Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

[Chris Coles]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

The questions asked in the above demo wordpress are very valid; there is a point of view that says every new idea just has to be a scam, and, considering the track record of these people, that might well be true.

My position here is difficult; I have stated publicly that I wish to establish a Gravity and Energy research institute; principally to look at my own ideas related to the new structure of the proton that I have developed; but also to look at such new ideas as this. I seriously doubt that any employed scientist within any major company or existing research institute will be prepared to place their career at risk by suggesting that their own employer look at such new thinking. That view is inadvertently backed up by the mere fact that no one else seems to have publicly set up the experiment to demonstrate it does not work. Then again, if they discovered there was even the slightest possibility of it working; would they tell ANYONE? So we are caught between a rock and a hard place; as with everyone else, we will be dammed, (by conventional science), if we look at this and dammed if we do not by later history.

My view is that this may be possible and that if it is, the entire process must be able to accept detailed visualisation. That what is occurring must be analysable in detail. Step by Step.

A parallel example of the challenge is to remind everyone that still, to this day; no one has done so for photosynthesis.

[Techdread]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

Why not just mask what you need/using the equipment for? I don't know how it is in the Physics field but in Computer Science resources are diverted to uses managers don't know of.

[DSpencer]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

The questions asked in the above demo wordpress are very valid; there is a point of view that says every new idea just has to be a scam, and, considering the track record of these people, that might well be true.

I don't know anybody with a point of view that "every new idea just hast to be a scam". There are plenty of people who think that a new idea that claims to be revolutionary, defies the existing laws of physics, isn't permitted to be independently tested and whose only demonstrations are comically flawed is likely to be a scam.

This E-cat thing is the idea that won't die. More importantly it also never gains credibility despite years of demonstrations. Anytime the proponents of this idea/scam have been given a chance to answer their skeptics by modifying their demonstration, they refuse. For crying out loud, they have generators running and wires connected to a black box device that supposedly generates power.

[c1ue]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

Interesting patent: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2013076378A2?cl=en

If the examples he's outlined starting at 0261 actually play out (COP of 10), this could make for an interesting investing opportunity in terms of buy put options on certain energy equities.

A patent isn't, unfortunately, anything like the real thing.

For one thing, you do not need to demonstrate any form of physical proof of your patent claims. The patent above could as easily be a 'troll' staking out ground just in case.

Defkalion did a global, world wide streaming demonstration of their LENR technology.

At one point it was all steam, which would be about 20+ COP - if it was real.

http://matslew.wordpress.com/2013/07...demo-in-milan/

Until someone can replicate the results, or even that a demonstration is performed in an environment which is open and accessible enough to clearly remove any possibility of malfeasance, all the bells and whistles will remain just that - a distraction.

A parallel example of the challenge is to remind everyone that still, to this day; no one has done so for photosynthesis.

Really? So what is this?

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/04/13-9

The researchers have assembled genetically modified viruses into wire-like structures that are able to use the energy of the sun to split water molecules into their constitute parts of oxygen and hydrogen, which can then be used as a source of chemical energy.

and this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0817223544.htm

"Whilst man has been able to split water into hydrogen and oxygen for years, we have been able to do the same thing for the first time using just sunlight, an electrical potential of 1.2 volts and the very chemical that nature has selected for this purpose," Professor Spiccia said.

Of course both of these have to do with splitting water, but reassembly of simple elements into higher organic structures is straight organic chemical engineering.

Or are you referring to something different?

[ASH]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

I don't know anybody with a point of view that "every new idea just hast to be a scam". There are plenty of people who think that a new idea that claims to be revolutionary, defies the existing laws of physics, isn't permitted to be independently tested and whose only demonstrations are comically flawed is likely to be a scam.

This E-cat thing is the idea that won't die. More importantly it also never gains credibility despite years of demonstrations. Anytime the proponents of this idea/scam have been given a chance to answer their skeptics by modifying their demonstration, they refuse. For crying out loud, they have generators running and wires connected to a black box device that supposedly generates power.

+1

[ASH]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

Why not just mask what you need/using the equipment for? I don't know how it is in the Physics field but in Computer Science resources are diverted to uses managers don't know of.

My impression is that computers are the most reconfigurable technical resource that exists, and so can be most easily diverted to surreptitious purposes. Experimental kit for investigating new physics is generally purpose-built, and so may not even exist to be misappropriated in the first place.

