Posts by Longview

    He had access to timeshare IBM mainframes. So did I, at the same time. (He & I are the same age.) There were no homebrew or minicomputers. Both of us spent many hours programming, but even by the standards of a 1960s computer geek, he was extraordinary.

    I'm about decade older than you or Gates, and had access to IBM 1600 then 360 mainframes at U of Oregon mid to late 60s. You two may have had great privilege working with mainframes when you were teens. There were likely hundreds of such teens, usually in cities or towns with mainframe infrastructure, often associated with universities. I did room and study in Palo Alto with geeks, some of whom were building definite "homebrew" systems of comparatively immense power, but that was the mid 70s. The DEC PDP series begins "minicomputer" evolution in ~1960.

    As an aside: In Palo Alto in 1977, there were rumors of the "smartest person we ever met", in retrospect it may have been Jobs himself.

    By all accounts, Gates is a superb programmer. One example will do. He wrote the BASIC compiler for the MITS computer without having access to a MITS computer. He put it on paper tape. It executed correctly the first time.

    By which credible accounts? Does that conflict at all with the fact that financial acumen and/or inherited family wealth and a bright father with great legal expertise may have been Gates' main assets? Gates was young and possibly a dedicated hobbyist surely with access to commercial and/or homebrew 8-bit based machines, along with many other other hobbyists at the time (say 1976)-- well before he and fellow investors saw fit to purchase Gary Kildahl's code which was the basis for PC DOS, at least as I understand it. Not a particularly strong basis for anything other than the correct attribution of the "hammer" of elimination of competition.

    When it represents perhaps one tenth of one percent of one's wealth, an investment of 6 million dollars towards fundamental and empirical investigations is completely painless, a worthy wager, and may also generate a precisely balanced tax write-off as a bonus. And perhaps another chance to hit the nail and once again mop up the competition.

    No self-respecting field of science would need a bunch of amateurs......

    All of your historical or more precisely "quasi historical" examples have substantial and quite well known counter examples and/or convincing rejoinders. The notion of "self respect" here, even if a "figure of speech" is definitive in its error-- that is, it is completely wrong:

    You cannot be referring to the LENR researcher community itself. Many of the often courageous leading LENR researchers must surely have immense SELF respect. And in fact it appears that many, if not all, LENR researchers are capable of conducting falsifiable hypothesis testing.

    The science, or if you wish "science", of LENR (and related other CF acronyms) clearly also has SELF respect, that is it has its own literature, it has experts and "peers", it has international meetings, it has developed a substantial body of peer-reviewed research, and in spite of sustained efforts against it, and the continuing efforts in popular media against it, it refuses to die.

    LENR is strongly driven by empirical evidence. A necessary (that is a sine qua non) for science and scientific inquiry. Unifying principles are still awaiting more widespread understanding (among scientists and lay public) of the complexities of condensed matter theory, molecular physics and even catalysis.

    "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in the stars, but in ourselves"

    But as an aside, governments are better known for slowing things down rather than speeding things up, on the innovation front.

    Sometimes not, look at the tremendously rapid culmination of nuclear weaponry over a four year period up to August 1945. Many examples show the influence of war (hot or cold) initiating and/or accelerating developments in technology.

    While patents are a "governmental function" that can enhance technological innovation, if properly applied-- We may rightly observe a telling example of government, through patentability constraints, likely slowing progress, that is in LENR, CANR, LANR, AHE or broadly "CF".

    Of course there is a substantial history of "patentability" being withheld for reasons of "national defense" (e.g. Gould laser patents). I suspect we cannot confidently exclude such influences today, in the CF area.

    So is Rossi producing sparks by applying 0.1V across a 1.5cm gap? Uncredible.

    How are these incomplete and/or misleading measurements not some form of elaborate trolling? He must enjoy reading the reactions.

