Cold fusion propulsion apparatus and energy generating apparatus
WO 1990014668 A3
"The invention contemplates a propulsion apparatus employing "cold fusion" of deuterium absorbed in a metal host lattice to generate a heated momentum exchange effluent stream directly from the deuterium itself and/or to heat a momentum exchange fluid flowing relative to the metal host lattice to provide a propulsive impulse when exhausted."
Normally I block you.. but when you allege about Mizuno
that is another matter.
Manup or MY up
Answer this question.
Is 760 Pa a high pressure? Note: Pa = Pascals.
Yes or No?
5.7 torr (0.0075 atm) fair light vacuum. Good enough for glow discharges if the electrodes are spaced right.
anyone know when and where the claimed QuarkX demo will be?
Yes, being good at electrochemistry does not make you good at calorimetric.
do experiment, report results and let peer decide if you did the experiment correctly or not.
not real- bets?
My bet is still on IH. I think that they still have a chance with some of their other supported research.
Not sure what the odds are, but I am will not rule them out just yet. They may come back with a vengeance next year
What companies were these? I have never heard of any such thing. If it happened, I would probably hear about it eventually.
Not real-I am with Jed- where do you get that 100M figure? The largest expenditure I have seen is the F&P lab in France supported by Toyota /IMRA was only $40M. And they did get "replications of the effect" even to the level of boil offs lasting for days. It is just that did not seem to achieve commercial viability due to the difficulty of consistency of materials.
I have my doubts about commercialization as well, but a few good gamma ray replications by MFMP could break open the investigation for the field.
not sure that replications by MFMP would be "worth much" for getting people back into the field. It will likely take a national lab .... or two.
So then, since the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated in 153 peer reviewed journals, across more than 180 labs and 14,700 instances, would you say that it is a well established scientific anomaly? Because there are people on this very forum who disagree with that.
I think it is established. The problem is that the levels and "COP" are not at levels that make it easy to produce at will and it is very far from being commercially viable. Sometimes I doubt that it will ever be at truly useful levels with cost effective materials.
One classical example of difficulty in replicating is the early work of Wu when she claimed violation of parity in her Cobalt 60 experiment. It took people a while to learn the correct preparation of the highly polarized Co samples at low temps. Most groups just were not up to the exacting nature of sample preparation and most said the violation was physically impossible.
Moral - sometimes things are much more difficult than most realize - especially when it relates to how chemical and nuclear states are connected.
Mary....."I hope it isn't world class Swedish mice, obscure assistant professors from Italian universities, or world class McKubre's and Swartz's and Hagelstein or Miles. Or for that matter Storms. I don't know him but from his work and what his students have said, he seems immensely likeable and trustworthy but in the end, he is also a believer. While of all of them, I would trust him the most,"
I was not aware that Storm had students. Hagelstein does but Storms is not a teacher/prof.
"See comment immediately above... For my rebuttals to Flesischmann, Szpak, Mosier-Boss and Miles and to Storms, see my published papers in Thermochimica Acta. (Use Google Scholar to get the refs, or look at my prior posts for the them)"
If you do not list your references yourself, do not be surprised that no on else will reference them.
No Jed, everyone obviously does not know that, and your failing to mention that I have proposed a non-nuclear explanation for the large bulk of excess heat results is an unethical practice, meant to deceive the uninformed and promote the CF field. You don't listen or learn from anyone unless you first determine that they are 'true believers'.
And as you know and unethically fail to report, I have proposed, in this very forum as well as elsewhere, tests of my theories. Many of which can be accomplished by simply reviewing the old data and publishing more details that were omitted in the original reports. Others would require some experimental work to test. And my theories do not rock the world and rewrite textbooks as you keep insisting (also unethically) like LENRs, if proven out, would. What I point out is singularly unexciting, unless you are a true believer, in which case it threatens your very world structure, which is why your basic response is denial, followed by personal attacks, as others here and elsewhere have noted. Grow up Jed, the world doesn't always work the way you want it to.
So if I say "Jed Rothwell does NOT believe CF or LENR is real and laughs at those who do', I have accurately represented your point of view, right? Of course not. And likewise Marwan, et al, did NOT accurately represent my point of view when they tried to rebut it. Therefore...they certainly didn't 'blow me out of the water', EXCEPT in that world kinda like Planet Rossi where whatever a true believer says is automatically absolutely and totally true (which is obviously where you live).
Unlike you, if someone ACTUALLY did something to show an error with what I say, I would immediately change my tune. It has happened many times before, and probably will in the future. Just show me the correcting words, and not some garbage strawman argument.
(BTW, you quoted the wrong paper above. I think you want the Marwan one you always quote, the one that I wasn't allowed to rebutt. The stuff you referenced above come from 1993, which is 2 years before I became involved and 9 years before my 1st publication. As such it isn't too relevant.)
If you feel so strongly about it, just post your papers here. End of story.
In most cases, one researcher just has to pick up the phone and call another to find out what is happening.- often in real time. There never seemed to be any "classified research" going on. Most of the "closed mouths" about research were not from classification but from researchers not wanting to be ostracized by peers or to have preliminary results blown out of proportion. Those things happened a lot.
Early on, when I heard Rossi claiming a "secret additive" while applying for a patent and throwing people with instruments out of public demos, my red flags immediately went up. The whole rational of a patent is to exchange a limited monopoly on a new invention in exchange for future full disclosure for others in the future to make the invention to foster technical progress for mankind overall.
When Rossi stated he was using some secret element instead of stating his best embodiment, he threw away any chances of upholding his patents and showed himself to be working against mankind.
