OK, Jed, my way of thinking is based on my education and experience in engineering and my project re real life problem solving. I still cannot afford to perform experiences in cold fusion, despite the fact that I am really curious if my poisoning hupothesis is of some value- gaseous air impurities being the hidden parameter I am speaking about. And the practical way is to work with cathodes having the NAE protected by some monomolecular layer of tensioactive stuff. This subsatnce has to chosen empirically- a cation-active or a nonionic surfactant, or both combined. As far I know nobody has tried this or something similar. But I believe this protection is the explanation for miracle cathodes. Mizuno's was the most impressive.
Just a question on what facts do you base your statement that Piantelli was/is secretive and non-cooperative? He is anyway a great scientist, has some important achievements in biophysics (cancer research) too besides this working energy system. Perhaps he is not very enthuisastic re cold fusion, but this is an other issue. Peter On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > Peter Gluck wrote: > > I hope you do not suppose that after being for over 21 years a faithful > coldfusionist I do not know the necessary conditions to obtain some decent > and modest levels of heat excess. > > > McKubre knows the necessary conditions to obtain decent & modest levels of > heat, but he does not know how to achieve them in every case. See p. 21. 14 > out of 23 isn't bad. The cathodes from ENEA that produce .3 to 7 W are much > smaller than the ones from the early 1990s. If you were to scale one back up > to the size they used back then I expect it would produce a lot more. > > > > The problem is that our champions cannot obtain consistently say 300% heat > excess and please do not forget this is a minimum to get real excess (1KWh > electric energy needs 3 kwh thermal electricity). > > > Once they learn to control the reaction they will be able to make it 100 to > 1, or 1000 to 1, or zero input (gas loading). I wouldn't worry about the > ratio now, as long it is large enough to allow the reaction to be measured > with confidence. > > > > The 4 basic conditions are known in theory, in principle but the > manufacturers > of Pd do not master the technology, metallurgy and nanotechnology to make > such materials batch after batch- so at least for me it is obvious that it > is some hidden parameter at play here. > > > Well, it is not all that hidden. As I said, that is like saying that the > "secret" to make rockets was not known to the Americans in the late 1950s > when the Russians were winning the "space race." Many people thought that > was the case, but it was not. > > > > Plus as you well know, palladium is very scarce- and cannot be the > basis of a really great energy source. > > > There is enough Pd to put a catalytic converter into every automobile and > truck, using about half the supply. Automobiles produce ~27 of all energy, > so it is not a huge stretch to think that if the Pd were producing energy > instead of cleaning up emissions, it could supply about half the energy we > use, and maybe all. That would depend on how thin the thin films can be, and > how active the nuclear active environment is. > > Anyway, I expect they will find a way to use Ni instead. > > > > > We should ask Mike what is "consistent levels of excess heat" And can this > level be increased? > > > I have no doubt it can be increased, because it has been much higher in a > few cases. Anything that happens by accident or happenstance can be made to > happen on purpose. It is just a matter of money -- truckloads of funding. > > > > As regarding Energetics and ENEA they have really obtained some excellent > results- but are they able to obtain 10 or 100 or 1000 times repeatedly the > same level of energy as in the historical cathode No. 64? Or is it only > about condition No 5- some smart method of stimulation? With a limited > potential....improving but not sooo much. > > > That is because there is not sooo much money. There are 2 or 3 people at > work on this technique in the entire world. We need 500,000 people. That's > how many people were working on airplanes in 1910, and transistors in 1958. > With that kind effort we will make more progress every month than people > have made in the last 21 years. > > > > Your analogies from aviation and rocket science are inspiring but do not > much for solving the problem which can be formulated simply as Cold Fusion > is not yet technologically reproducible. > > > Rockets and transistors were not reproducible when they were first funded. > Goddard's rockets in the 1930s were mere toys, but Guggenheim started > forking out real money to develop them. In 1954 transistors were less > predictable and controllable than the ENEA cold fusion cathodes are today, > yet millions of dollars was pouring into the R&D (hundreds of millions after > inflation). The thing is, when they made batches of 100 small, weak > transistors, and only 3 of them worked -- each with different performance -- > they could still sell those 3 for $16 each and make a profit. A small, > unpredictable transistor was still a commercially useful device whereas a > small cold fusion device (or one of Goddard's rockets) is perfectly useless. > > > *What I am not able to understand: *we have got information that a > technologically reproducible system of LENR exists- nickel and hydrogen > based- the original Piantelli system for which the necessary know-how > elements were found and this is developed both by the author, Prof PIantelli > and his former coworker Sergio Focardi plus the inventor Andrea Rossi and > the results are encouraging if true- and nobody from our community has taken > this seriously (?) . . . > > > They take it seriously. Unfortunately, Piantelli has been secretive and > uncooperative, and others who tried to replicate got nowhere, so other > researchers do not have much interest in this. That has been the case with > many other promising development, and it looks like Rossi may be the same > way. It is too early to say. A researcher who is secretive and uncooperative > might as well be dead and forgotten for all the good he will do. I think > there is no chance this will developed quietly by someone like Piantelli off > in a corner. The only surprise development might come from Mizuno, who is > off trying to develop the phenanthrene system, discovered in the 1930s. He > is off by himself with noise level funding -- or perhaps zero funding (I > don't know) -- but he is not secretive, and he cooperates with many people. > > > > Anyway, we have a serious reproducibility problem and we will not solve it > with slogans and forced analogies. > > > The analogies are close, not forced. Transistors and cold fusion devices > are solid state devices with many similarities. The first transistors were > in aqueous solution, very similar to electrochemical cells, with many > similar problems. Our problems are political, not technical. With any other > discovery in the history of technology, given a development that had come > this far, with this much solid proof and promise, the field would be flooded > with public and private funding. We would have thousands or hundreds of > thousands of people frantically working on it. > > The only reason we do not have funding is because of academic politics and > opposition from a relatively small number of people. You could reveal a > working 2 kW reactor tomorrow and not one of those people who admit he is > wrong or tone down his attacks. We will have to work around them because > they will *never*, to their dying day, admit they were wrong. The people > who opposed railroads, airplanes, transistors, computers and other > technology never admitted they were wrong. They will say 'yes it works, but > it will never be of any real use.' Well into the 1970s people opposed to > computers said they were a waste of money, and data processing was a fad > that will soon go away. > > - Jed >
