I think one kit should focus on anmoulous particle production rather than excess heat.
See Richard Oriani research on Ludwik Kowalski's page: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/368project.html Harry ----- Original Message ----- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> Date: Monday, September 7, 2009 5:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The cost of materials is not a barrier > At 02:40 PM 9/7/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote: > >Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > > >>My goal is that each test cell be cheap, very cheap, well under, > >>say, the cost of a Galileo Project replication . . . > > > >I do not understand this goal. The cost of materials has never > been > >a barrier to replicating cold fusion, except perhaps when I could > >not afford to buy 1 kg of Johnson-Matthey Pd. > > You are not usual, Jed. What you are showing is part of the > thinking > that kept Cold fusion down. I don't blame you, and I certainly > respect your experience. But you have also come up with some real > nonsense. > >The material cost is trivial -- immaterial if you will -- compared > >to the cost of the instruments and effort. I have never seen a > >credible cold fusion experiment that costs less than ~$100,000 and > >probably a lot more if you take into account the cost of people's > time. > I don't think this is true. Galileo project. You know the situation > with Mizuno, how hard it was for him because of the costs. > > Perhaps the key word is "credible." There is a "lost performative" > here. "Credible" isn't an absolute characteristic of some > phenomenon > or, in this case, experimental result. It refers to a reaction by > people. The reaction by people will depend on many factors that > aren't part of the experimental report! > > Many cold fusion researchers were convinced by some happening that > they could not use to convince others. They saw it. Now, suppose we > could create a few hundred young people and a few hundred > scientists > who have all see the same phenomenon? > > In a certain sense, I don't need to focus on the ultimate effect of > a > cheap cold fusion demonstration kit. I only need to look at the > practicality: can it be done? If it can be done, enough money, I > believe, can be made with it to justify the activity and the > investment. The only worrisome possibility is that it can't be > done. > I just spend a long time on the phone with Dr. Storms. He's > encouraging, but, at the same time, quite as negative as you about > the possibility of doing such a kit. However, we did examine in > some > detail his objections, and the objections were coming largely from > assumptions about what a kit would be like. > > In short, it won't be what most researchers in the field expect. It > won't necessarily produce bulletproof evidence, unimpeachable. It > will produce a body of *experience* that is shared. > > It's not necessary to convince a lot of people to support this. A > few > who are willing to work on it or help it can do it. If people are > interested, they can join the project. If not, that's fine, > everyone > decides where to put their effort. > > > Whether the materials cost $20 or $200, or even $2,000 does not > > make the slightest difference and has not stopped anyone from > > trying the experiment, as far as I know. I have never heard from > > someone who said "I would love to try this but I can't afford the > > palladium." I have heard from people who said they can't find the > > palladium; or they don't feel competent to test it per Storms' > > instructions; or -- most often -- they don't have the time or the > > instruments they need. > > Codeposition, Jed. Not "palladium," but "palladium chloride." Now, > Storms say that he's been unable to reproduce the codeposition > results of the SPAWAR group. That's worrisome, Jed. On the other > hand, there were some positive results from the Galileo Project. > I'm > going to need to ask Mr. Krivit more about that.... > > >The only thing you should look for in materials is something that > >works. Whether it costs $20 or $2000 should not be a consideration. > > Wrong. If the kit is expensive, it causes two problems. It can't be > purchased by kids or their parents on a limited budget. An > experimenter can't decide to test *many* cells instead of one or a > very few. You are thinking of ordinary scientific replication. I'm > not. I'm thinking of bypassing the entire existing system and > creating something that could be studied by others, later, the > scientists who will publish, if they care to. Standard baseline > experiment, cheap. Some variations may be expensive. > > Equipment, you call it "instruments," for simple demonstrations, > fairly cheap and it will be rented to customers. Programmable power > supply. Temp sensors, possibly some other sensors, say, pressure > and > acoustic or light or even radiation, though radiation may mostly be > with CR-39, which is pretty expensive, but small pieces. Computer > interface, standard USB. > > Storms assumed that individual experimenters would be etching their > own CR-39, and, indeed, some may do this, but I expect the company > will offer that service along with other analysis. Process lots of > chips at once. Done by people who know what they are doing. Storms > assumed a lot of things that would make kit usage much more subject > to individual variations. Perhaps "kit" is a misnomer. The "full > kit" > would be a demonstration operated in the base mode, designed for > maximum reliability, whatever that turns out to be. But then > customers could try variations. > > > In my opinion, the Arata material is more promising, so I think > > you should find someone to fabricate it, or ask Santoku Corp. for > > some. They have been providing it for free to researchers in > Japan, > > and they were kind enough to send some to U.S. researchers as > well. > > I believe the supply is limited and the price has not been set as > I > > said, so price is not an issue. Availability is the problem. The > > biggest issue in my mind is that no one has done truly convincing > > calorimetry to prove the stuff works in the first place. Doing > > credible calorimetry will cost you $5,000 to $10,000 if you buy a > > calorimeter off the shelf, or you can spend several months > learning > > how to make Seebeck calorimeters of the kind Storms made. If your > > time is worth anything that will cost more than $10,000. > > You are stating exactly why we might avoid excess heat as a > necessary > measurement. Some temperature measurements, perhaps, some rough > calorimetry, but not precise calorimetry. It's not actually > necessary, if one can show correlation with other phenomena. Is, > for > example, increased temperature, under otherwise similar operating > conditions, correlated with helium? But Storms indicated that the > SPAWAR type cells don't produce enough helium. Is that true? > > The goal of the kits is to reproduce, reliably, at least one LENR > phenomenon, but preferably two that can be correlated. Helium, Jed. > It's possible to drastically lower, I believe, the cost of helium > testing. Or there are ways to split the cost between amalgamated > experiments, I won't go into it. Gotta put the kids to bed.... > > Came back later, I called Storms and modified the above a little as > a > result. Maybe helium won't be possible with small co-dep cells, > unless they can be cycled and run for a long time. I'm going to > need > to get a little more electrochemistry going.... what happens if you > reverse the polarity of a co-dep cell, will the plated palladium > dissolve and be deposited on the other electrode? If so.... > > I need to start discussing this on the coldfusionproject list...., > not so much here. > >