I have not heard this rumor. But let me point out that I know of several cathodes going back to the early 1990s that were both Pd and Ni. Usually Pd plated onto Ni, or a multi-layer sandwich. So it might be both. Pd has been plated onto various substrates or alloyed with Ag and other metals. So if you hear a confused rumor that seems to imply both Pd and Ni, it might be both.
Pure Pd does not works well as far as I know.
The CETI beads were Ni - Pd - Ni layers in their original form.
And yes, "impurities" and additives are beneficial.
The rumor is that NASA is working on replicating work from another government lab.
Perhaps next year may be interesting.
The other "rumor" is that the next ICCF will not be in Rayleigh but in DC.
I hope that Tex. Tech comes online by then but they may be having problems.
The RUMOR I heard is that their work is Pd electrolysis based and NOT nickel based
I always it was strange that Rossi claimed that IH didn't have the money to pay him and then turned around and sued them for the money.
Aalso notice that AEG was omitted from the settlement. I think they could still bring charges against Rossi. Not sure it would be useful for them though since Rossi doesn't have enough left (likely) to be worth their legal fees. Perhaps all they could get is a bunch of used toupees.
Right, as if that settlement agreement hadn't had numerous back-and-forths already. Give me a break.
So soon you forget that it was Rossi that brought suit and a settlement or a win on the primary suit would net the same for IH. Also that it was Rossi that made the offer of the settlement to drop his suit that could potentially cost IH money in continual legal fees.
Come on ! Weaver and Co. claimed here that Rossi would be destroyed that he would be imprisoned and blah blah blah....... And when Rossi proposed an agreement IH immediately acepted ! This demonstrate that Rossi was able to win the battle and was not a cheater. He proposed the agreement just to to avoid the usual "bankrupt trick" that Darden used many times.
laughable, Rossi attacks IH by bringing a suit and then proposes an agreement to walk away from his attack. I do not see him winning a battle but backing away from his attack when he found that he could not prove his case against IH to get $89 to 200M and recover his IP. There would be no "bankrupt trick" unless Rossi lost the case. Rossi knew full well before he brought suit that IH would likely be able to bring more money than he could to the table. He gave up and ran away.
No, the folks who keep calling Rossi a fraud and a crook are the ones being silly. It is time for them to put up or shut up.
It is provable that Rossi is not a fraud because all of the data has been entered into the docket and it couldn't even meet the civil law standard of "preponderance of evidence" so there's no way it will meet the higher criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt".
strange twisting. It was Rossi that brought suit. It was he that had to show with the preponderance of evidence that he had what he claimed so he could get $200+ M. The countersuit was only a defensive position after Rossi attacked IH by claiming he had produced excess 1MW for an extended time. He could not do it.
Yeah! QuarkX has no resistance, but "RossiCalc" says there is a COP of 2000+ ?? COP is in his physics power out/power in. If there is R=0, something strange must happen to the power...we have a constant current by the brown resistor, so it would be fabulous to find out what formulas and electrical laws Rossi is referring to when he calculates his amazing COP...Ohm law says: P=R*I² and P=U²/R. The first would give P = 0 Watt (R=0) and the latter P = ∞ W. Both wouldn't make any sense for calculating anything useful...
measuring power into glow discharge style devices is very tricky. They can even show negative resistance.
Around here affiliation is determined by your conclusions from your observations. (Rossi is right vs. Rossi is wrong.)
Independence (on this forum) is only maintained by not having any conclusions.
The purpose of a test is to have conclusions.
strange view point. I have no idea where "around here is".
The roll of a third party verification should be to investigate and try to doubt claims and remain in doubt until all reasonable explanations of errors, mistakes, and "mischief" are ruled out. That is they should try to falsify claims by measurements and investigations free from ties to the one making the claims.
Rossi has described what he plans to show when he unveils the Quark X (now the E-Cat QX):
"It will be plain and simple calorimetry. We will have a flow of water that will not change phase, well below 100 Celsius degrees, a measurement of the water flowing through the plant and a measurement of the delta T and of the electric energy consumed by the E-Cat QX. Plain and simple."
Because this will not be an independent 3rd party test (can there ever be such a thing?) what measurements would the people here like to see?
Is there a place were a sample of water can be sent to verify its specific heat?
What redundant measurements can be made?
why not an independent 3rd party test? Have Rossi and any of "his agents" out of the room. Possibly observing from a remote camera.
I would want samples of the water as it comes out of the system to verify its purity.
Also from one mixed large tank to another mixed large tank and water taken within the tank away from any heating tapes and such. Not circulation with cooling and heating devices unless their power is included in the input values.
All power taken "from the wall" not out of supplies or such. All power for everything (pumps, sensors, everything) used through a single supply line with RMS measures and a scope.
Multiple angle IR camera shots of the entire system before, during and after runs..
EMF/bug checks for "stray" EM fields.
I am not good at reading such things but the settlement seems to exclude AEG. They could still sue Rossi, if I read it correctly and they could still hold some IP and sue or be sued.
If someone tests the pumps, be sure to run them with hot water.
I don't want graphs. I want someone to purchase the pump and measure its output. Maybe I will, although I'm pretty occupied with other matters for the next few months. Someone is lying.
If that is what you want, then you buy one and do it yourself. I doubt you would believe anyone else anyway
How do you know Rossi walked away from 89 million? As far as I know anything could be included in the undisclosed settlement.
Try reading what I wrote: "(unless in the undisclosed settlement)"