The only way it can be contained is the way it is done in other forums. Unfortunately, that means the website owner has to be the censor and use their own judgement. As much as that may seem undemocratic and limiting open discussion, there does not appear to be any other way. Soliciting input form the community on any one post will not provide the necessary filtering. In my opinion, people are just not interested in spending their time doing that. You provide a great service here. You "own" the website. That entitles you to be the censor. "Dems 'da breaks." "If you don't like it, go somewhere else to spew your vitriol."
juandegringo
Member
- Member since Oct 13th 2014
- Last Activity:
Posts by juandegringo
-
-
Popular Science had an article JUN 11, 2015, about a teenager who had a nuclear fusion reactor and was headed to either Oak Ridge or Los Alamos. I forget.
Here's the link: http://www.popsci.com/find/nuclear fusion boy
:nuke: -
This article/interview is the same 'ol, same 'ol believer vs. skeptic, and serves little to those who have read it hundreds of times. Same discussion, different people. So what else is new?
Well, here's an "inexplicable" phenomenon that Dr. Peter Graneau introduced in the mid '90's, and he will be the first to say he cannot explain it. Dr. Graneau is a classically trained Physicist, who spent many years as a Physics professor @ Northeastern University. He worked on this perplexing, yet extraordinarily simple, experiment for so long that his son, who spent time in Peter's lab during the summer as a high school student, eventually became a Physics professor at Oxford University (yes, THE Oxford University in England.) It was there that Peter's son had access to an extremely high speed camera, which made the experiment even more perplexing. Here's the experiment.
Take a small cylinder with a spark plug at one end and open at the other, add some water but not quite full, put an object of known weight on top. Carefully measure the temperature of the water and the amount of DC current applied to the spark plug. Apply the electricity to the spark plug and an "explosion" will occur sending the weighted object up against the force of gravity. Measure the distance the weight travels up and you know the amount of work accomplished (the output). Measure the amount of electricity applied to the spark plug and you have the input. The first time I heard Dr. Graneau give a talk on this presentation he said that the output exceeded the input usually about 5X. OK, all you skeptics, try this simple experiment. It *APPEARS* to violate the known laws of Physics you learned in school, at least at first glance.
Aha, you will say. I know the answer. It is very simple - phase change. The spark boils the water instantly turning it to steam and that's that. End of discussion. There's only one little detail that is somewhat difficult to explain with this solution. The water temperature rises only 1 degree centigrade. It does not nano-boil.
Until Peter's son was able to photograph the experiment with his sophisticated equipment at Oxford, Peter believed that, indeed, the process was one of steam, but there was this one temperature detail he could not explain. Please note, we're not talking about some uneducated kids here. These are two very well versed Physics professors at two very well respected universities who had the simplest of experiments, the results of which they could not explain.
However, the high speed photography lent some insight into the explosion event, even though they still did not have a definitive answer for a phenomenon that *APPEARED* to violate the laws of Physics as they had learned in school, and that they taught as professors. Upon close inspection under the high speed photography, that saw that the water in the tube "broke" into many droplets of water, but it did NOT turn to steam. It remained water in liquid form. And, of course, the temperature remained nearly ambient room temperature.
It was as if the water "fractured" into many discrete water droplets, instead of turning to steam and condensing so quickly, which would most likely be the knee-jerk reaction of the skeptic mentioned in the article, who would be satisfied with his answer, proud of himself that he had solved yet another foolish claim by well-intentioned, but not very well informed Physicists, not attempt to repeat the experiment, and would pay no more attention to the subject, knowing that once again, the (theoretical) Laws of Physics as they are taught are inviolate and all is right with the world and he or she is correct. The Graneaus are simply are wrong, making the same mistake somewhere along the line, albeit for 15 or 20 years. What's for dinner?
As I see it, there's not much different here between the skeptic in the article who says cold fusion cannot be, therefore he (or she) need not waste their time on an experiment they know is foolish. They don't believe in voodoo or bad science. It can't be; therefore, it isn't. What's for dinner?
Peter's only guess, and he was very, very clear in saying he had no proof for this was that the spark, in some way or another caused the molecules of water in the original form of a single entity, MAY somehow have broken into many, very small droplets of water because the spark in some unknown way released the binding energy that held the original, single entity of water together. As indicated above, the energy in the explosion generally amounted to 5X more output than input.
Enter a metallic crystal lattice of a metal that the hydrogen of the deuterium "loads" by completing the crystalline structure in the corners. Viola, you have a crystal that can (now) shatter, but, in this case the crystal is a metal and has a continuous electrical charge on it.
According to the late Ken Shoulders, it's a simple matter of a localized region of the crystalline metal hitting a harmonic and shattering, and the spark from that shattering expels extremely energetic, yet extremely short lived bundles of electrons compressed beyond the Coulomb Barrier by Casimir forces. These "condensed charged clusters" as they are most commonly called, interact with the atoms surrounding the (limited size) region of crystalline structure of the metal (here's where the purity of the refining process comes in) that has hit a harmonic and shattered thus impacting the surrounding atoms and transmuting them into "globs" of other metals both on and below the surface. Was that minuscule release of binding energy that converted one metal into another (remember, this is not water, although it is occurring in water) the very definition of "table-top fusion?"
