Cold Fusion Times : Previous US gov't classified &other, documents from early &mid-years of the Cold Fusion coverup now public through FOIA &FairUse

Quote from AlainCo

Cold Fusion Times wrote:

Nagel, 1998, NRL report, unclassified, to be published in a journal. "Approved for public release; distribution unlimited," listed in the lenr-canr.org database but not hosted there, which generally means that the author did not authorize upload. As a public document, this was publishable, but it looks like nobody took action to do that. From the NRL document: This paper was presented at the Seventh International Symposium on Radiation Physics in Jaipur, Rajasthan, India on 28 February 1997. It will be published in the Proceedings by the journal "Radiation Physics and Chemistry."
1998 Nagel, D.J., The status of 'cold fusion'. Radiat. Phys. Chem., 1998. 51: p. 653. The journal copyright would not be valid for the NRL-published version, at least.

This is a quite good review of the field as of early 1998.

"Original distribution authorized to U.S. government agencies only; Test and Evaluation; January 1996. Other requests shall be referred to Commanding Officer, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC 20375-5320. In 2016 this document was Approved for Public Release Distribution Unlimited" There are new introductions by Pam Boss and Melvin Miles, dated February, 2016.
I think this has already been discussed. The paper is hosted on lenr-canr.org, http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DominguezDasummaryof.pdf
While the original report was classified, it is not at all clear that this was "public through FOIA" and Fair Use does not apply. This is a released document.

Cold Fusion Verification, March 1991 [62 Pages, 2.3MB]
This was never classified, it was "Approved for public release; distribution Is unlimited."
From the summary:

This document is of historical interest only, for the most part. There were two efforts reported, to find neutrons and to find helium. There was no effort to measure heat, so results were essentially meaningless. They did not show any evidence that they created the FP Heat Effect, which was the primary experimental finding, until correlated helium was shown that same year, they may have been unaware of Miles.
The document is not on lenr-canr. org. It could be, but Jed normally does not upload papers on his own initiative.

The abstract begins with:

They ignored the major experimental observation, in favor of two details: the erroneous neutron report, already retracted well before this report was published, and helium, which was not reported in the FP paper, but there had been some claims, uncorrelated with heat. This paper is an example of the extensive confusion of 1989-1990.

This was obtained by the Black Vault manager, under FOIA. It is a translation of a Russian paper, a preprint, and distribution was limited, hence it was not released. It was copyrighted material, and the FOIA request response explicitly noted that, with the release not authorizing publication, but only providing information pursuant to FOIA, the copyright would be held by the Russian authors. However, it appears that the paper was published (in Russian).
There are papers by the lead author listed in the lenr-canr.org with similar titles:
Golubnichii, P.I., et al., A possible mechanism for cold nuclear fusion. J. Kratk. Soobshch. Fiz., 1989(6): p. 56 (In Russian).
Golubnichii, P.I., et al., Possible mechanism of cold nuclear fusion. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR Fiz. Khim., 1989. 307: p. 99 (in Russian).
Both papers are in the Britz database.

So the news here is the English translation. The idea is obsolete. Fractofusion is real, apparently, but occurs at very low levels and does not explain the "cold fusion" found by Pons and Fleischmann. This was an early paper and was trying to explain the reported or expected neutrons, which fractofusion will generate.

[quote]In Search of Electrochemically Induced Cold Fusion, by A. Mayer, May 1990 [3 Pages, 0.77MB]

Display More

Los Alamos National Laboratory, unclassified. There is only cover pages, and an abstract. This was work primarily looking for neutrons. There is no description of measuring heat. Failure could be predicted. There may have been no paper at all, merely a description of a talk to be given at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in 1990.

Other than the first two papers, the second of which was already released and known and hosted on lenr-canr.org, there is not of much interest here, except for history buffs who want to see all the blind alleys and dead ends of the time.

Jed is a smart guy and a great writer, but we shouldn't take everything he says as gospel truth. Like the rest of us, he doesn't know everything and can be wrong.

Quote from MrSelfSustain

Jed is a smart guy and a great writer, but we shouldn't take everything he says as gospel truth. Like the rest of us, he doesn't know everything and can be wrong.

Nothing was quoted here from Jed. I mentioned his practice on uploads, that's all. He will generally upload any paper related to LENR -- these would be -- on author request. Sometimes if the paper is clearly copyrighted, and the suggested upload is "as published" rather than a preprint or final draft, he won't.

Quote from JedRothwell

IH Fanboy wrote:

If Jed said that, he was having a bad day, or meant, "nothing particularly important". In the list, the second document was originally classified (and it is probably the only truly significant document, and it was already released before this, and it has been discussed here.) None of the others was classified; if not available, it would be because the authors did not take steps to make them available. The first document, a quite good Nagel review, was unclassified, though later published in a journal. The Russian paper was copyright, so the U.S. government copy was for internal use only, as a translation of a copyrighted paper. The announcement of this on coldfusiontimes was overblown.

There is a lot of material that is journal-published which is copyright, but these are not secret, they are actually published. And you can get access to them if you need them.

As Jed had written, none was classified, and he is correct about limited distribution vs classification, so I struck the incorrect comments above.

