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

Quote from Alan Smith

Russ merely states the distance. I think you are making the mistake of thinking Russ is stupid. That would be a big mistake, I have worked with and for some very bright people indeed, and he isn't far behind any of them.

When I say that I don't know how Russ George thinks the synchronization is mixed up with quantumn entanglement I mean it. Entanglement is usually for systems which were once coincident in spacetime but are now separated. Does this mean that the pellets were once part of a single pellet? Does it mean that particles emanating from one pellet lodge themselves in the other, now distant, one? I don't know because I haven't come across anything so far in George's blogs that covers this.

Quote from RobertBryant

As I have postulated the comparison of the energy drops from 22MEV to infrared virations

to trophic levels in a food pyramid is helpful because it provides a way to extend

LENR to magma.

I am not bipolar for suggesting this but in fact multipolar.. multilateral

but my mutlpolarity does not extend to Rossi thread OCD.

Display More

Wooowww. That's heavy, man . . . Take another toke.

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

The problem I see on RG's blog, and why I couldn't actually get beyond a cursory reading, is it's overuse of analogies. which is a pet peave of mine.

Analogies are not evidence of anything.

Yes. They can be a good method of teaching. They give the student a way to remember what you are saying. An association. But they are no guide to nature.

There is something similar to an analogy which can be an actual guide to nature. For example, what Chris Tinsley said about combustion and metabolism, comparing them to plasma fusion and cold fusion. Combustion and metabolism are thermodynamically the same thing. They both start with carbon and end with CO2. So they produce the same amount of heat per gram of reactant. The intermediate steps are completely different. The Krebs cycle is nothing like open combustion. Plasma fusion of D+D and cold fusion of D+D produce the same amount of energy per gram of deuterium (based on helium production), so thermodynamically they are the same. They must be working via completely different paths. Presumably, cold fusion is much more complicated, in the same way the Krebs cycle is more complicated than open combustion. That's not an analogy; it is probably an actual fact about nature, which we can derive from the facts at hand. (Probably derive -- it is not a sure thing.)

Chris also said that the reaction of present day people to cold fusion might have been mirrored in the 18th century when Lavoisier confirmed that combustion and metabolism produce the same amount of CO2 per joule of heat. Someone might have said: "You are saying there is a fire inside our bodies?!? What nonsense!" No, that isn't what he was saying. On the other hand, he did not know what he was saying. It was an observation. Krebs did not establish the mechanism until 1937.

When Napoleon heard proposals to make steam powered ships, he supposedly said: “You would make a ship sail against the winds and currents by lighting a bonfire under her decks? I have no time for such nonsense.” That is probably apocryphal, but I can well imagine someone in that era saying it. That shows the danger of taking an analogy or comparison too far. No, it was nothing like a bonfire under the decks.

Alan Smith wrote: Russ merely states the distance. I think you are making the mistake of thinking Russ is stupid. That would be a big mistake, I have worked with and for some very bright people indeed, and he isn't far behind any of them.

@Bruce H wrote:When I say that I don't know how Russ George thinks the synchronization is mixed up with quantumn entanglement I mean it. Entanglement is usually for systems which were once coincident in spacetime but are now separated. Does this mean that the pellets were once part of a single pellet? Does it mean that particles emanating from one pellet lodge themselves in the other, now distant, one? I don't know because I haven't come across anything so far in George's blogs that covers this.

Alan Smith wrote: The pellets were from the same batch of fuel.

I find this an often frustrating scenario with this field among particular participants. A question was asked as should be in science review. But the answer come back defensive and insinuating. (At least more polite than RB usually does)

Why not simply answer as the second one properly was. Magicsound does not fire off defensive or insulting (as RB does) when someone asks a question. He normally answers it and then that is the end of it.

I see a "eCat World / Rossi like" pattern here. If someone asks a question about particular researchers, just like on ECW, the person is attacked, not simply answering the question. The posters immediately start "defending the researcher" instead of simply answering the question. That should not be done nor be necessary.

The best "defense" is simply a good answer. AND this develops a lot more respect for the researcher! I have not seen ONE negative post here on MagicSound? Why? He behaves as a true researcher should. He does not huff and puff, make huge claims that doe not pan out over the years nor yank threads from forums threatening lawsuits. Walk the talk!

No one has called anyone on this thread here stupid either. And we need to keep in mind that Tesla was a genius but thought he talked to Martians as well. Smart people are OFTEN deluded or misled. It happens often.

Point in fact, a number here, including RG, seemingly still believe Rossi! Rossi is a liar and fraud which has been proven. Yet some here refuse to acknowledge that. It truly weakens people's opinion of how reliable those people's ability to discern certain areas of fact are! And that discernment fault can creep over to other areas as well! People need to realize this.

That is why peer review is so prevalent in science. It keeps the "crazy's" separated by separating spurious claims from actual data results. IF they do not provide data, they are basically ignored. This field should do the same in my opinion.

So far we have only seen spurious claims...several big ones in fact.... and no data. Charts with no legends, no descriptions nor protocols mean absolutely ZERO. Why are we defending this? As Jed has stated before, if this was Johnny 5, it would not be supported! No free pass to RG either.... especially considering a long history.

Quote from Bruce__H

When I say that I don't know how Russ George thinks the synchronization is mixed up with quantum entanglement I mean it.