In any case, proton structure is well described by the Standard Model and gravity is well described by General Relativity. We know that the Standard Model and General Relativity aren't a complete description of nature because they don't mesh, and because we can infer from astronomical observations that there are forms of matter and energy that influence the universe's large-scale structure and evolution which aren't described by either theory. But when it comes to experimentally probing the sort of new physics which might extend either theory, the equipment doesn't exist. The large hadron collider (LHC) is looking increasingly like a one-trick pony which has already performed its one trick: confirming a 40-year-old theory by finding the last unobserved prediction of the Standard Model (the Higgs boson). However, it looks like the LHC is striking out when it comes to finding experimental clues about physics beyond the Standard Model. (They might still find something significant, but recent observations of strange B meson decay -- previously regarded as the most promising place to look for new physics once the LHC was up and running -- came up empty in a search for evidence of physics beyond the Standard Model.) So if the LHC isn't powerful enough to advance our knowledge of new particle physics, there isn't equipment out there to divert to the task.)

[blazespinnaker]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

A patent isn't, unfortunately, anything like the real thing.

You probably want to read the patent before commenting on the patent. It provides a description on how to replicate the results with the addition of pyroelectric fusion, which has been peer reviewed in Nature. With cold fusion patents you have to describe the actual process in detail if you want hope of being granted.

Until someone can replicate the results, or even that a demonstration is performed in an environment which is open and accessible enough to clearly remove any possibility of malfeasance, all the bells and whistles will remain just that - a distraction.

This is actually the replication of the Rossi experiments. Technova has reproduced this as well and describes their experiments in detail. So has Mizuno. Interesting results at iccf.

There is the possibility of mass delusion by highly qualified scientsts, of course. Certainly I don't rule that out.

[blazespinnaker]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

+1

-1

I think it's reasonable to be skeptical, but at least know what you're talking about before being skeptical..

There are plenty of possible explanations of how this is occurring. Increasing the probability of quantum tunneling through the coulomb barrier is certainly one. Hot fusion is generally based on this, actually, the idea of reducing the heat required to start fusion reactions.

The Navy recently was awarded a patent for LENR and transmutation:

https://www.google.com/patents/US8419919

Peer reviewed papers on the effect:

http://www.globalenergycorporation.n...lications.aspx

[blazespinnaker]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

For crying out loud, they have generators running and wires connected to a black box device that supposedly generates power.

You say this as fact. No such thing exists or claims to have existed. Please know what you're talking about before stating such things, you undermine the credibility of iTulip when you do. These devices to do not generate power, rather they generate excess thermal energy. There is a very significant difference.

I generally accept that LENR could be a mass delusion. The power of belief and desire for something to be real can be pretty impressive - even on strong minds.

However, in the case of this effect it has been replicated and accepted by qualified, employed scientists with careers at stake. It's not just one person's or even one group's delusion. This increases the probability of it existing significantly.

Is it still probable? No .. I don't think so. I'm willing to bet at even odds that it isn't real, and it's just mistaken measurement. But .. I'm not willing to give odds on that.

And given its potential to impact every facet of our lives and the (if meagre) possibility of it being true, I think it's worth talking about.

[c1ue]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

You probably want to read the patent before commenting on the patent. It provides a description on how to replicate the results with the addition of pyroelectric fusion, which has been peer reviewed in Nature. With cold fusion patents you have to describe the actual process in detail if you want hope of being granted.

Actually, I did.

A public description, especially for a patent which was granted 8 or 9 months ago, should yield all manner of reproduced results, especially since the patent was applied for a year earlier. The short length of time between application and grant is notable; normally (from what I was told) it takes 18 months between application and publication, much less grant of patent.

Any day now...

[blazespinnaker]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

Hmm?

especially for a patent which was granted 8 or 9 months ago

The Soininen patent wasn't granted and was only published (became visible) on May 30th of this year.

I agree ideally we'd see someone try to replicate this, but that's not as easy as you might imagine, as everyone has their own particular projects / focus and budget already set. Not a lot of people can turn on a dime and start replicating patents. My point about the Soininen patent is that it's the same thing that Rossi and Defkalion are describing. The use of mixing in dielectric crystals sn novel and interesting .. not the sort of thing you'd bother patenting unless you actually thought it worked. Pekka Soininen has a long history of producing useful patents in thin film manufacturing.

If you're referring to the Navy Patent, that's likely been replicated as everything they have done is peer reviewed and published.

I agree, is this all set in stone? No. But if it was, it'd be boring as hell. The opportunity exists because of the ambiguity of its reality. If you're looking for interesting investment opportunities the best places to look are those situations which are not entirely ensured and figure out if they're real before everyone else does.