    The red "handles" certainly suggest to me at least that the electrodes within the device are movable, perhaps so an arc can be struck and then drawn out to some distance, perhaps as much as 1.5 cm. 100 mV seems low for an atmospheric arc, but in a rarified plasma, perhaps not.

    [Still retaining my agnosticism, but trying to see through eyes without prejudice, perhaps in the spirit of Pascal. With gratitude to all here for their sincere efforts at critique and also toward those seeking possible understanding!]…ites=14937271233535619360
    These experiments do not seem difficult or expensive to replicate.
    The equipment and materials appear readily available.
    Does anyone know whether these results have been replicated? - or rebutted?

    Thanks Lou Pagnucco for this Interesting thread. Such a mechanism would likely be a source for low momentum neutrons, assuming the observations are genuine.

    By the way, and unfortunately, the last link (quoted above) appears broken, at least through my ISP.

    It only looks like a protonic orbital. But it is a H*, a proton plus an electron in a shrunken orbit bound to 56Fe, because the chemistry still shows Iron, with some disturbance in the orbits and not 57Co.

    Continuing, inspired by Jacques Dufour's notion, and Wyttenbach's worthy critiques:

    Does it even look like one? I suspect actual nuclear protonic orbitals may be considered NO Larger than 1/1837th of any outer electronic orbital. By the muonic analogy given earlier (muon 207 times electron mass, radius of muonic orbital 1/207th that of an electron.

    Keeping in mind that hydrogen atoms, ions and protons with or without neutrons are unique chemically and physically, [I point out the obvious to many here, but want to keep others with the discussion.]

    By having or capturing a conduction band electron, a/an hydride / deuteride negative ion--- that is an effective H-, proton with two electrons, one or both borrowed at some electronic level from a transition metal (Fe, Pd, V, Mo, Mn, Tl etc) might find a comfortable, or confused interfacial "orbital" to at least briefly occupy, since that proton comes already shielded. Can coincindent occupation of an orbital lead to proton / deuteron fusion? Could coincident hydride / deuteride orbitals and the differing masses greatly increase the normally infinitesimal cross section for fusion? And would the conduction band (?), faraday screened, electronic milieu provide the putative gamma screening and effective thermalization??

    Note for comparison: the lifetime of the free muon ( t1/2 ~2 microseconds,…/2011/01/110125131450.htm)

    Sorry if my expression was unclear: While such nuclei certainly have considerable magnetic susceptibility---- Eric's point appears correctly to be that a proton immersed in a sea of electrons has no electrostatic susceptibility, it is certainly Faraday screened in any conductor.

    But a finer point may have been missed:

    (Note that the magnetic moment of a proton is a small thing.)

    Longview elaborates this: the magnetic moment of an extra nuclear protonic orbital is surely not a small thing. I advise those following this issue to read my initial post, and the full text following the introductory sentence below:

    I have not yet been able to access the half century old works on "protonic orbitals" by P.L. Goodfriend. Perhaps there is something in that work that might shed some light on this work reported by Jacques Dufour.

    If someone can bring up P.L. Goodfriend's "protonic orbital" full text articles, it might shed more light on Dufour's ideas. I recall the citation(s) were directing to a Bunsen chemical journal out of Europe in perhaps the late 1940s and 50s--. [My local research library appears to be missing the cited volume(s)].

    And note that even with the two electrons in the H- ion, only a small solid angle is subtended by the bound electrons to screen the positive 1e charge of the proton.

    Whither goest orbitals? Physical explanations of chemistry phenomena are often challenging. Physical explanations at the level of catalytic function even more so. I appreciate that you, Eric Walker, are bringing your expertise to these issues. As many here and elsewhere have suggested, good testable hypotheses that correlate either to conventions in say physical chemistry, or to quantum mechanical and/or condensed matter theories are needed.....

    Of course that may only be true for "CF", if there are demonstrable and perhaps energetically useful nuclear events initiated and/or catalyzed by say 100 eV (or far less) inputs.