If he meant that to be literally true, is seems highly unlikely, so I think he was wrong. If he meant it as an analogy or a suggestive observation, I think he should have said: "this is analogous to quantum entanglement, or the synchronization of pendulums." I am not sure that is a helpful observation, because quantum entanglement is so different from pendulums synchronizing. This analogy does not suggest a way the fuel pellets might be linked. It just says that some things are unexpectedly linked.

If he thinks pendulums synchronize by quantum entanglement, he is completely wrong. He has made statements in the past that were completely wrong. Such as his claim that he could see the bubbles of helium formed by cold fusion. If you could see them, your reactor would be producing megawatts momentarily, and that would be last thing you ever saw.

We all make mistakes from time to time, but I try to retract my mistakes. I would not leave one in a blog.

Quote from Alan Smith

The pellets were from the same batch of fuel.

I suppose that a question naturally arises then ... do pellets that are not from the same batch of fuel synchronise?

Quote from JedRothwell

We all make mistakes from time to time, but I try to retract my mistakes. I would not leave one in a blog.

Mind you, I don't admit I was wrong. I just quietly fix the mistake, upload a new version of the paper, and hope that no one notices. That's the beauty of being the librarian.

Quote from Bruce__H

I am unsure what you mean by this. Do you mean that a single cool-down curve falls at different rates as it transits through different temperatures?

As said: Reaction rates are temperature dependent! Thus the slope will be different. It of course it basically depends on the isotopes that are in the fuel.

Quote from Bob#2

When I say that I don't know how Russ George thinks the synchronization is mixed up with quantumn entanglement I mean it.

To say it clear: Do not interpret to much into what has been said. Most of the time Russ just needed an explanation to tell people what he did see. This does not tell us whether the explanation is correct in a sense that at the end it is as said. If you walk in unexplored fields then there are only words you bring from other fields.

Let's hope we can resume walking soon!

Quote from Wyttenbach

To say it clear: Do not interpret to much into what has been said.

What is that supposed to mean? Words don't matter? Don't pay any attention to what he says?

Quote from Wyttenbach

Most of the time Russ just needed an explanation to tell people what he did see.

If he meant it literally, and not as an analogy, then it was nonsense. An "explanation" that is nonsense is not what you "need." It does not help your credibility.

Quote from Wyttenbach

This does not tell us whether the explanation is correct in a sense that at the end it is as said.

The explanation is not correct. "As said" or in any other form (as not said?), if it was meant to be a statement about physical facts, and not an analogy, it was wrong.

Quote from JedRothwell

The explanation is not correct. "As said" or in any other form (as not said?), if it was meant to be a statement about physical facts, and not an analogy, it was wrong.

You can't know! You didn't watch.

Physics must be independently confirmed/reproduced. Until then nothing is wrong. This is the rule!

Quote from Wyttenbach

You can't know! You didn't watch.

The claim is that pendulums synchronize by quantum entanglement. That's wrong. It is well known how and why they synchronize.

I suppose it is conceivable that George's materials do synchronize by quantum entanglement, but it sounds unlikely.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Physics must be independently confirmed/reproduced. Until then nothing is wrong.

Pendulum synchronization has been confirmed since the 17th century.

Quote from Wyttenbach

As said: Reaction rates are temperature dependent! Thus the slope will be different. It of course it basically depends on the isotopes that are in the fuel.

I am still unclear what you mean. I understand that reaction rates are temperature dependent but what slope do you mean? And what will it be different from?

Quote from JedRothwell

Wooowww. That's heavy, man . . . Take another toke.

If you are naked Cornubian eco-warrior in Cornwall with weed woad in spring and with your ears to the ground

you might just feel the magmatic ursache heavy rock in reverse pitch

and discern deuterium fusion

the gray entities

around TM 17.30

the phononic ensemble is filtered out by the 10 km depth

but Fe57 may still be a faint color

Quote from Alan Smith

Bob#2

I take your point well. However, there is a certain amount of 'back story' associated with Bruce-H and his persistent confusion about things.

Bob#2

I have had this out with Alan. His concerns about any "back story" are silly and don't, in the end, answer why he won't answer sensible questions in a direct fashion.

Quote from RobertBryant

If you are in Cornwall

However if you are in Sapporo

with natto icecream and sake

the beat of the R8 drum may feel /bee much thinner than the Cornubian batholith

almost like a maruhanabachi..

the presence of just two lowkev isotope states, 61Ni and 105Pd

doesn't seem so polyphonic... perhaps there are more.

"

The D*-D* → 4He energy down scaling with 61Ni looks as following 23.6 MeV → 67.418keV → 1001eV →1eV → 0.05..0.07eV.

Ideally this is a resonant coupling where all the partners at the low end ( 1001eV →11eV → 0.05..0.07eV) can also couple with multiple weights.

The scale factors for each step are in the range of 100..300.

The same path for 105Pd is: 23.6 MeV → 38.720keV (319.130keV) → 1001eV → 11eV → 0.05..0.07eV.
The 61Ni 67.418keV state has a long life time of 5.34ns, which seems to help for the final phonon coupling.
The 105Pd 38.720keV state can be loaded much faster which avoids a broken pipeline (drain out before reloading)

We assume that once a chain is in resonance the full 23.6 MeV drain out into phonon energy

https://www.researchgate.net/p…ntext=projectUpdateDetail