What's really great about LENR is that people refuse to look at it, so the opportunity is even greater.

[ASH]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

but at least know what you're talking about before being skeptical.

Dang, Blaze.

I've been following the iTulip discussion of Rossi's device for awhile, thinking about the claims in some technical detail and also reading -- and providing commentary on -- some of the technical papers referenced. On what basis do you feel comfortable questioning my standing in this forum to offer (or concur with) an opinion?

Increasing the probability of quantum tunneling through the coulomb barrier is certainly one.

That is a statement which is technically true because it is almost a tautology. Penetration of the Coulomb barrier separating nuclei has to happen for fusion to take place, and there is always a component of quantum tunneling in barrier penetration problems -- that's just how physics works. What is lacking in the statement is any indication as to how this is to be accomplished technologically, which is the crux of LENR. For instance, in muon-catalyzed fusion, the higher mass of the negative muon as compared to an electron results in tighter (shorter) chemical bonds such that heavy hydrogen molecules spontaneously fuse at room temperature. The probability of quantum tunneling through the barrier is increased because the width of the barrier is reduced. That is an actual explanation; saying that the probability of tunneling through the Coulomb barrier could be increased is more like a statement of the problem.

Anyway, I've read at least two papers on potential mechanisms for low-temperature fusion that suggest specific (but rather Rube Goldbergian) ways in which very high local electric field strengths might be generated in the solid state, and thereby promote fusion -- which weren't obvious hokum. I've read about pyroelectric fusion and such; I've taken the time to understand some of the details of the proposed LENR mechanisms. I can at least articulate how things work, and why -- or why not -- some ideas are more plausible than others. How much more knowledgeable about this do I have to be to comment on an internet board?

The Navy recently was awarded a patent for LENR and transmutation:

https://www.google.com/patents/US8419919

Peer reviewed papers on the effect:

http://www.globalenergycorporation.n...lications.aspx

I'll be happy to poke through those this weekend. But as for Rossi, he sounds like he might just be a serial fraudster who preys upon credulous investors. His first company proposed to convert toxic waste into petroleum products; that collapsed with a conviction for tax fraud and with a stockpile of 70,000 tons of toxic waste that the government of Lombardy had to dispose of -- which makes it sound like he was just stockpiling the waste he was supposedly transforming into oil. His second company apparently hawked too-good-to-be-true thermoelectric generators to the DoD which failed to materialize. (That said, I also hawk things to the DoD which frequently fail to materialize, so I have some sympathy for this misadventure -- it wasn't clear to me from the blurb whether he said he had such thermoelectric generators, or merely proposed to attempt their development. Attempts to produce world-beating technology fail all the time. At least mine do.) But 70,000 tons is a lot of toxic waste to be a failed experiment, and a tax fraud conviction does speak to character. In this context, it is easy to be persuaded by criticism of the purported demonstrations, being mindful that academic scientists are more adept at identifying experimental error than intentional fraud.

[c1ue]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

The Soininen patent wasn't granted and was only published (became visible) on May 30th of this year.

I agree ideally we'd see someone try to replicate this, but that's not as easy as you might imagine, as everyone has their own particular projects / focus and budget already set. Not a lot of people can turn on a dime and start replicating patents. My point about the Soininen patent is that it's the same thing that Rossi and Defkalion are describing. The use of mixing in dielectric crystals sn novel and interesting .. not the sort of thing you'd bother patenting unless you actually thought it worked. Pekka Soininen has a long history of producing useful patents in thin film manufacturing.

If you're referring to the Navy Patent, that's likely been replicated as everything they have done is peer reviewed and published.

I agree, is this all set in stone? No. But if it was, it'd be boring as hell. The opportunity exists because of the ambiguity of its reality. If you're looking for interesting investment opportunities the best places to look are those situations which are not entirely ensured and figure out if they're real before everyone else does.

What's really great about LENR is that people refuse to look at it, so the opportunity is even greater.

I was merely following your lead - you had noted it was a patent, not a patent filing. After all, I noted how very short the lead time is and called that out.

In any case, the problem with both patent filings and patents is that they require zero physical proof. The physical proof only arises once a challenge is made.

For some examples of nonsensical patent filings, you might search Google patents for 'perpetual motion'

For some examples of nonsensical patents, you can search Google patents for 'homeopathy'

As for LENR, as I've noted before - it would be great if it were true in that a commercially viable, net energy generating product could be created.

