Thanks for the link, but again, I'm not really arguing over the patent, that's beside the point. I'm just saying where their *most extensive* work has focused over the years. The patent doesn't really suggest anything about a possible LENR mechanism, just that it's part of the cold fusion phenomenon that could be harnessed. David Nagel is not quite as optimistic as they are that industrial scale transmutation is possible, as you might have known from his recent ICCF talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83DLfW2epzc
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