    With respect to Jacques Dufour's presentation, which I have not yet read or viewed: NMR, shows us that above an effective curie temperature, a ferromagnetic nucleus (for example, a piece of steel at 1000 C, or iron in hemoglobin of dried RBCs, or an iron chelate in solution) can easily be oriented in a strong magnetic field. Further an electron or proton can easily be guided by a rather modest electrostatic field, with quite different dynamics for each depending on oscillations in field strength. Outer orbitals can easily be disrupted by external electrostatic fields, certainly so in many metals, especially the alkali metals (periodic column 1A, H, Li, Na, K..) and alkaline "earths" (Be, Mg, Ca...). I suspect that inner orbitals can also readily be "bent" and "stretched".... but more importantly can be pulled into a fixed relative position vis a vis any magnetic nuclear axis. Particularly for some transition metals, where chemistry has been very substantially altered by magnetic and electrostatic interactions, IIRC.


    Yes, you are no doubt correct. I was only hoping to get an order of magnitude estimate, on the assumption that something was nuclear (in contrast to this suggestion, for example). It wasn't intended as a critique of the author's suggestion (although it sounds very fanciful). Just a back-of-the-envelope calculation.

    If your report of the author's view of the matter is accurate, I am almost comfortable dismissing it out of hand. :) From my reading, I am aware that magnetic forces at the nuclear and atomic levels tend to be orders of magnitude less than Coulombic forces.

    I have not yet been able to access the half century old works on "protonic orbitals" by P.L. Goodfriend. Perhaps there is something in that work that might shed some light on this work reported by Jacques Dufour.

    Is it safe to dismiss "magnetic" in view of the possibility of such rapid motion of an electrostatic charge pair (net neutral but with nucleus in between) or net negative charge 1-, this is, perhaps as a triplet-- H minus itself in some quasi inner orbital?

    Only by some experience and intuition I suspect the equivalent of a very tight proximity to the nucleus might surprise us with respect to its "magnetic" implications. Perhaps even more so in a ferromagnetic context. At the 1000 C reported, the sodium (hydride?) is at least substantially dissociated (Na+ and H minus, giving at least some Na with electrons from iron, and freeing H minus to occupy positively charged "holes" in the hot iron, perhaps incidentally above its normal unalloyed curie temperature of around 750 C.

    " far beyond what is capable in an electrolytic system.

    2.0 volt vs. 400 volt or higher."

    Thanks for keeping this level of discussion alive. There are important possible distinctions here. The electrolytic "Nernst pressure" compared with the deceleration energy experienced by an electron or proton collision with a condensed matter surface. While admiting that some aspect here may be unifying, my recollection is that a Nernst overpotential nearing even 1 volt can result in immense pressure at or near the electrode surface, Tadahiko Mizuno mentions this and has it as far greater than the solar core. While the Lipinski's see their highest Q values (surrogate for COP) of thousands in the presence of square wave potentials and argon admixture.

    One key metric implicit here is that potential gradients at the interfaces involved is best comparatively measured as " volts per cm" or the equivalent. That is the steepness of the gradient is a key parameter.

    Thanks Alain. IMHO that WSJ article has the flavor of "trumping up" a case for war. Granting that the young "Un" appears to deserve the worst.

    My concern is that diligent and well-intentioned workers on LENR may now be wrongly databased as suspect, since there are application and perhaps theory overlaps with thermonuclear miniaturization work.

    Today, Thursday, March 9, 2017 a Wall Street Journal article "North Korea tried to sell...." (p. A8 in my paper copy) of some possible interest to those hoping to work with lithium in a fusion context. I'll warn here that the subject is likely not perfectly covered from a nuclear physics standpoint, and that the motive behind this "news" might be similar to the infamous "aluminum tubes" under the younger Bush that very conveniently promoted a war harming many, except perhaps Defense contractors.

