LENR reaction than Nuclear track counts in a _dry_ SSNTD as
in the 2009 SPAWAR
paper?
I did not say less convincing, although as far as I know, so far fewer
people
At 06:30 PM 10/29/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
On a practical level, as I understand it, heat is likely to be the
useful product, in any case,
In my case, science is the useful product!
That is true. But as Ed Storms and many others have pointed out --
correctly, I am sure -- particles may
At 05:19 PM 10/29/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
It may be that some cold fusion reactions produce heat but no
neutrons. I doubt the opposite can occur: neutrons but no heat. It
may be that the heat is so low it cannot be detected, but I expect
the neutrons would also be very hard to detect in that
At 06:46 PM 10/29/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
So finding no radiation or other products, by
MIT, as a huge example, meant practically
nothing. All they showed, in fact, was that
they did not manage to cause the effect.
On the contrary I think they probably did
At 07:02 PM 10/29/2009, Michel Jullian wrote:
2009/10/29 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com:
What I meant by my comment was that
measuring elevated temperature of a cathode is an *indicator* of excess
heat. But the possibility would remain that some condition in the
electrolyte close
61 matches
Mail list logo
