Update of Russ George's blog: tiny ‘atom-ecology’ cold fusion fuel pellets

I think it is important information. So will others I expect. Is Mr George the only one in the world who has ever made this work?

Quote from Bruce__H

I thought that quaternions represent 3-dimensional rotations and SO(4) represents 4-dimensional rotations

This is quite correct. Quaternions are used in computer graphics because it is very easy to program 3D rotation in 4D space. Quaternions work on S³ the three sphere. A subset of the particle flux the so called 3D/4D flux does three rotations. This flux interacts with the outside and hosts the gamma states. Some fancy relations can be explained by Quaternion logarithms.

Quote from Alan Smith

No- plenty of other people have made working cold fusion systems. As for the important information, I refer you to Wyttenbach's post #20 above.

Good to know. You are acting confused about what I am asking, so I will go back to my initial formulation.

Do you know the method and formula for preparing the fuel pellets? Have you prepared any working pellets?

Quote from Bruce__H

so I will go back to my initial formulation.

Maybe Bruce-H is interested to contribute to the lab from his back pocket?

Perhaps a sample pellet with a fee would be in order..

Quote from Bruce__H

I thought that quaternions represent 3-dimensional rotations and SO(4) represents 4-dimensional rotations

"General 4D rotations can be implemented by two-sided quaternion multiplication;

every 4-vector gets multiplied by one quaternion from the left and one from the right.

The other eight controls below control these two quaternions, each row controlling one coordinate of the four required....."

Knowledge is just a click away on my chromebook

keywords "quaternions... 4d rotations"

Quote from fabrice DAVID

The Canaries and the Galapagos were too media-sensitive places,

The great Southern Ocean still thirsts for Deustcher blut und eisen

Multiple ocean labs, scientists and businesses have explored fertilization. Beginning in 1993, thirteen research teams completed ocean trials demonstrating that phytoplankton blooms can be stimulated by iron augmentation.^[1] Controversy remains over the effectiveness of atmospheric CO2 sequestration and ecological effects.^[2]

"

The ship left Cape Town on 7 January 2009. The expedition ended after 70 days on 17 March 2009 in Punta Arenas, Chile.

Following protests from several NGOs, the German government ordered a halt of the experiment. Environmentalists feared damage to the marine ecosystem from an artificial algal bloom. The critics argued that long-term effects of ocean fertilization would not be detectable during short-term observation.^[2] Other critics feared the entry into large-scale manipulation of ecosystems with these large geo-engineering experiments.^[3][4] The German government sent the proposal for scientific and legal reviews that were supportive of the project and the experiment was allowed to continue.

LOHAFEX was not the first experiment of its kind. In 2000 and 2004

, comparable amounts of iron sulfate were discharged from the same ship (EisenEx experiment). 10 to 20 percent of the algal bloom died off and sank to the sea floor. This removed carbon from the atmosphere, which is the intended carbon sink.

As expected iron fertilization led to development of a bloom during LOHAFEX, but the chlorophyll increase within the fertilized patch, an indicator of biomass, was smaller than in previous experiments. The algal bloom also stimulated the growth of zooplankton that feed on them. The zooplankton in turn are consumed by higher organisms. Thus, ocean fertilization with iron also contributes to the carbon-fixing marine biomass^[5] of fish species which have been removed from the ocean by over-fishing.^[6]

In contrast to the other experiments (e.g. EisenEX) the uptake of the algae by zooplankton left no relevant organic carbon to sink to the ocean floor. Thus, the applied iron did not contribute to the sequestration of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere^[7]

Multiple ocean labs, scientists and businesses have explored fertilization. Beginning in 1993, thirteen research teams completed ocean trials demonstrating that phytoplankton blooms can be stimulated by iron augmentation.^[1] Controversy remains over the effectiveness of atmospheric CO2 sequestration and ecological effects.^[2]

Alan Smith

I'll ask again in case my most recent iteration of my 2 questions has escaped your notice.