Exhibit 5 does not prove that the whole year long test was a giant hoax. All it does is ask some important questions that we need specific answers for. As of this time, I have not read a response from Andrea Rossi or Penon. These questions are simply a small number out of hundreds that need to be specifically addressed to Andrea Rossi. My hope is that if he does not answer these and many more questions during this phase, he will provide the answers during the trial. Once answers are provided -- even if they are legally forced out of him -- then we can make an assessment knowing BOTH sides of the story.

Please, just continue calling bulls*it on all of us who don't fall in line like obedient brainwashed zombies with the TOTAL GIGANTIC HOAX WITH ZERO EXCESS HEAT narrative quite yet before we have Andrea Rossi's and Penon's responses on a huge number of issues. I'll fully admit that there is a LOT to be suspicious and concerned about. And if good answers with perhaps some of Abd's "wabbits" are not provided, your accusations could plausibly turn out to be right on target.

Jed has responded to this, but I want to express a different take.

Quote from MrSelfSustain

Exhibit 5 does not prove that the whole year long test was a giant hoax. All it does is ask some important questions that we need specific answers for. As of this time, I have not read a response from Andrea Rossi or Penon. These questions are simply a small number out of hundreds that need to be specifically addressed to Andrea Rossi. My hope is that if he does not answer these and many more questions during this phase, he will provide the answers during the trial. Once answers are provided -- even if they are legally forced out of him -- then we can make an assessment knowing BOTH sides of the story.

It does not "prove" giant hoax, but displays some evidence that can be interpreted that way.

What has been raised by Industrial Heat in their Answer etc., in general is evidence appearing very strong, that something was very, very off about Rossi's behavior. It was already known and generally accepted that Rossi is eccentric, with paranoid behavior, but a darker side shows up. Fake Hydro Fusion test failure -- or lying to IH, which was it? -- in 2012? Fake customer, and fake power "invoices"? WTF?

Quote

Please, just continue calling bulls*it on all of us who don't fall in line like obedient brainwashed zombies with the TOTAL GIGANTIC HOAX WITH ZERO EXCESS HEAT narrative quite yet before we have Andrea Rossi's and Penon's responses on a huge number of issues. I'll fully admit that there is a LOT to be suspicious and concerned about. And if good answers with perhaps some of Abd's "wabbits" are not provided, your accusations could plausibly turn out to be right on target.

Come off the zombie rant! It's perfectly okay to express patience, to allow time for Rossi to Answer, even to hope for a Wabbit.

What I want to acknowledge here is the recognition of possible plausibility to a different point of view than one's own. That is an attitude that can create useful conversations. Thanks.

Jed Rothwell and Abd,

I do not know where I read it, but I'm sure I found a document or statement somewhere in the court papers explaining that the 0 bar reading actually represented atmospheric pressure and not vacuum. There is a chance I am mistaken (I've been doing a LOT of reading lately on many different topics) but I'm 90% sure that is specified somewhere. I'm going to search a little and try to find it.

Abd,

Thanks for the reasonable response. I agree that on the surface the information from IH does seem to indicate things were "off" about the test. This combined with additional revelations creates the impression that Andrea Rossi could have plausibly been up to something very deceptive. But I'm not about to make a personal determination until I've heard Rossi's side and Penon's side. One thing I've learned over time in my own offline life and experience is that coming to a conclusion about a matter knowing only one side of a story can often backfire. I'm the kind of person who loves to talk, and I'm overall a pretty good listener. I've had people tell me long, detailed stories about how another individual did them wrong or conspired against them. On occasion, I was convinced by their seemingly genuine words and the limited knowledge I had of the situation. Then later a whole new series of facts would be revealed that changed the "reality" of the story significantly! Often, it would place both parties somewhere in the middle of the guilty/innocent spectrum instead of being polar opposites.

Here is the quote from exhibit 5.

"The flow of steam through the pipe to J.M. Products.
You stated that the pressure of the steam that was available to J.M. Products (JMP) was nominally atmospheric pressure (0 kilo Pascals gauge (kPaG) or 14.7 psia). The steam passed through a stretch of insulated pipe that was at least 6 meters long before entering the JMP space. (Presumably there was additional steam pipe on the JMP side.) According to the data you have reported, the conserved mass flow rate of the system from February to November 2015 was on average 33,558 kg/day (1398 kg/h) and the temperature of the water and steam were on average 68.7º C and 102.8º C, respectively. The steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be 0 kPaG and the piping is DN40."

This explains to me that the zero bar pressure that you have reported many times here and elsewhere actually was supposed to represent a pressure of 14.7 psi or near atmospheric. This is from IH's own engineer, reporting what Penon had stated.

So Penon claims that the steam pressure PROVIDED BY THE PLANT was 14.7psi.

If the zero bar pressure had represented pure vacuum, that would have been absurd.

Anyway, what we DO NOT KNOW is if the equipment of JM Chemical Products provided a lower pressure that pulled the steam along.

I'm not a fluid dynamicist or an engineer, so I'm not going to try and estimate what quantity of steam could be transported along that tube. However, I'd guess that the amount thermal power in the form of steam capable of being transported exceeded the maximum electrical input power capable of being fed into the plant.