http://coldfusionnow.org/transmutation-of-nuclear-waste-lenr-spawar-navy-patent/
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> wrote: > *Transmutation is a huge part of lenr.* > > It's a "part of lenr" for sure. I don't know if I'd say "huge" because > we've never, ever, measured transmutation products that are commensurate > with excess heat. This is Widom-Larsen logic based on wishful thinking and > very little empirical evidence. > > *Spawar has published patents all over it.* > > They have patents on LENR. OK. And? All of their work focused on detecting > nuclear products (neutrons, alphas, energetic particles) using CR-39 > detectors. SPAWAR never concludes transmutation as a "mechanism". Their > work was not focused on pinning down transmutation products as you're > suggesting here. > > *I'm sure it's why the Nasa scientist is excited about it, because he's > seen it before and know it's likely true to a point.* > > It's also possible he's getting overly excited because he's oblivious > about the past heat/helium work in PdD that already proved something > "nuclear" was going on in cold fusion twenty years ago. Plenty of people > have seen odd transmutations...that in no way means it's the mechanism. > This conversation has been hatched out many places prior to this so I > don't mean to drudge it up. > > If it turns out to be some kind of neutron-stripping mechanism, or > whatever, so be it, but we need way more analysis before we declare that. > This is akin to Rossi declaring copper transmutation years ago and everyone > chasing that empirical/theoretical dead-end. I hope people keep that in > mind before irrational exuberance sets in over this data. It's only the > beginning, not the destination. > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Blaze Spinnaker < > blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Transmutation is a huge part of lenr. Spawar has published patents all >> over it. I'm sure it's why the Nasa scientist is excited about it, >> because he's seen it before and know it's likely true to a point. >> >> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> The Isotopic shift is interesting, but that's actually what I'm least >>> impressed with from what I've read so far. It certainly hints at a >>> "nuclear" reaction, but it's a bizarre finding. The excess heat is pretty >>> obvious/irrefutable, but these isotopic measurements are very far from a >>> sure-thing. If you're only taking a small % of a rather large sample of >>> ash, and only allowed to do it once (or twice?), and there are questions >>> about whether the measuring devices could properly distinguish certain >>> isotopes from one another, and we don't know the extent of contamination, I >>> don't see how you can declare anything with much confidence. So, I'm sold >>> on heat, but still not sold on "Lithium as the fuel" quite yet without more >>> replication/analysis. If I had to guess, I'd say IH & Rossi told them they >>> could only take a small sample to create just this kind of confusion. Why >>> would we think they'd be ready to unveil their trade secrets already? Seems >>> like a little bit of an obfuscation tactic to me. Just IMO. >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < >>> stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jed was talking in watts, W ~ T^4, T is the fourth root of W so it is >>>> logarithmic >>>> not exponential in your jargon. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> *From:* Jed >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The calibration was done at 486 W and and then the cell was run at 790 >>>>> W for two days. That seems reasonably close to me. The temperature should >>>>> have been about the same. I cannot imagine any mechanism that would make >>>>> it >>>>> go so much higher, other than anomalous excess heat. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Geeze you are sounding almost as bad as Levi - in not seeing the >>>>> obvious ... “about the same” is absurd, given what happens later. The >>>>> difference between 486 and 790 is enormous when the delta-T is being >>>>> raised >>>>> by a formula which includes a fourth power (Stefan–Boltzmann law) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> look at the graph on this page !! small change in temperature (based >>>>> on emissivity) are increased exponentially. Now we know that those changes >>>>> could have been influenced by the photon output of the resistance wires. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The is no evidence of gain in the way this was done and Levi should >>>>> have known that from before ! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jones >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