Do you know the method and formula for preparing the fuel pellets? Have you prepared any working pellets?

Quote from Alan Smith

I think that's too important to gossip about on here Bruce. It deserves to be in a peer-reviewed journal. See post #20.

You believe that whether or not you know the formula and methods for producing the fuel is too important to be discussed here? You believe that whether or not you have personally produce working fuel pellets is too important to be discussed here?

I don't believe you think either of these things. At this point your reluctance to provide a straight answer to my questions has led me to conclude that you do not know the formula and have not prepared any working fuel pellets.

I don't believe the Weatherbird has descended so far in the Southern Seas. I will ask John Giles. This is undoubtedly another scientific expedition. Who got the first results, which team confirmed? I have to admit that I don't have Russ's expeditions schedule in mind. It is the work of an historian.

These experiments will have to be repeated on an industrial scale. We do not have the choice. Man has messed up this planet, he sent the EARTH spacecraft down the wrong path. You can't fix the problem just by letting go of the steering wheel, hiding your eyes and taking your feet off the pedals, and praying.

We have a duty to take control of our common future, without letting our hand tremble. In the not so distant past, we threw billions of Curies into the sea, through the Ob, through the Columbia, through the submarine canyon of the Rhône, into the Irish Sea, so we have the right to throw a few tens of thousands of tons of iron and other fertilizers into the oceans.

The problem of the fall of carbon at the bottom of the oceans is a real scientific problem. We have that it ends up falling to the bottom, otherwise there would be no oil in the tank of our car. The problem is to activate this fall by selecting which unicellular algae species are allowed to grow there. We will obviously choose microalgae which have a heavy calcareous shell, and which synthesize an oil which will freeze at deep sea temperatures. This is lucky: the phenomenon of "breathers" allows us to specifically kill any living being that we have chosen, and to favor others. (It's a little complicated technique, I mentioned it before.)

The techniques exist. Fortunately, after more than a quarter of a century of searching for Cold Fusion, we have developed capacities for imagination and innovation that we did not have at the beginning.

As in the Grail novel, the real goal of the quest was the transformation of Arthur and his knights.

We have our Merlins, and we have our Black Knights. We have outspoken colleagues like Gallaad, and others who like to embellish reality and use cunning, in defiance of the scientific method and of the laws of chivalry. And we have our “Wizard of Half Moon Bay”, and all the disciples that I am happy to meet at every ICCF Congress, and with whom I am happy to talk with on this forum.

And we have young écuyers (in french in the text) who come to take blows by our side, and who one day will help Mr. Musk and Mr. Bryn & Mr. Page save our world.

Of course, reproducible replications and clear publications are needed. This is a discussion I have had many times with Jed and Steven. But the laws of laboratories are not the same as those of business. (Which is why I don't have a villa with a helipad on the beautiful coast west of LA)

Businessmen have to spruce up the reality a little, otherwise the money just won't come.

So I'm like you, waiting for detailed publications, patents written in language understandable to those skilled in the art, and strong replications.

In the meantime, I want to believe.

Quote from Bruce__H

You believe that whether or not you know the formula and methods for producing the fuel is too important to be discussed here? You believe that whether or not you have personally produce working fuel pellets is too important to be discussed here?

I don't believe you think either of these things. At this point your reluctance to provide a straight answer to my questions has led me to conclude that you do not know the formula and have not prepared any working fuel pellets.

This is a serious problem with the LENR field!

I understand that if Allan does not want to answer, he does not need to but then should simply state that he is not going to answer. He should then understand that the implications are that people will "decipher " his non-answer in various ways. He should not complain. I really do not have any issue if he does not answer yes or no.

However, IF RG posts about an "invention of the century" making very significant claims that would revolutionize the world, then he should be prepared to answer questions and back up those claims. Otherwise, making claims without support is nothing short of Rossi style blather and should get no attention or respect. (Alan is not doing this as he makes no claims. However he should also not "support" RG if he is not willing to back him up with data or statements as such either!)