Peter Graneau will most adamantly say, "Absolutely NOT!!!!" and become very angry that someone might even think of making a connection between his work and cold fusion. Peter is a serious, serious skeptic. What's for dinner?
-
-
Executive Summary of visit to Defkalion Headquarters, Athens Greece
March 2 nd –6th
March 7th, 2012I am a member but don't know how to get to the report. please advise plusenegy01@
From MFMP
-
Keeps the dollar with >$700T in fraudulent derivatives equities as the world currency reserve. "Pay no attention to the man behind the Federal Reserve curtain."
You read constantly about how another collapse is coming. This time it's student loans. Last time it was mortgages. My dentist recently told me about a kid who had just graduated from dental school, expectred to get married, open his own practice, have kids, etc. This kid didn't think twice about the answer when my dentists asked how much he owed in student loans - $650,000. Banking is the best legal stealing scam ever invented. You get to loan the same fake money (well, it was once backed by gold when the Medicis started the game) NINE times. And, in this crazy world of ours, the more debt a bank has on it's books, the more assets it can claim to have. BECAUSE the assumption is that the debtor will repay those loans. Until the house of cards starts to crumble, and we pay off the too big to fail / too big to jail bankers who both literally and figuratively own the U.S. government.
The big boys have been at every ICCF from Day 1.
Want "table top fusion" on your own table for <$100? Get a spark inducer, coat some aluminum foil with aluminum oxide and fire the spark inducer. You will blow holes in the aluminum foil (with condensed charge clusters of electrons compressed beyond the Coulomb Barrier by van der Waals forces (aka Casimir forces) and emitted by the spark inducer. According to the late Ken Shoulders, who wrote the paper on this very subject called "Charge Clusters in Action," (attached) the conventional thermal gradient required to do what you just did by literally blowing a hole through aluminum would require 26,000 degrees C. All you have to do is read the abstract and have a scanning electron microscope (SEM) to prove it (which Ken happened to have access to to show the pictures in the paper) and the technical knowledge of what the equivalent thermal gradient to blow holes through aluminum that size is.
Ken personally told me the spark has been studied ad infinitum. It's what happens in the metal just before the spark is emitted that has been completely overlooked and THERE is the real "root phenomenon" to cold fusion.
As Dr. Fulvio Frisone concluded his paper on microcracks on AND BELOW the electrode surface, with the associated globs of transmuted elements next to them, "no microcracks, no cold fusion."
When I asked Ken Shoulders why the cold fusion community ignore his "fracto-emissions", he replied that it's too simple. "They all want something more complicated" Ken Shoulders was a co-inventor at Xerox Park @ Stanford ( 4 people) who invented the quadropole mass spectrometer, ubiquitous in science today. You could say he knew something about the structure of atoms and their dynamics, even if he can demonstrate to you that virtually anyone, anywhere, can create the heat required for a fusion reaction on their desktop for under $100 worth of equipment. They just won't have the SEM or the ability and knowledge of how to translate the amount of energy required to achieve that phenomenon.
The cold fusion community considered him a crackpot. Let's see now, if the cold fusion community itself are considered crackpots, does that make him an order of magnitude crackpot or a derivative crackpot? Or, was he simply trying to point the way to solve the problem that the cold fusion community has been dancing around for the past 25 years, expecting different results? I sure hope somebody gets it right, but, rest assured, the big players have been there from Day 1, regardless of what anyone tells you. See also Ken's paper, "Energy Conversion From the Exotic Vacuum Revised". In the abstract, Ken claimed the root phenomenon for ALL forms of cold fusion was charge clusters (although by then he was calling them Exotic Vacuum Objects.) When I asked two scientist from Los Alamos in 2003 at ICCF-10 why they ignored Ken's "fracto-emissions," they both laughed and said they knew him. but he had never explained them in the language they speak, mathematics. I related this story to Ken, who was also @ ICCF-10. Several months later the "revised" version came out with the mathematics. This version was co-authored by Dr. Jack Sarfatti. The cold fusion community continues to ignore Ken's work even today.
This stuff is all on the internet
Oh yes, and what happened at MIT's Lincoln Lab? Read the late Dr. Eugene Mallove's 57-pg treatise on the subject (attached.) He was there and resigned his very prestigious position at Lincoln Lab when he witnessed political science 101, the politics of science. The team was instructed to come up with a negative report. Don't believe me. Read Gene's first-hand account.
I think it's fair to say that anything of any value out there is being manipulated, even if the value is hype.