If would still be interesting if it were not commercially viable or net energy generating, but leads to a quantified and better understanding of reality.

However, neither of these situations is in any way clear.

It has been 24 years since Pons Fleishman - how much more time is needed before we get either of the above?

[blazespinnaker]

Re: Transmutation occuring in CFL light bulbs

I question you because you +1 a bunch of statements which were inaccurate and false.

Why obsess with Rossi? There are dozens of other highly credible scientists who vouch for this effect. To talk about Rossi is a complete red herring. Sure Rossi may lead them on, but it's much much easier to fool yourself than to fool someone else.

I'd trust a scientist verifying a fraud than I would a scientist reporting his own results.

Some have suggested that LENR is efficient muon catalyzed fusion. You can use pyroelectric fusion as a source.

Check these links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyroelectric_fusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_matter
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VI...ydbLPBsing.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0811/0811.4038.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0605206.pdf

And of course, reread the Finnish patent:

http://www.google.com/patents/WO2013076378A2?cl=en

There are competing ideas of course, this is just one. Dr. Kim of Purdue feels he has proven the theory behind LENR based on recent involvement with Defkalion.

I agree with the idea that this is improbable, but the evidence is mounting and waiting until its all peer reviewed and proven could be too late. The key is to figure it out before it is proven.

Dang, Blaze.

I've been following the iTulip discussion of Rossi's device for awhile, thinking about the claims in some technical detail and also reading -- and providing commentary on -- some of the technical papers referenced. On what basis do you feel comfortable questioning my standing in this forum to offer (or concur with) an opinion?



That is a statement which is technically true because it is almost a tautology. Penetration of the Coulomb barrier separating nuclei has to happen for fusion to take place, and there is always a component of quantum tunneling in barrier penetration problems -- that's just how physics works. What is lacking in the statement is any indication as to how this is to be accomplished technologically, which is the crux of LENR. For instance, in muon-catalyzed fusion, the higher mass of the negative muon as compared to an electron results in tighter (shorter) chemical bonds such that heavy hydrogen molecules spontaneously fuse at room temperature. The probability of quantum tunneling through the barrier is increased because the width of the barrier is reduced. That is an actual explanation; saying that the probability of tunneling through the Coulomb barrier could be increased is more like a statement of the problem.

Anyway, I've read at least two papers on potential mechanisms for low-temperature fusion that suggest specific (but rather Rube Goldbergian) ways in which very high local electric field strengths might be generated in the solid state, and thereby promote fusion -- which weren't obvious hokum. I've read about pyroelectric fusion and such; I've taken the time to understand some of the details of the proposed LENR mechanisms. I can at least articulate how things work, and why -- or why not -- some ideas are more plausible than others. How much more knowledgeable about this do I have to be to comment on an internet board?



I'll be happy to poke through those this weekend. But as for Rossi, he sounds like he might just be a serial fraudster who preys upon credulous investors. His first company proposed to convert toxic waste into petroleum products; that collapsed with a conviction for tax fraud and with a stockpile of 70,000 tons of toxic waste that the government of Lombardy had to dispose of -- which makes it sound like he was just stockpiling the waste he was supposedly transforming into oil. His second company apparently hawked too-good-to-be-true thermoelectric generators to the DoD which failed to materialize. (That said, I also hawk things to the DoD which frequently fail to materialize, so I have some sympathy for this misadventure -- it wasn't clear to me from the blurb whether he said he had such thermoelectric generators, or merely proposed to attempt their development. Attempts to produce world-beating technology fail all the time. At least mine do.) But 70,000 tons is a lot of toxic waste to be a failed experiment, and a tax fraud conviction does speak to character. In this context, it is easy to be persuaded by criticism of the purported demonstrations, being mindful that academic scientists are more adept at identifying experimental error than intentional fraud.

[Polish_Silver]

Pyroelectric fusion

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcma...rescent-bulbs/

Interesting stuff.


Apparently NASA is involved in it as well (check at 8 minutes or so)

http://www.americanantigravity.com/n...ploration.html

I wonder what sort of things they might want to transmute

Pyroelectric fusion:

The researchers say that this method of producing nuclear fusion won't be useful for normal power generation, but it might find applications in the generation of neutron beams for research purposes, and perhaps as a propulsion mechanism for miniature spacecraft.

The old "cold fusion" based on muons is also a laboratory technique, not useful for electric power generation.

This is a completely different technique than Fleischman and Ponns. Other than both being "cold fusion" I don't see much in common.