Mizuno has released some information, but it is still seemingly frustrating that replicators such as Magicsound (who I really admire, both method and ability) has such a hard time getting clear and verified information! At the same time more claims are being produced!. This seems odd at best. Then all the argumentative posts that are made because simple and clear answers are not forthwith only gives the forum and field overall a black eye.

Again, I call for LENR supporters to call for clarity and cooperation. If one is going to make claims, back them up. "Walk the walk, not simply talk the talk" as they say. Otherwise keep quiet, it only makes things worse.

RG's latest claims would be extremely easy to validate! If this is not done, it shows severe improper PR promotion at best and pure disingenuous misleading at worst, Rossi style.

Yes, one can bet that no one has made his fuel pellets other than RG. Yes, you can bet that no one has independently tested those fuel pellets other than RG. There is absolutely NO reason to not answer YES if this has been done. To skirt the issue is self revealing.... no they have not been done. Yes, you can bet that this story will be just like Rossi's, year after year with nothing happening UNTIL RG allows an independent validation. His history indicates that will not happen.

Time will tell!

Quote from Alan Smith

Russ just likes to keep his secrets, but I know the results were excellent and so do quite a few other people.

I suppose he has his reasons. Maybe you do know the results are excellent, but I do not know that, and I -- and others here -- have no reason to believe it. So neither you nor Russ should expect us to believe it. (Maybe you do not expect us to believe it, but he sure does.)

Frankly, it is a irritating that you even mention these results. It is unprofessional. What's the point? Who gives a damn about unsubstantiated claims that cannot be examined or replicated? They are a dime a dozen in cold fusion. Not one has ever panned out. If you are not going to provide evidence for a claim, I think it would be better to say nothing at all.

It is a little annoying when you make claims without evidence. It is very annoying that Russ does that and then gets upset when people don't believe him.

Also, until I hear from "quite a few other people" I have no reason to think they were impressed. You may be wrong about that. Not dishonest, but wrong. Researchers have often told me "people are impressed" but when I contacted the people, they were not impressed. It was a misunderstanding. Perhaps the outside observers were polite and noncommittal, and the researchers mistook that for enthusiasm.

Quote from Alan Smith

I didn't start this conversation about results Jed.

You contributed to it. With a strip-tease hoochie coochie act. You say, "I know the results were excellent and so do quite a few other people." That's grand! I am happy for you.

If you are not going to substantiate that, I suggest you refrain from saying it. It is unprofessional, as I said. It is pointless. No one familiar with the history of cold fusion will believe it. We may not disbelieve it, but we will not believe it. You get no free pass.

Quote from Alan Smith

I think this says it all really Jed.

No, it does not say a damn thing. Nothing of a verifiable, scientific nature. If you are not going to say things that can be independently confirmed with objective, quantitative evidence, you should say nothing. This is science, not People magazine.

Quote from Curbina

JedRothwell, please don't call Alan unprofessional,

Why shouldn't I? He is being unprofessional in this instance. If I went around saying things without a shred of evidence, with no way to verify them, and I refused to provide any proof, you, and he and others would call me unprofessional. Why shouldn't we hold everyone to the conventional standards of academic science?

I don't really care that he is unprofessional about this. It is silly. Okay, a little annoying. But he should not get upset when I point this out, and neither should you. He should not claim "this says it all" when "this" says nothing. He does not want to reveal anything? Okay! Fine. Cue up the hoochi coochi music. Start the balloon dance. But do not expect to be treated like a scientist. Let us not have a double standard. When other people such as Johnny Five come in here, make unsubstantiated claims and then vanish in a puff of smoke, people here call them out for it. Why shouldn't we call out Smith and George when they do the same thing?

Even when truth is OVER OVER verified, it can still be contested...again and again.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51602655

A Californian checked it out the hard way, PhysicsForDummies you have nothing to do with it ?