I don't buy the investment fraud scenario. I also don't buy 95% of what Rossi says. That does not mean I think he is running a scam. The way these small start ups make money is to sell their whole operation to a big fish. Big companies are usually public and this will force a level of quality assurance in such a sale. This technology is worth hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars. Any CEO who squanders huge wads of cash on something that is not thoroughly vested and vetted could face serious jail time. In this paradigm the small company never admits that they are going to sell out to big company. They have a "party line" that states that they will manufacture the devices themselves. They might know perfectly well and good that is hogwash. They nevertheless proclaim that is their desire and plans. Dummies like Frank buy this party line and eat it up. So if this is a business then that would be their angle. I said if it is a business. If it is a fraud then their motive would be to political. Transparency International rates the Scandinavian countries to be the least corrupt. What better than to hire a group from that part of the world to test and verify the device. Only problem is I would trust the Nigerians more than the Swedes. Every time I go to Home Depot I pass Securitas guards. Top secret US installations are guarded by Swedish security firms like Pinkerton and such. There is a black side to that country that most people don't know about. I don't trust them as far as I can shake a stick. They also have a bug about the arctic resources competition with Russia. Russia's economy is very dependent on fossil fuels. Some clown coming out and saying they have a device that can cripple Russia's economy is a powerful motive for fraud. Every time I fill my tank up with $3 gas I wonder why it isn't $5 any more and if that has any relation to what is going on with LENR?
-
While I realize no self-respecting scientist will pay any attention to this, I'll post it anyway. Physical sound is never included in the Physics equations of LENR. Yet the late Ken Shoulders, whose paper is attached repeatedly said, (and it's in the abstract) that the shattering the the deuterium-loaded crystalline structure metal, with its corners filled in by the H from the deuterium is able to hit a resonant frequency and crack/fracture (think soprano shattering a wine glass with a resonant frequency from the physical sound of high-C.)
As Ken told me personally, the electrified metal, when it fractures, emits a spark, which is, in essence, composed of multiple toroidal-shapped bundles of of extremely short-lived existence and are extremely energetic electron bundles that have been compressed beyond the Coulomb Barrier by Casimir (van der waals) forces. He called then EVOs (Exotic Vacuum Objects). Hal Puthoff called them condensed charge clusters.
Shoulders claims that these are responsible for the clumps of transmuted materials, e.g. nickel, tin, etc. found on AND below the surface of the metal that has cracked, BECAUSE they affect (real: alter) the atomic structure of neighboring atoms. However, they are so short-lived, their influence is limited to localized domains of atoms. Thus, the "clumps" of transmuted marterials. Actually, I never heard him mention if the electrons compressed beyond the Coulomb Barrier in these EVOs ever reverse direction and are passed back through the Coulomb Barrier, only to become plain old electrons again, except now they are part of the transmuted element.
In any event, @ ICCF-10 Peter Haglestein gave Dr. Fulvio Frisone a noted Italian scientist and quadriplegic, he opportunity to present his poster paper. One of Dr. Frisone's grad students read it for him. The conclusion of the paper was very clear - no cracks, no cold fusion. I later asked Dr. Frisone if he knew of Ken shoulders' work. No, he did not.
Let's assume for a moment that Dr. Frisone's conclusion is corroborated by Ken Shoulders' contention that it is the EVOs from the spark created by a harmonic resonance within the crystalline metallic structure that cause the tiny crack, and associated transmutation(s.) - AND the excess heat of cold fusion. If you read Ken's paper "Charge Clusters in Action", you will find that a simple spark that emits EVOs (condensed charge clusters) can blow a hole (melt straight through) aluminum. Ken claims that would normally require a thermal gradient of 26,000C - table top fusion.
OK, if you haven't written this off as every cold fusioneer I've ever spoken to has ( 2 scinetist from Los Alamos were aware of these "fracto-emissions" but didn't have the math to explain them. Ken later added the math in his revised version of "Energy Conversion From the Exotic Vacuum", in the attached document. But, at that point, Ken Shoulders had already been written off by the cold fusion community as simply wrong, and was consequently ignored,) may I suggest an approach that as far as I know, has not even been considered, nor would be considered by any self-respecting scientist in the field who already knows, "it can't be, therefore, it isn't". That approach would be to simply determine the resonant frequency of the metal being loaded and add an additional component to the equation / experiment: physical sound (which travels better in water than air, so some underwater sound generator that can be adjusted to generate the resonant harmonic frequency of that metal can be "broadcast" throughout the medium, whatever it might be, that causes (read: assists) the metal to fracture) and see what happens. Will it shatter like the wine glasss and emits EVOs that are the real source of the excess heat as they break the binding energy of the neighboring atoms and transmute them into other elements with electrons that have returned through the Coulomb barrier to become real electrons, except now as part of the newly created transmuted elements?
I know. i know. This is all uneducated rubbish, not even worth reading. But, I think it was Einstein who said that doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results is the definition of insanity. It's been about 25 years of insanity in the cold fusion community. Maybe one of you might try to approach it a like Apple - different.
John Miranda
[email protected]