    Note to Newbies:

    Please consider getting older General Chemistry texts-- often "instructor's Editions" which are now seen in bookstores and online, as academic folks retire or go completely online. These texts of the last say 20 years and especially the recent ones, will give you the reasoning and the solved problems and the "dogma" which has quite well functioned as the "received" view, as say the era of "quantitative chemistry" (from about 1790-1850 to present ). I write this to help the Newbie appreciate the depth in this part of science and technology, both of the inertia and of the brilliance of current dogma. But most importantly how that dogma grew out of sustained, but open-minded investigation in the development of both chemistry and physics.

    "Can" --- Thanks for your "amateur" efforts, which surely you know are possible raw material for future scientific advances.


    Titanium, MFMP and/or any active and applied researchers caring to answer: How are you accounting for the energy budget of H2 dissociation in the preloading and loading phases?

    BTW, I much appreciate your efforts!

    Perhaps there is some kind of connection there? Which is why LFH is currently beginning experiments in ultrasound treatment of T255 Nickel particles in a hexane slurry. If only life didn't get in the way so much.

    The use of a non-polar and electrically non-conducting liquid medium has interesting implications, to me at least-- not the least of which might be the ability to superimpose large electrostatic fields on the reaction medium.

    Do you or LFH have a rationale here that you might briefly share?

    Are there a couple of relevant references that might motivate this project?

    Interesting, and it appears that the functional activity at the cleaved ends is not being invoked for the "superconductivity", but only for the n-alkane decomposition.

    Perhaps look at the Lewis acid definition, that is rather than proton donors, instead electron pair acceptors, in a chain "handoff" structure conferring a semblance of superconductivity.

    The machine is capable of pushing electrons up to an energy of six billion electron volts.

    Source apparently The Harvard Crimson, and of course not referring to any Neutron Generator. Nevertheless an interesting news piece.

    But then I have no access to the Miami property register.

    Actually, you probably do: Miami-Dade County Property Records. These county records (for tax purposes) are quite revealing (last I looked), including location of real property, description of land area, type and area of structures, history of ownership, sale dates, amount of sale and the County Assessor's valuation.

    “Enormous” – not really… Arata almost measured it with his double-structure cathode one time, but his pressure sensor topped out at about 10,000 psia as I recall. But it looked like it wasn’t going to go much higher. 20 kpsia is not ‘enormous’.

    From a tank pressure standpoint 10 kpsia are as high as a professional / military diver might see in say the tiny oxygen
    'make up' tank for a rebreathing apparatus... density equivalent roughly to cryogenic LO2 but giving much longer underwater times since no boil off .

    The diamond anvil maximum pressures are, if I recall correctly much much lower than Nernst pressure computed at an electrode face with even a modest overvoltage. I don't have the numbers at hand, but they can be amazing. No one to my knowledge has yet taken the Nernst pressure argument to a convincing explanation of CF--- but I'd like to see it.

    ( )

    These look like they may be very interesting articles.... unfortunately for me they are behind costly paywalls. At best, I have to pay dearly, or travel to some academic library (15 to 300 km) offering the hard copy or other public access. Or I have to accept the title and abstract at face value (that can be quite misleading in occasional cases) and/or your testimony that the full article remains relevant and makes the point you assert.

    As an aside: It has been an on-going public interest issue in the US at least, that research results often substantially, if not completely, supported through public funding are becoming less accessible to many citizen taxpayers.

    The ranking seems, at best, arbitrary. And it does not appear to be inverse order, except perhaps for CMNS. Children's programming languages have existed for decades. A quick overview suggests an understandable but unlikely focus on IT. Imminent flooding of major port cities worldwide may well push the focus from consumer electronics to planetary concerns.

    * This means closed, but it does not mean pressurized. Ed Storms guessed it was pressurized, like the loop in a water radiator. As I said, if it were pressurized you could not use a gravity return.

    I don't see that pressurization necessarily precludes gravity return. Of course it can depend on the specifics of the circuit. Please clarify that point, Thanks.